No Fly for Foreign Fighters Act

Mr. Speaker, first, let me just say I'm very pleased to anchor this Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order on Iraq with my colleague from California, Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

Let me also take a moment to thank Congresswoman Waters, who is the founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus. Congresswoman Waters had the vision and the determination to pull together Members of the House who really needed some space, who needed to be able to provide legislative strategies and to beat the drum to end this war in Iraq. The country owes Congresswoman Waters a debt of gratitude, and we thank you very much for that.

I also want to acknowledge Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, who retired from Congress at the end of last year, but who loomed so large during this Special Order, given her incredible leadership in working to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home. She is and remains our sister in arms when it comes to working for global peace and security for our children, all of our collective work.

It was no wonder that many observers called Congresswomen Waters, Woolsey, and myself ``The Triad,'' but it was actually Congresswoman Woolsey who coined this term in our formation.

We are here today to reflect back on the 10-year anniversary of the start of the unnecessary, immoral, and costly war and to remember and pay tribute to the sacrifices of our troops, those who lost their lives, the injured, their families, and their loved ones, many of whom are still grappling with the scars and the impact of the war. We are also here to reflect on the costs of this war in blood and treasure. On the costs of this war: $800 billion, 4,486 soldiers, an untold number of Iraqi civilians, countless refugees, and also on the lost opportunity costs of this war to our country.

Instead of spending $800 billion on Iraq, we could have created jobs, rebuilt our crumbling infrastructure or invested in our schools to provide every child with a 21st century education. Sadly, this list goes on and on. It is especially painful when we understand that this war never should have happened in the first place. It was a war of choice. It was unnecessary; it was immoral; and it was wrong.

Over 10 years now in the run-up to the war, there were those of us in Congress and millions of people in the antiwar movement who fought the launch of this war. We had questions about weapons of mass destruction claims. We pushed for hearings; we called for a full debate; and we called to halt the rush to war.

In October 2002, the Bush administration pushed for invading Iraq. During that time, I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I proposed an amendment, which the Rules Committee made in

order. We brought that amendment to the floor, which would have required the United Nations to continue with weapons inspections. At that time, I stated on this House floor that unilateralism is really not the answer. If Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are a problem to the world community, yes, we must confront it. We must do so through the United Nations, and we must determine whether or not there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were 72 of my colleagues who voted in favor of this amendment, which would have led us to the same conclusion that so many soldiers lost their lives and limbs to reach-- that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We all know the tragedy that followed.

The Bush administration launched its war of choice, claimed its ``mission accomplished,'' and chose to send pallets of shrink-wrapped cash and more of our brave young men and women to fight on and on-- despite the fact that there was no real military solution to the quagmire that the Bush administration created.

It is important to remember that this war did not go unchallenged, that there was a tremendous groundswell of opposition and that that was critical in demanding its end and in helping to bring it to a close, finally, under President Obama. In Congress, this opposition was centered around the Out of Iraq Caucus, which Congresswoman Waters, whom I mentioned earlier, founded, and Congresswoman Woolsey and I helped cofound. This was in 2005. Together, we held ad hoc hearings that the Republican congressional leadership refused to hold or participate in. We held press conferences, wrote op-eds, and took the floor to sound the alarm.

Here I need to acknowledge, as I know Congresswoman Waters will-- because I know this is a very important benchmark to acknowledge--that Congresswoman Woolsey on this point delivered 441 floor speeches over the last decade to call for the war's end.

We worked with our grassroots allies, like MoveOn, Win Without War, Progressive Democrats of America, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, and with great leaders like Tom Hayden and others, to help build a movement to bring our troops home.

I recall vividly when we marched here in Washington, D.C., past the White House, with hundreds of thousands of protesters in opposition to the war. These marches and rallies and actions happened all across this country. I have to say, in northern California and especially in the East Bay and in San Francisco--the entire Bay Area of California--they were really at the forefront of this effort. Of course we worked the legislative process as hard as we possibly could. There were many members of the Out of Iraq Caucus who led important legislative efforts to end the war:

I recall clearly the efforts of Congresswoman Woolsey, who offered the very first sense of Congress resolution calling for an end to the war and to bring our troops home. From what I remember, she received approximately 132, 133 votes for that resolution, but that was another defining moment;

There was a resolution that I offered very early on to repeal the doctrine of preemption--that's preemptive war. In other words, let's start a war to prevent a future war, which the President claimed in waging the war in Iraq;

There was the McGovern amendment, led by Congressman McGovern, who led on the effort to bring a responsible end to the war by calling for a timetable;

Then, of course, my annual Lee amendment: to limit the funding for the safe, timely, and orderly withdrawal of our troops. What this Lee amendment was trying to accomplish was to stop the funding and to end combat operations but to protect our troops and contractors and bring them home.

One of my amendments, the Lee amendment, eventually was signed into law, which was to prohibit permanent bases in Iraq. Now that is and was and continues to be the law of the land. There were so many other efforts led by members of the Out of Iraq Caucus--from amendments, to resolutions, to letters, and to floor actions.

I want to yield now to my colleague from California and just, once again, thank her for her tremendous leadership in case she has to leave early before this hour ends.

Congresswoman Waters, thank you so much for that very eloquent and profound statement and for your kind remarks. Let me just say to you also that you have been a woman who has always believed that peace is possible and peace is patriotic. So I just want to thank you for your leadership, for being here with us, and just say how proud we are that you are our Financial Services ranking member also. Thank you.

Let me take a moment now to yield to the gentleman from California, Congressman Mark Takano, who has been way out there in terms of opposing this war from day one.

Thank you again for being here.

Immigration Reform

Let me go back now to the 10th anniversary of this unfortunate war, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to introduce now into the Record tonight a timeline of some of what we have talked about tonight because they should be remembered and because these efforts and the efforts of the movement that ended this war finally did make a difference, although obviously not as quickly as we wanted; but we did make a difference together.

After years of speaking out and as the toll of the Iraq war stretched the patience of the American people, public opinion started turning. People began asking what were we doing in Iraq. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, as the Bush administration told us. Iraq had not been involved in the 9/11 attacks, as suggested by the Bush administration.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made a presentation at the United Nations that was greatly misleading, stating that Iraq possessed extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Some of you may remember the smoking cloud that he talked about. It was just really very, very tragic. He described biological weapons factories on wheels, and estimated that Iraq had between 100 and 150 tons--no, I believe it may have been 500 tons--of chemical weapons stockpiled. All of those claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false.

Secretary of State Powell's own chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, later said about his own participation in the deception at the United Nations, he said:

I participated in a hoax on the American people, the

international community, and the United Nations Security

Council.

Iraq did not present a clear and present danger to the United States. Secretary Powell and his staff, they

knew this. President Bush, he knew this. Vice President Cheney, he knew this. But they wanted their war and they deceived the United Nations and scared the American public to justify their war of choice.

I distinctly remember the day in May 2003, 10 years ago next week, when President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished.'' Of course, the mission was far from accomplished. The war was to drag on for another 8 years.

President Obama committed to ending the war during his campaign; and he, of course, did as President. While the war in Iraq is over, its legacy continues and the lessons still have yet to be learned. We need to look closely at the decisions made, understand the mistakes and misjudgments, and ensure that we never again repeat such a tragedy.

In Ghana, in the Akan language of Ghana, there is a mythical bird that's a symbol. It's called Sankofa. It's a bird flying forward looking back, and the message is that in order to not make the same mistakes as we move forward, we have to look back and we have to know our history. We have to know where we have come from, what we have done in order to move forward, and we should learn from those mistakes. Sankofa.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction issued its final report to Congress just last month, detailing billions and billions of dollars lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. The occupation of Iraq was characterized by poor planning by the Bush administration, who ignored State Department and USAID analysis envisioning protracted U.S. involvement in Iraq requiring substantial spending for many years.

The Pentagon was left in charge of managing postwar Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously underestimated the resources needed to stabilize the country. When Lieutenant General Jay Gardner told Secretary Rumsfeld that the United States might need to spend billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, Rumsfeld responded:

If you think we're going to spend a billion dollars of our

money over there, you are sadly mistaken.

Well, of course, it was Mr. Rumsfeld who was sadly mistaken, and the American public who was sadly misled, and the Iraqi people who sadly suffered from the chaos and destruction unleashed by ideologues who used Iraq as a laboratory for a light-footprint war.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, those lost opportunities and tragic mistakes are not behind us.

I would like to take a moment now and yield to my friend and colleague, a woman who has consistently been against the war and has stood for peace all of her life, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

Let me thank the gentlelady from Texas for that very profound statement and presentation. And just let me say to you that, as the daughter of a 25-year veteran of the Armed Forces, I am deeply thankful for your bringing forth the faces of our Armed Forces.

And also, talking about the obstacles now that they're facing upon their return, I'm especially concerned with the widespread and often undiagnosed incidents of PTSD and the alarming suicide rates among our soldiers.

The back claims, the Veterans Affairs losing records, denying claims that are clearly service-related. I want to acknowledge Congresswoman Jackie Speier and her work in our area and throughout the country to try to address the backlog of claims of our veterans who don't deserve to be treated this way.

Since the invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, over 2,000 current and former servicemembers have committed suicide. The lessons from this tragedy cannot be any clearer. It's a lot easier to get into war than to get out of one.

It's my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this reckless and shortsighted decision will mark a turning point in American history, and that we will be more careful about war and use all of the tools of American power, as Congresswoman Woolsey so eloquently talked to us about and introduced over and over again, SMART security that should be used in resolving disputes, including diplomacy.

Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I would like to know if the gentlelady from Texas has anything else to say. Otherwise, we will close.

Let me just use a bit more time and say that there's no military solution in

Afghanistan either, so we must absorb that fact and learn, again, what we learned in Iraq. And we need to bring the war in Afghanistan to an accelerated end.

We need to stop throwing good money after bad, poorly conceived and poorly managed reconstruction efforts, and bring our troops home now.

And we need to repeal the 2001 Authorization For the Use of Military Force, which Congresswoman Waters mentioned, which I voted against right after the horrific events of 9/11. This overly broad blank check has underwritten the past decade of perpetual war.

I have a resolution, H.R. 198, it's the Repeal of the Authorization For the Use of Military Force. This will remove one of the underlying legal justifications for targeted drone killings that has been invoked over and over again, this time, targeted killings, to justify a wide range of activities, including warrantless surveillance and wiretapping activities, and, yes, a blank check for war anywhere, any time, for any length of time.

I hope those who are listening and who care about this, go back and read that resolution of 9/14. What it said was the President, and I'm paraphrasing now, but it was the President is authorized to use force against any nation, organization, individual, deemed connected to terrorism and the 9/11 attacks.

Now, this was in 2001. 2001. No end game, no timetable, a blank check, perpetual war until this is repealed. So Congress really needs to reassert its constitutional authority in the matters of war. Our Founding Fathers were very deliberate in placing war-making powers in this body. In a democracy, such as ours, we have this system of checks and balances.

On 9/14, we did not have a full debate. From what I remember, it may have been an hour, it may have been 2 hours. But we did not fully debate that blank check and what that meant by authorizing then- President Bush, now President Obama and any future President, to use force in perpetuity.

We can no longer abdicate our constitutional duties allowing any President to engage in hostilities without debate, without oversight, and without accountability.

And I want to commend Senator Durbin for conducting hearings this week looking at the constitutionality and the rationale for targeted killings using drones. This was a very important hearing. I was able to sit through some of that hearing, and it was very revealing. Actually, there was a young man from Yemen who received a State Department scholarship. He went to school here, had gone back to Yemen, and his village was devastated by drones.

So you can see what's happening now. There are more and more hostilities, unfortunately, toward the United States, unless we get this policy straight about the lethal use of drones and have congressional oversight and debate and really exercise our constitutional responsibility to really declare war, if that's what we're going to do.

And so as we embark into this new age of modern warfare, we do need rules. We need oversight; we need accountability; and we need to develop an international legal framework on drones.

And we understand asymmetrical warfare and the new world in which we live. None of us have our head in the sand about that. We just need to make sure that Congress has a role in debating exactly how we're going to, if we're going to, and when the appropriate use of force is necessary.

For me, personally, I believe in SMART Security; and I know that that will lead to a world that our children deserve and is worthy of our children's future.

So let's put this decade of perpetual warfare behind us. We should bring our troops home. We should invest in our veterans and our children, create jobs here at home and really begin to invest in our future for the sake of our children and our grandchildren.

I have this chart here to show you just in terms of the fiscal implications of what these policies have brought. When you look at the deficit, with the war and the economic policies of the Bush era, the tax cuts, we're looking at this line right here. Had these unfortunate policies not occurred, our deficit would be down here. This is very clear. This was put forth by the Congressional Budget Office in February. These are their estimates.

It's very clear, I hope, to everyone that the failed economic policies of the Bush administration and the wars in Iraq are the major contributing factors to the economic crisis that we find ourselves in. And so, aside from the human toll that this 10-year war and the war in Afghanistan has taken, we have a real crisis now, an economic crisis in this country that we need to come to grips with. Our senior citizens did not cause this crisis. Our children did not cause this crisis. The poor, our middle class individuals, and families did not cause this crisis. And we cannot forget what has taken place over the last 10 years of this unbelievably terribly sad time in our history, where we lost so many lives and we lost so much time in terms of rebuilding our country for the future of our children.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Key Iraq Votes From the 109th Congress

H. CON. RES. 35 [109th]

Latest Title: Expressing the sense of Congress that the

President should develop and implement a plan to begin the

immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.

Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6] (introduced 1/26/

2005) Cosponsors: 34

Committees: House International Relations

Latest Major Action: 1/26/2005 Referred to House committee.

Status: Referred to the House Committee on International

Relations.

H. RES. 82 [109th]

Latest Title: Disavowing the doctrine of preemption.

Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9] (introduced 2/9/2005)

Cosponsors: 15

Committees: House International Relations

Latest Major Action: 2/9/2005 Referred to House committee.

Status: Referred to the House Committee on International

Relations.

H. AMDT. 214 [109th]

(A009)

Amends: H.R.1815

Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6] (offered 5/25/2005)

Mr. Speaker, as a mother, I can see those who are now mourning because they have lost their babies, their family members. I can see the Yazidis in the mountains in Iraq fearful, and I can hear the cries of mothers whose sons were viciously beheaded by a terrorist group that most cannot understand the level of its viciousness.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say that doing nothing is not an option, and I want to say to my friends and to my colleagues, ISIL has been here, for in 2005 Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of al Qaeda, had a killer idea, and that was to establish an Islamic State.

It percolated for a number of years. In 2014, now, we have voices being raised across the world knowing that ISIL exists, and that is exactly what they want us to do, be terrorized. I refuse to be terrorized, and I also refuse to do nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here today to vote for an authorization to use military forces. I will not vote to send our precious treasure again to that region, but I do believe that the President has a strategy, unlike some of my colleagues, a systematic campaign of airstrikes, increased military assistance, regional political effort and humanitarian aid, changing the face of the Islam religion that people believe is the Islam religion, and looking to those who support the core values of Islam.

That is a strategy; yet we have to address ISIL. There are 20,000 to 31,000 fighters making their way across the land; so I believe that an existing provision under section 10, provision 10, simply to train and to provide instruction to those individuals who can be in the fight in the region, train them with the expertise of the United States but not put our precious treasure on the ground.

ISIS has no restraint, and we remember the names of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, British aid worker David Haines, and 40-some members of the Turkish diplomatic corps held by ISIS and many others; so I believe it is important to note what we are doing here today.

In the McKeon amendment, it provides an opportunity for Congress to be advised 15 days before action. We should hold the administration to that. We should also say that any authorization for military forces, it must be a

debate on the floor of the House. I will not vote for that today. I will not vote for that.

I do believe, again, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot stand and do nothing. I think it is extremely important that we do something, and I hope others will look at the resolution that I have and the no fly for foreign fighters, H.R. 5488, which I have introduced.

I would like to add something else to the McKeon amendment. It indicates that appropriate committees will be advised. The legislative history of this debate should reflect that the Homeland Security Committee is an appropriate committee and should be one of those that is appropriately advised.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, today, we had a hearing in Homeland Security with the Secretary of Homeland Security. There is no doubt that what we are doing today is to protect the homeland.

What Americans say is they want the homeland protected. They want no more of their journalists beheaded by this heinous group.

Mr. Speaker, I close by simply saying we organized this Nation to form a more perfect Union. The Constitution says that Congress must declare war even as the President indicates that he has the authority under article II.

I believe if Congress is to do its job, we must have another debate on the authorization for military forces which we do not approve, but this is responding to the viciousness of ISIL, building up those regional forces, and making a difference.

I ask my colleagues: Can we do nothing? I think not. We must rise in support of this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee to H. Res. 124, the resolution making continuing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015.

Specifically, the ``McKeon Amendment'':

1. Authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals;

2. Purports to strengthen congressional oversight by requiring detailed reports, including progress reports, on the plan, vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end-use of provided training and equipment;

3. Require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy;

The McKeon Amendment does not authorize additional funds, but it would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit a reprogramming request to Congress should the President request Defense Department funds to execute this authority and permit the Secretary of Defense to accept foreign contributions.

Finally, the McKeon Amendment states that nothing in it is to be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, to be clear about what the McKeon Amendment does and does not do.

The amendment does not authorize the use of military force or deployment of United States combat forces to Syria.

Let me be clear: I am not voting today to authorize the use of military force or to put American combat boots on the ground.

Let me also be clear on this point: Before American armed forces may be deployed to conduct combat operations in Syria or elsewhere in the region the President must come to the Congress and request and receive from it either a declaration of war or resolution authorizing the use of military force.

This is not a political nicety but a constitutional requirement, clearly specified in Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution, which by the way, was approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, 227 years ago this very day, September 17.

The McKeon Amendment simply authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals for the following purposes:

1. Defending the Syrian people from attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and securing territory controlled by the Syrian opposition;

2. Protecting the United States, its friends and allies, and the Syrian people from the threats posed by terrorists in Syria; and

3. Promoting the conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria.

The McKeon Amendment cannot be construed as giving the Administration a blank check or carte blanche in achieving these objectives.

Rather, the McKeon Amendment requires that not later than 15 days before providing assistance to a vetted group for the first time, the Administration shall provide a report to the Congressional leadership and committees of jurisdiction describing in detail the assistance to be provided and the bases for the determination that the action contemplated are consistent with the objectives stated above.

Additionally, the McKeon Amendment requires that not later than 90 days after the Secretary of Defense submits the first report required by the McKeon Amendment, and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall provide the appropriate congressional committees and leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate with a detailed progress report.

In short, the McKeon Amendment only authorizes the Administration to identify, vet, and provide assistance to those opposition Syrian forces that can be relied upon to defend the Syrian people from attacks by the murderous ISIS jihadi.

Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS), is a violent extremist movement. It grew out of the remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Syrian civil war--which has claimed the lives of 191,369 persons, tens of thousands at the hands of ISIS--and has spread its reach across the border between Iraq and Syria and is now seizing military bases and holding territory throughout the region.

In response, and at the request of the Iraqi government, President Obama has sent over 1,500 military advisors into Iraq and conducted over 150 airstrikes there to break the ISIS momentum, to protect U.S. personnel and save thousands of Iraq's religious minorities.

In his September 10, 2014 address to the nation, the President announced a four-part strategic plan to degrade and defeat ISIS.

The strategy outlined by the President involves the following elements:

1. a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIS;

2. increased military assistance and training for allied forces on the ground;

3. a regional political effort to work with allies; and

4. a humanitarian assistance to populations targeted by ISIS.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the President, Ranking Member Smith, and Chairman McKeon that ISIS poses a significant threat to American interests, requiring an effective response.

I also believe that the President should be commended for the forceful but deliberate and steady but calm leadership he has displayed to date.

But we must act in a careful, measured, balanced, and limited way to assist the Iraqi and Syrian people most directly and immediately threatened by ISIS because left unchecked, ISIS will grow to threaten the United States.

ISIS presently controls about 13,000 square miles (about the size of Massachusetts), spanning territory in Iraq and Syria, and a fighting force estimated to be between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters.

ISIS also commands substantial resources, including cash reserves estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and daily revenue of $3 million from largely criminal activities.

Mr. Speaker, after its gains in Syria and Iraq, ISIS stands as one of the most dangerous jihadist groups. It was formed in April 2013, growing out of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which has since condemned and disavowed the group for its barbarity.

It speaks volumes about any group that is too barbaric to be associated with al-Qaeda in Iraq!

Unlike other rebel groups in Syria, ISIS aims to establish an Islamic emirate that straddles Syria and Iraq. Since March 2013, ISIS has seen considerable military success, beginning with its takeover of the Syrian city of Raqqa--the first provincial capital to fall under rebel control.

In January 2014, ISIS took control of Fallujah, the predominantly Sunni city in the western province of Anbar. It also seized large sections of the provincial capital, Ramadi, and has a presence in a number of towns near the Turkish and Syrian borders.

However, it was its conquest of Mosul in June that captured the world's attention because with the conquest of Mosul came control of oil fields in northern Iraq and Mosul's branch of Iraq's central bank, from which ISIS took hundreds of millions of dollars.

The international community received a wake-up call on August 2, 2014, when ISIS

fighters pushed further into northern Iraq, overwhelming lightly-armed Kurdish Peshmerga forces that had moved into areas abandoned by the Iraqi army and seized the strategically important Mosul Dam, which supplies water and electricity to much of Iraq.

Knowing ISIS's reputation for unmatched brutality, tens of thousands of people fled their homes, particularly members of religious minorities, and 50,000 of them were trapped on Mount Sinjar without food or water, until their rescue was secured by the air strikes ordered by President Obama providing cover for the Kurdish forces who wrested back control of the Mosul Dam.

Mr. Speaker, ISIS derives significant revenues from the oil fields it controls in eastern Syria and from the sale of antiquities it looted from historical sites.

Today, ISIS is considered to be the most cash-rich militant group in the world, controlling assets estimated to exceed $2 billion.

ISIS has shown no restraint in dealing with civilian populations, acting with heinous violence and savagery. ISIS fighters have murdered and kidnapped civilians throughout the territory under its control, including the grisly beheadings of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and British aid worker David Haines.

More ominous, Mr. Speaker, is the fact many fighters recruited by ISIS have European or American passports, making it easier for them to return home. That is also why I introduced H.R. 5488--No Fly Foreign Fighters Act to protect the homeland.

To his great credit, President Obama has not rushed to judgment. He has been thoughtful. He has consulted with the Congress and the international allies.

And the President has been adamant that the planned assistance and training to rebels fighting ISIS will not involve, or lead to, American ground forces fighting a war that must be fought by the Iraqi people and Syrian rebels.

The threat posed by ISIS in Iraq presents the United States with a conundrum about what to do about ISIS in Syria. On the one hand, we do not want to strengthen the barbaric Assad regime that is opposed by Syrian rebels and opposition parties and by ISIS. On the other hand, if we provide assistance only to anti-Assad opposition forces, we indirectly strengthen ISIS.

The challenge is to identify, vet, and support those pro-democracy forces in opposition to both the Assad regime and ISIS.

The defeat of ISIS should be prioritized over the removal of Assad, though the latter should remain a long-term U.S. objective. And U.S. assistance to opposition groups should be designed and delivered with this sequencing in mind.

Finding, vetting, and equipping capable and reliable Syrian partners who are poised to fight ISIS and the Assad regime is the central strategic challenge facing the United States in countering the rise of

I thank the gentlelady from California, and I particularly thank you for your astuteness on bringing us together. If I might reflect on memory lane that was very painful, we traveled a lot together, and I think of the moments in history on the Iraq war. The rising up of the American people was powerful, from San Francisco to places in between, to the quarter of a million people that walked down 53rd and 57th Street in New York on a cold morning in January.

People all over America recognized that it was not these brave men and women that you see here. And I brought pictures of wonderful families and men and women who were called to serve who we continue to honor and appreciate. I thought it was important to acknowledge that our soldiers have families. We see it all the time. My district is near Ellington Field, and it is increasingly becoming a base utilizing the talents of young Americans who are willing to volunteer. So I take this 10th anniversary, as well, to pay tribute to them and those who still serve in foreign fields around the world. We know that they still serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So we come here today on the 10th anniversary simply to ask the question: Why? And when we ask the question why, it is not a selfish question on behalf of Members of Congress. It is a question on behalf of those brave men and women who, no matter who calls them as Commander in Chief and for what cause, they accept the cause. For that reason, it is imperative that we understand the battle into which we send them.

In the Iraq war, it was alleged there were weapons of mass destruction. We have come to a fairly complete conclusion that there were no such weapons. We all knew Saddam Hussein, and none of us adhered to his despotic and horrible governance. But I will tell you, my colleagues thought the same thing, that our approach should have been different. The bloodshed not only of the young men and women that you see here, some of their comrades were lost, but the millions, the numbers of Iraqi people who themselves, their lives were lost and of course still continue to be in danger.

The Iraq war saw more than 4,400 brave men and women who wore the United States uniform make the ultimate sacrifice, and tens upon tens of thousands who in actuality were wounded. Over 32,000 of the men and women who came home suffered wounds. But as we know, those numbers have risen. Some 3,000 of the wounded call Texas their home, 500 lost their lives. We know the scars that were left on families--mother, fathers, children, and wives. We realized that we needed to make a better judgment.

As the tragedy unfolded in Boston, one of the emergency physicians, one of the medical professionals, said they knew exactly what it was because they had been to Iraq, and they understood the sound of the IEDs. How many of our brave men and women encountered these makeshift IEDs that tore through their body and either killed them or completely amputated or caused the amputation of their arms or legs and the disfigurement of their face. We see them now. We call them wounded warriors. We call them heroes, and certainly those who followed in Afghanistan.

But this 10th year reminds us to ask: Have we made the progress that we should have? The gentlelady spoke of the moneys, $800 billion that has directly contributed to the Nation's deficit, and the amount of money that was supposed to be used for restoration; and because there was no infrastructure in Iraq, we made our Army personnel be the little government.

We made soldiers be the ones that had to interact with the village leaders and the chiefs, and carry monies to them. No, nothing accounted for; just good intentions, following orders. But we cannot account for those dollars. We don't know if they made a difference. We don't know if they helped bring Iraqis home. We don't know if they helped build schools or hospitals.

So I think it is important to note that when we make decisions regarding war, we need to think about soldiers holding their families and loving their families. We need to think about the better way to go, and we need to ask those whose war we fight--Saddam Hussein is gone-- the people whose war we fight, the conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis.

We need to understand our history as to whether or not a war that would see the loss of all these brilliant young people, divide families, whether or not we can bring some measure of peace, some comfort, some stability.

And I'd venture to say today that we have not. And I say this to the head of Iraq, the leader, Mr. Maliki, for his participation in the ongoing conflict in Iraq, because that is the case.

There is no coming together of the Shiites and Sunnis. There is a cluster of a government that hides in the walls, that does not go out and try to bring peace to the people. And I give you one example, Mr. Speaker, that troubles me over and over again--it is the Iranians who left Iran.

We know the conflicted issues and alliances were all, if you will, misunderstood; old alliances, friends and enemies. We understand that. But this is supposed to be a peaceful nation now, and there are Iranians who fled the despotic Iran, and have become, in essence, enemies of Iran.

They started out in Camp Ashraf. They were called rebels and terrorists. They have now been vindicated, and they're not called that anymore.

But let me tell you what the present government of Iraq allows. They allow, in the camp that was Camp Ashraf that is now Camp Liberty, bombs to go in from the Iraqi soldiers. They allow no medical care to come into that particular camp.

Just yesterday, the Friends of Iran, American Iranians were here, and they had 10 people or more, their faces, who had died in that camp because the government of Iraq, the government that we shed blood for, that we asked to be a peaceful nation, is, in essence, attacking people on their soil who are unarmed, who are not interested in war, who fled because they'd been persecuted.

And they don't allow them to get access to cars, access to hospitals, and so people die from sicknesses because they could not get care.

When we go into battle and send our troops into battle, shouldn't we ask the question of what is the ultimate result?

We understand that democracy in its structure that is here in the United States cannot only be the structure that fits every community, every nation, every faith. But what I would say to you is that we bring one of those C-130s, big C-130s that many of us have rode on to go into Iraq. And I spent many hours there, nothing in comparison, of course, to those who served, but I'm grateful I had the opportunity to go and serve and see those individuals who served, and to sit down with those from Texas and to break bread with them.

When we land one of those C-130s, why don't we know, and shouldn't we know our purpose, our goal, what is our ultimate direction that we would like to see?

Not the dominance of the United States over this nation that we help but to be able to know that they, too, stand for democracy and peace.

I want to thank the gentlelady from California for allowing me to share this time with her, and to say, it's important to remind us of the 10th anniversary, one, to say thank you, for when we land these C- 130s and these men and women come out ready for battle, they are wearing our uniform and our flag but, at the same time, we must ask the question, for what? For what results? For what long-range results? For what peace? For we owe that to them.

I ask that we consider those in Camp Liberty and we find relief for them. I thank the gentlelady very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in solidarity with my fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to speak in recognition of the 10th Anniversary of the Iraq war. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Lee and Waters for anchoring this Special Order.

On March 19, 2003 President Bush launched invasion of Iraq ten years ago under a cloud of questions about the motivations for the invasion. Today we see the toll of this war on our young military men and women, their families and communities across our nation.

First and foremost, I would like to thank our troops who served in the Iraq war, but more broadly I would like to thank all members of the armed forces for their courage and heroism under circumstances that few of us could imagine. As members of Congress we have, regardless of our view of the wisdom of entering into armed conflict with Iraq, have always stood in strong and unwavering solidarity with our troops.

Part of our role as representatives in Congress is to give voice to the plight of our constituents that include men and women in the armed forces--many of them served tour after tour after tour without break; and in the beginning of the war had insufficient equipment to protect them from IEDs which cost the nation countless lives and left many with traumatic life changing injuries.

We cannot forget their sacrifice and heroism in the face of what was asked of them. In April of last year the great city of Houston, which I am proud to represent, hosted a Bayou City-style parade honoring the homecoming of the American troops. This gesture of thanks defines the support that Houston has for our troops in any situation.

During the course of the Iraq War more than 4,400 brave men and women in uniform made the ultimate sacrifice and over 32,000 were wounded. Of these brave men and women more than 500 of the fallen and 3,000 of the wounded call Texas their home.

In 2003 I fought with many of my colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus to ensure that the order to proceed with the Iraq War did not pass the House, but our efforts were not successful.

Although we have withdrawn from Iraq it is imperative to understand that the withdrawal is not synonymous with the end of the war on terror. It has been my stance since the beginning of the war that there are different steps that must be taken to combat terror--which include diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.

The war also had an economic cost to our nation, which we are still paying and will continue to pay until our colleagues on the other side of the isle resolve to battle the economic threat at home with the vigor of the fight against a less than creditable threat many thought they saw in Iraq 10 years ago.

The monetary cost of the war exceeded $800 billion, which directly contributed to the nation's deficit that is now trying to be mended by the Sequester. More worrisome, the long terms costs from the results of the war are expected to exceed $3 trillion.

Since our withdrawal, insurgencies have erupted across the country of Iraq. Iraq has been seen to gravitate towards Iran, a nation that has openly been hostile towards U.S. mission, and one that has proven to be a source of destabilization in the area.

The remedies to these issues once again come from intelligence and diplomatic channels that do not include invasions like the one the United States so hastily entered into with Iraq.

The tactical withdrawal from Iraq can be seen with some high regard as a template for how to end the war in Afghanistan, and exit the region safely and decisively. As a nation we must turn away from this past decade of occupying countries in the name of fighting terror. These endless occupations delay the creation of opportunity within our own nation, which must be one of the priorities as we attempt to overcome the economic hardships facing the nation.

In closing, I would once again like to extend my deepest gratitude to our troops fighting across the nation on the 10th Anniversary of the Iraq War, and would like to thank my Congressional Progressive Caucus colleagues again for hosting this event.

In this post-Iraq time we must turn our attention to helping' our men and women who have fought bravely overseas to ensure our freedom and the promotion of democracy.

Earlier this week a new Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic was opened in the Houston area, which will shorten the distance between Houston veterans and the care they need. The nearly 30,000 square foot establishment provides primary health care, mental healthcare, women's specialty care, x-rays, optometry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, ENT (ear, nose and throat) and audiology. The new center will have a fully operational laboratory by July, as well as a visiting cardiologist and surgical physician's assistant for minor procedures.

The new clinic is expected to service 7,000 to 8,000 veterans within its first year of operation and create more than 50 paying jobs.

The Houston area clinic is one of many Community-Based clinics that have been established in response to the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans returning from war. It is vital that we keep these veterans, and current soldiers, in mind as we develop policies to ensure their care and wellbeing.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Defense Secretary Hagel stated, ``We are at war with ISIL.'' He also said, ``this will not be an easy or brief effort.''

The current debate on the McKeon amendment does not address the ``war with ISIL,'' but rather solely training, arming, and supporting Syrian fighters. The CIA is already training and arming Syrian fighters in Jordan, without congressional approval. How well has that worked? We are not discussing that as a body because this is a policy debate that has been rushed. The Republican majority in the House is determined to adjourn on Friday so their Members can return home and campaign for re- election.

Yes, Congress needs to pass a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded and prevent another government shutdown before the start of the new federal fiscal year on October 1st. But, a ``must pass'' continuing resolution should not be the legislative vehicle for sanctioning the training of Syrian fighters in what is certainly to be a long war against the Islamic State's terrorist army.

Over and over during the debate on this amendment we have heard how ISIL is a threat to the United States, expanding its reach into Iraq and strengthening its hold in Syria, while committing brutal and widespread acts of extreme violence. All Members agree that ISIL has grown into a vicious terrorist army that must be stopped and destroyed. Yet, this chamber's response is to vote on the McKeon amendment to train and arm Syrian fighters, and then leave town for seven weeks?

I have heard over and over again Republican colleagues condemning ISIL and then going on to disparage President Obama's efforts. Based on this rhetoric it appears that before this House can become fully engaged in authorizing a military campaign to defeat ISIL, campaigning against our President prior to Election Day comes first.

Yes, the mid-term election will take place on November 4th and many of us are on the ballot. But until then, we have an obligation to do our jobs which in this case is a matter of committing to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria based on an authorization that is outdated and demands Congressional action.

I want President Obama to conduct airstrikes against ISIL--in Iraq and in Syria if need be. I want Iraqi forces trained and equipped so they are confident and competent to take the fight on the ground to remove ISIL from Iraq. I want a broad coalition of nations sharing intelligence, working to stop the flow of foreign recruits into Syria, and cutting off the financing of ISIL.

All of this should be done based on an updated authorization approved by this Congress for the use of military force against ISIL. I voted for the 2001 authorization following the attacks on September 11th and I opposed the 2002 authorization which took the U.S. into Iraq. But today more than half of the Members in this House were not in Congress for those votes. The war against ISIL is not the war against Saddam Hussein. This Congress has an obligation to define the scope, duration, and oversight of what will require a significant and long-term use of military force and resources.

With regard to the McKeon amendment, I have serious misgivings about training and arming some thousands of Syrian fighters with the belief that they will defeat ISIL while they are also intent on removing the Assad regime from power. The New York Times on September 11, 2014 (``U.S. Pins Hopes on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map'') said the plan to train Syrian rebels ``leaves the United States dependent on a diverse group riven by infighting, with no shared leadership and with hard-line Islamists as its most effective fighters.'' This description of the fighting force at the foundation of our anti-ISIL policy leaves me profoundly disturbed.

The Government of Germany is training and arming the Kurdish pesh merga forces in Iraq, but refused to train the Syrian forces. They are concerned that providing arms to the Syrian rebels could end up in the hands of ISIL. According to Germany's ambassador to the United States, ``We can't control the final destination of these arms.''

Secretary Hagel is aware of this danger and assured Congress yesterday that, ``We will monitor them (Syrian forces) closely to ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of radical elements of the opposition, ISIL, the Syrian regime, or other extremist groups. There will always be risks in a program like this, but we believe the risks are justified.'' While I respect Secretary Hagel immensely, I must disagree with him. The risks in this instance are significant and out weight the prospects of success.

The McKeon amendment's concept of vetting focuses solely on ensuring that recruits are not known terrorists themselves. That is hardly a standard of conduct the U.S. should be proud of. No one should be naive about this, there is no mention of human rights or international standards of conduct because these recruits will be sent back to a war in which they will likely be committing barbarous acts of violence. And how is this in the interest of U.S. national security?

Another issue that profoundly concerns me is the porous border between Syria and Turkey in which foreign fighters and recruits are allowed to pass freely. A New York Times report on September 15, 2014 in an article entitled, ``ISIS Draws a Steady Stream of Recruits From Turkey'', highlights this serious problem.

ISIL has grown into a force of between 20,000 and 30,000 fighters according to published CIA estimates and it appears their numbers will continue to grow, far outpacing the modest numbers to be trained by agreeing to this amendment. Unless Turkey, our NATO ally, shuts off the flow of fighters and commits to preventing the stream of new recruits from crossing into Syria, ISIL will only grow stronger in numbers.

Yesterday, in testimony before a Senate committee, General Martin Dempsey said that if airstrikes were not effective against ISIL he would recommend to the President the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground. Now, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dempsey has an obligation to make recommendations that will allow U.S. policy goals to be achieved. In this case that means the destruction of ISIL.

We should all expect that there will be some U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq and quite possibly Syria. Special operations forces, military trainers, and spotters to direct air strikes may all be required to enter the battle field at great risk. They need our support to achieve their missions. But a full commitment of U.S. troops on the ground to directly engage ISIL is unacceptable. This fight needs to be won on the ground by Iraqis and the Arab allies who know the risk ISIL poses to the entire region.

There is no reason why Congress cannot work with the administration, military leaders, and intelligence experts over the coming weeks to develop and approve the necessary authorization for the use of military force to demonstrate to the American people that we are united in this fight against ISIL and there are clear limits to our engagement in Iraq and Syria.

I want our Commander-in-Chief to have Congress' full support for a strategy to destroy ISIL, but I will not write a blank check to any president. Unfortunately, this amendment and the decision by Republican leadership to prioritize campaigning for re-election rather than passing a clear authorization to take the fight to ISIL should give the American people great concern about the priorities of this Congress.

Right now millions of people in Iraq and Syria are living under the oppressive, violent rule of ISIL. It is in our national interest to join the fight to stop their reign of terror. But we need real, credible allies with military forces willing to take on the fight, the fight on the ground. This amendment does not require a commitment by any other allied nations, only desperate Syrians and U.S. taxpayers. That is not enough to earn my support.

I would like to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

I want to thank her for having the vision to organize today's activities and to say to me and to our other friend Lynn Woolsey: let us not let this moment pass without reminding this country that it was 10 years ago that we were involved in the invasion of Iraq. Let us talk about the consequences of that, and let us do everything that we can to continue to be a voice for peace.

I want to thank you, Barbara Lee, not only for today, but I am reminded of the courageous action that you took when you warned us, when there was legislation authorizing the use of military force, that we should have all been against it. However, you were the lone vote in the House of Representatives who voted against that authorization. So I thank you for your work, for your guidance, and for your leadership.

You are absolutely correct. In June of 2005, I became the chair and a founding member of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, along with you, Representative Barbara Lee, and, of course, our friend Representative Lynn Woolsey. As a matter of fact, we became known as ``The Triad.'' I want you to know that a combination of actions that we took helped to galvanize this Congress and to increase attention on this very issue. I will never forget the over 441 speeches that were made on the floor by our friend Congresswoman Woolsey. She is not here today because she has retired, but we will always remember the care and concern that she gave to this issue.

On March 19, 2003, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces were ordered into service in Iraq. In the following years, nearly 4,500 of those servicemembers did not return home to the United States, and tens of thousands would come back wounded, injured--their lives changed forever.

I voted against the war authorization in the first place, and in hindsight, I know there are many Members who also wish they had voted against it. It was in that spirit that the Out of Iraq Caucus was established: to bring to the House of Representatives an ongoing debate about the war in Iraq and to urge the return of U.S. servicemembers to their families as soon as possible. The Out of Iraq Caucus provided a real voice in Congress for the individuals and groups who supported these efforts.

We had a membership of nearly 80 Representatives from diverse constituencies. As a caucus, we kept in close communication with congressional leadership and with committee chairmen to drive Congress toward our objective of ending the war in Iraq. We also worked with other congressional caucuses and national organizations to hold hearings, press conferences, and town hall meetings to educate the American people and to pressure the Bush administration to conclude the war in Iraq.

At the time, our most important legislative goal was to end the Iraq war and bring our troops home to their families. Our work helped define the national debate on how this could be accomplished.

We again organized community rallies against a war, we marched in parades, we held press conferences, we worked with the mothers of many of our young men and women who were in the war, who were serving in the war, and we worked with many of the veterans organizations.

I, too, offered a series of legislation to buttress our opposition that our troops must be safely and speedily redeployed from Iraq and that we must work to restore peace in Iraq.

I introduced bills such as H.R. 3134, Responsible Security in Iraq Act; H.R. 5488, Iraqi Displacement Coordinator; H.R. 7215, Human Costs in Iraq Act; H. Res. 1326, Honor Iraq's Sovereignty; and, of course, H. Res. 1519, Press Freedom in Iraq.

On the 1-year anniversary of the founding of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I launched a campaign to inform the public about H.J. Res. 73. Ms. Lee, you will remember John Murtha, the former Member of this House who is now deceased who introduced H.J. Res.

73, now known as The Murtha Plan, which established a reasonable timetable for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We all worked with him on that legislation, and we honor him even today for his wisdom and his foresight.

I want to do just one thing before I have to leave, and that is read a letter to President Bush that we all sent funding only for redeployment of troops, if you recall. By the following year in 2007, we as a caucus delivered a letter to President Bush signed by 92 Members of Congress, which stated our intent to only support war funding for the safe and orderly redeployment of our U.S. troops from Iraq.

In the letter, we cited the tremendous human and financial costs of the President's failed Iraq policy. And because of you, Barbara Lee, I'd like to share this letter because you were in the leadership of this. It said:

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to inform you that we

will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S.

military operations in Iraq during fiscal year 2008 and

beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our

troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq.

More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of

thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the

hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from

their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into

a sectarian civil war; and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than

$500 billion, despite assurances that you, your key advisers

gave our Nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March

2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and

would be paid from Iraq oil revenues.

Remember that?

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American

people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military

operations in Iraq, and we believe it is unwise and

unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose the

staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently

and for generations to come.

Sincerely.

And it was signed by all 93 Members at that time.

Our efforts gained momentum; and by late 2008, President Bush signed the Status of Forces agreement, which mandated that the U.S. shall completely withdraw from Iraq no later than December 31, 2011, and all U.S. combat forces shall withdraw from Iraq cities before June 3, 2009.

As a caucus, we continue to hold hearings and briefings, as well as speaking on this very floor until President Obama, who initially opposed the war, approved an 18-month redeployment plan that would begin in September of 2009 and end in December of 2011.

Ms. Lee, I'm sorry that I'm going to have to leave the floor because I have a meeting scheduled with the members of our caucus of the Financial Services Committee. But I'd like to say before I leave, again, thank you for your leadership; thank you for your wisdom; thank you for having always been identified as a woman of peace, a woman who understood and believed and worked for peace and who has always believed that whatever our differences are in the world, that we must find ways to have the kind of diplomacy that can resolve these differences.

Some people think that this is not possible, but I know that those of us who believe this will continue to fight and to work for peace on Earth and goodwill toward all men and women.