Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as we prepare to cast our vote today to train and equip Syrian rebels, I want to remind my colleagues of the nearly $20.2 billion that the United States has spent to train and equip Iraqi security forces during our decade at war there.

And what happened?

The Iraqi security forces could not secure the country and fled major Iraqi cities when confronted by ISIS. $20.2 billion. And yet here we are again today ready to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars to train and equip members of the Free Syrian Army.

What in the world are we doing?

Instead of rushing into yet another war, flooding the region with more weapons and intervening further in a civil war, Congress should be pressing the pause button. Instead of rushing into yet another war authorization--which of course this congressional resolution says it is not, but the unintended consequences will expand this war--Congress should be examining all of the solutions to this crisis, not just the military ones.

That is why I called and will continue to call for Congress to live up to its constitutional responsibility and have a full debate on the authorization to use force. The costs and consequences should be made clear.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank our ranking member for her unwavering leadership on our committee on so many issues.

Thank you, Congresswoman Lowey.

Let me thank also our chairman for continuing to try to help us work in a bipartisan way to bring a real Labor, HHS bill to the floor.

This continuing resolution contains, yes, critical and much-needed funding to address the Ebola crisis in Africa. It also, though, includes across-the-board cuts which will negatively impact my congressional district, all of our congressional districts, and countless households across America.

For example, this CR includes two different cuts to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. It includes a $14 million reduction in the TANF contingency fund and a $15 million reduction that will eliminate TANF research funds, funds that are used, mind you, by the Department of Health and Human Services to evaluate the effectiveness of TANF programs and to develop approaches for improving employment outcomes among TANF recipients.

These cuts are unnecessary and come at a time when people are literally living on the edge. It is unacceptable that at a time when we are passing short-term funding bills that underfund public health and workforce training programs we are now providing over $80 billion in war funding. The American people expect Congress to create jobs, to strengthen our economy, and to ensure that our security funds are wisely spent. With sequester cuts looming, it is time that we focus our spending here at home.

Finally, let me just address the upcoming debate and vote on funding to arm and train Syrian rebels. This should not be an amendment to the continuing resolution. National security issues should not be an afterthought to funding the government.

Now, not a single person in this body thinks that the United States should stand idle while ISIS wreaks havoc in the Middle East, but this is a sectarian civil war where the use of force and arming and training rebels will place us in the middle of a war where most recognize there is no military solution. So, before we expand the airstrikes in Iraq and vote to provide weapons and training to rebels in Syria, Congress must have a thorough and robust debate on the long-term implications of taking such actions.

I have grave concerns about the specific proposal to arm and train the Free Syrian Army, which will be voted on tomorrow by this House, and I intend to address this further during the debate on the McKeon amendment.

How can we ensure that U.S. weapons and training don't end up in the wrong hands?

How in the world will we know when our objectives have been met and when ISIS has been contained or eliminated?

How will we avoid getting embroiled in the civil war?

Congress must weigh all of the options before us, not just the military ones, before we make any decision on committing the U.S. to yet another long-term war. This is the type of debate that we failed to have in the wake of 9/11 and which resulted in the passage of an overly broad authorization that continues to be used today.

So we must ask the hard questions, not only about the current proposal to arm and train Syrian rebels, but about the entire strategy.

Finally, let me just say, we cannot become embroiled in another war. The cost and the consequences to our national security, to our brave men and women in uniform, and to our ability to continue to nation-build here at home must be laid out to the public. That is our constitutional duty and responsibility. Unfortunately, we get a pass with this continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his very deliberative work in leading our minority.

I am glad that we are debating the President's proposal to arm and train the Syrian rebels. But, Mr. Speaker, I am totally disappointed that a debate on something that could have such broad implications on the United States' national security and the region is being included as an amendment to the continuing resolution. When I became a member of the Appropriations Committee, the first rule I was taught was that you don't authorize on an appropriations bill.

Yet this is another instance of Congress taking a pass on its solemn constitutional obligations to weigh in on matters of war and peace.

I am reminded of the failure to have a thorough and robust debate in the wake of 9/11 and the resulting overly broad authorization which I could not vote for because it was a blank check for perpetual war, and it still is on the books and it is being used as the authority for the strikes that are taking place now. This resolution should be repealed.

And it was the rush to war against Iraq in 2002 that led us to where we are today. ISIS did not exist until the unnecessary and ill-begotten war in Iraq, which created sectarian violence and a civil war.

We should be clear what the United States is committing itself to in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. has conducted nearly 3,000 missions and more than 150 airstrikes, and has deployed more than 1,000 troops already. In a speech about the United States' mission against ISIS, the President said: ``I don't think we're going to solve this problem in weeks. This is going to take some time.''

I ask today: Does this amendment begin to help us contain ISIS or to dismantle ISIS? And what are we getting ourselves into? It is more complex than just an up-or-down vote on arming and training the members of the Free Syrian Army.

The consequences of this vote will be--whether it is written into the amendment or not--a further expansion of a war currently taking place and our further involvement in a sectarian war. That is the consequence of this amendment.

As I said earlier, no one in this body believes that we should stand by while ISIS wreaks havoc across the region. And the brutal nature of ISIS and who they are, we understand very clearly, and we must address ISIS in a big way now. No one believes that we should not deal with

How will we ensure that the United States weapons that we are providing to Syrian rebels won't get into the wrong hands, as they did with the rebels when we supported them in Libya? How will we ensure that what we are doing now won't further destabilize the region? And how will we ensure that we do not stand here years from now debating on how to stop another ISIS--ISIS II?

Mr. Speaker, what is missing from this debate is the political, economic, and diplomatic and regionally-led solutions that will ultimately be the tools for security in the region and for any potential future threats to the United States.

These are significant questions that must be answered before Congress should vote on a proposal, no matter how limited, to intervene militarily once again in a region that is very complicated and that is very dangerous. We should not act in haste, and we must heed the lessons of the past. We must also live up to our constitutional obligation to debate authorization of the use of military force rather than authorize to send arms to Syrian rebels on a continuing resolution to keep the government open. That is why I will vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, to honor the extraordinary life of Mr. Robert Jordan. Mr. Jordan was a beloved brother, uncle, and friend. With his passing on August 7, 2014, we look to Mr. Jordan's personal legacy of community service, the joy he inspired in others through his passion and commitment to political advocacy, and the outstanding quality of his life's work.

Born on September 7, 1965 in Chicopee, Massachusetts, Mr. Jordan grew up in Fairfield, California. After graduating from Armijo High School in 1983, he attended college at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Mr. Jordan went on to graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from California State University, Sacramento.

It was during Mr. Jordan's undergraduate studies at Sacramento State University that he began to get involved in politics. He joined the Sacramento State Young Democrats and the River City Democratic Club. From there, Mr. Jordan became engaged in field work on numerous political campaigns, most notably Barbara Boxer's 1992 ``Year of the Woman'' campaign.

After working on many campaigns, Mr. Jordan went on to join the staff of the California Democratic Party. He continued to serve selflessly as a staffer there for 22 years and under four different administrations. During his time at the California Democratic Party, Mr. Jordan became an expert on technology development and planning for state conventions and executive board meetings. He was also well known for his meticulous institutional memory and his ability to recall party rules, procedures, and history on issues both large and small. He acted as the Party's unofficial historian and was a key member of the staff, sharing his knowledge and experience, and mentoring his colleagues.

In addition to his work for the California Democratic Party, Mr. Jordan was actively involved in his community. He was passionate about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights and was a supporter of The Trevor Project, a national organization that provides crisis and suicide intervention services to LGBTQ youth. He was also a supporter of the Lymphoma Research Foundation and a part of the fight against lymphoma.

Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding Californian individual, Mr. Robert Jordan. His dedication and efforts have impacted so many lives throughout the state of California. I join all of Robert's loved ones in celebrating his incredible life. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall votes 481-489.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on No. 481, ``yes'' on No. 482, ``yes'' on No. 483, ``no'' on No. 484, ``no'' on No. 485, ``yes'' on No. 486, ``yes'' on No. 487, ``yes'' on No. 488, and ``no'' on No. 489.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize ``Berry Gordy Day'' in Oakland, California, honoring Mr. Berry Gordy Jr.'s many contributions to the music and film industry. Known as the founder of Motown Records, Mr. Gordy has paved the way for many artists and played an inspiring role in breaking racial barriers.

Born on November 28, 1929, Mr. Berry Gordy Jr. was raised in Detroit, Michigan as the seventh of eight children. Before working in the entertainment industry, Mr. Gordy pursued a career in boxing and was later drafted into the United States Army to serve in the Korean War.

In 1959, Mr. Berry Gordy Jr. founded Motown Records, making his record company the first African American owned music company in the United States. His record company was the epicenter of one of the most popular and influential musical movements of the 20th century, the Motown Sound, which combines African American gospel singing with rock and roll.

The Motown Sound helped to desegregate America's music industry and the social climate of the nation. Mr. Gordy's vision introduced the world to the soul of the streets of Black America, which included recording artists such as Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, Diana Ross, Michael Jackson, the Temptations, and many more.

Motown Records later expanded to incorporate other sectors of the entertainment industry. Motown's Black Forum label gave voice to the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements through recording the speeches and works of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Amiri Baraka, Elaine Brown and many other influential leaders. In addition, Motown Records began producing films to share the stories of African American life and the deplorable inequality of racial segregation, including Lady Sings the Blues and The Bingo Long Traveling All Star.

Throughout his prolific career, Mr. Gordy has been the recipient of numerous awards. In 1988, he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Mr. Gordy has also been honored with a Star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame and received the Songwriter's Hall of Fame Pioneer Award in 2013.

I grew up listening to the music of Motown, and my fondest memories of my teen years are learning to dance to the beat of Motown, day dreaming about love and life, and discussing the genius of African American artists and musicians. Berry Gordy captured my imagination and, to this day, Motown lifts my spirit and brings joy into my life.

On behalf of the residents of California's 13th Congressional District, Mr. Berry Gordy, I salute you. As we join together on August 18 to celebrate ``Berry Gordy Day'' in the East Bay, I thank you for a lifetime of service and congratulate you on your many achievements. I wish you all the best as your musical contributions and work continue to inspire future generations in our country and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the East Bay Regional Park District upon its 80th anniversary. Since its founding in 1934, the District has provided Alameda County and Contra Costa County residents with healthy recreation and environmental education. Encompassing over 65 parks and 114,000 acres of land, the East Bay Regional Park District is the largest regional park district in the United States.

The East Bay Regional Park District emerged from a popular movement during the Great Depression that sought to provide residents with recreational opportunities and employment. The District began by developing parks within the region, including Temescal, Tilden and Sibley Regional Parks. By 1939, it started the process of acquiring land for Redwood Regional Park.

Today, over 25 million people visit East Bay parks annually to walk, hike, bicycle and jog on the parks' 1,200 miles of trails. In addition, visitors have the opportunity to swim, boat and fish at the District's nine park lakes and twelve beaches. The District also hosts nine interpretive centers that educate visitors about the region's cultural history, wildlife and natural features.

The East Bay Regional Park District has received numerous accolades for its dedication to natural preservation and East Bay recreation. It has received the California Parks and Recreation Society's Award for Excellence for Creating Community for its exceptional community- building efforts through park-related events, one of five awards it has received from the Society in the past six years.

I personally appreciate the impact that the East Bay Regional Park District has on our youth. When I was a girl growing up in El Paso, Texas, my sister and I broke barriers by being the only African Americans in our Girl Scout troop. We were fortunate to have access to nature through the Girl Scouts, and it impressed upon me at an early age the need to preserve outdoor open spaces where young children can learn about nature, the importance of our ecosystem and environment, and to have a natural environment in which to play. For the youth who grow up in highly urbanized East Bay cities, East Bay parks represent an environment that can broaden a child's perspectives of space and coexistence with nature.

I commend the East Bay Regional Park District for providing our community with a wellspring of recreational and educational opportunity for the past 80 years. The District's continual efforts to foster community and learning benefit all Bay Area residents and visitors.

On behalf of the residents of California's 13th Congressional District, I extend my congratulations on this important milestone and thank all of the people who have contributed to the success of the East Bay Regional Park District throughout the years. I wish the District continued success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank our ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, for yielding and for her tremendous leadership.

Let me just start by saying that, yes, as an appropriator, I am very troubled by the shameful, first of all, inadequate funding levels and the dangerous policy riders in this bill.

Let's be honest: the bill before us in no way is a genuine effort to address the humanitarian crisis on our borders. We should be trying to help these children by making sure that they are safe and receiving due process, rather than militarizing our southern border.

Instead, this bill strips protections for children and accelerates deportations of children back to nations with some of the highest rates of deadly violence on the planet.

According to a report by the United Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees, nearly 60 percent of affected children would qualify for international protections and stated that they were fleeing violence.

This bill is shameful and does not reflect our country's proud legacy as a Nation of immigrants. We should be debating real proposals like comprehensive immigration reform that could really improve the lives of people and the American economy. We could pass it today. Instead, we are here playing politics with the lives of children.

This bill flies in the face of our values and does nothing, once again, to address due process for these children. This was a terrible bill yesterday; it is worse tonight. It will not become law, thank goodness. Hopefully, all of us will vote ``no'' and come back and begin to look at how we really address the needs of these children. They need our help desperately.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record the story of a 12-year-old girl who was trafficked for sex and labor, escaped slavery with her baby, and received a T visa in the United States.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service: Voices of Central American

Youth--Why They Are Fleeing Their Countries

Background on the Humanitarian Crisis in Central America

Since the Fall of 2011, prior to the President's

announcement of DACA, Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

started apprehending significantly more unaccompanied minors

from Central America. ORR promptly started to open more

shelters and detention sites for these children.

Updated data from the UNHCR, has shown a 712% increase in

asylum requests in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and

Belize by nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

ORR has reported a significant increase in both younger

children and girls coming.

Maria a 12 year old girl from Central America was

trafficked for labor and sex, she fled with her baby to

escape slavery. Maria was 12 years old, when she was

kidnapped at gunpoint and taken to a home where she was held

captive. She was beaten and raped on an almost daily basis

and eventually forced into prostitution. Because of this she

became pregnant and gave birth to a girl while captive. Maria

fled with her child, riding on top of trains so that they

might escape the sexual bondage. Maria ended up qualifying

for a T-visa and is currently doing well. She has now

graduated high school.

Let me thank our ranking member on Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey, for yielding and for her steadfast leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this woefully inadequate Republican response to the humanitarian crisis along our border. Let me start by saying that as an appropriator, I am very troubled by the shamefully inadequate funding levels and misguided offsets in this bill.

I am also deeply concerned by the dangerous policy riders that strip protections for vulnerable children--protections signed into law by a Republican President, mind you.

Let's be clear. This crisis has nothing to do with the lack of funding for immigration enforcement. We don't do anything to help these children by pouring tax dollars into the further militarization of our border, and that is exactly what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, our response needs to put children first. In a hearing by the Congressional Progressive Caucus this week, we heard firsthand from Central American children who had fled violence in their home countries and who had passed through our broken detention system.

These children and thousands like them risk their lives on their way to this country. Some had witnessed murders and gang violence in their home countries and suffered freezing conditions and inadequate nutrition while in detention in the United States.

These stories were chilling and made clear where we need to direct our resources: humane care, access to due process, and support to end the violence and poverty plaguing Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

Now, no one disagrees with protecting our borders, but come on, we also have a duty to protect these children who, according to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, 60 percent of whom were interviewed, these children need international protection.

My home district makes up Alameda County, where over 200 of these children have been reunited with their families locally. Their stories are real, and their stories are very, very powerful, so I urge a ``no'' vote.

Let's guarantee due process for these children who are fleeing violence. Let's have a heart.

Mr. Chair, I rise to today in strong opposition to H.R. 4315--the ``21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act.''

Mr. Chair, there is nothing reasonable about this bill.

This bill is an assault on citizen enforcement and the rule of law.

If enacted, the bill would place an unreasonable cap on the recovery of attorneys' fees in suits brought under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

By limiting fee recoveries, this bill would make it difficult for many citizens to obtain effective legal representation--and undermine the enforcement of the law.

The Endangered Species Act is one of our country's most important tools for protecting endangered fish and wildlife populations.

The fact of the matter is, the bill before us, would increase the likelihood of future extinctions.

Mr. Chair, we are here to protect not only our wildlife, but also the very foundation of our justice system--equal access to adequate representation.

I urge a no vote.

Let me thank you, Congressman Jeffries, first of all, for your kind words and also for your continued leadership on this issue and so many other issues and especially in helping us, once again, beat the drum on behalf of the American people to make sure that people know exactly what the Republican Tea Party members are engaged in, in this body, so thank you very much to you and Congressman Horsford for this.

Also, I just want to say to Congresswoman Fudge, our chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I want to thank her for her diligent work as chair and especially in her continuing efforts to fight against the extreme ideology that deters us from the real work our constituents sent us here to do.

Once again, we are calling now tonight on Congress to get back to work putting Americans back to work. Rather than working together to create jobs, my Republican colleagues are pursuing a completely baseless lawsuit against President Obama at the expense of the American taxpayer. Mind you, never before has a sitting President been sued--not once.

This lawsuit is nothing more than a political ploy designed for those who really want impeachment without cost. These Tea Party Republicans are driving the Republican Party to become so extreme and too conservative for the American people.

To provide just one example, instead of voting on bipartisan immigration reform that would keep our families together, grow our economy, and enhance national security, the House has voted more than 50 times to repeal real health care reform that provides 54 million people with vital preventive health services like cancer screening.

We were sent here to Washington to help enhance the quality of life for the American people, not to engage in these lawsuits against the President for no reason.

We were sent to Washington to make America a better place, to create jobs, to grow the economy, to lift up the most vulnerable, and to build ladders of opportunity for the 46.5 million Americans, including 6 million children living in poverty today.

This lawsuit is another example of the unfounded, wasteful, and really unconscionable attacks on our President, who was twice elected by the American people. It does nothing to help the American people.

I tell you it is really troubling to see the extremists in the Republican Party marching down a path that is not based on fact, but, again, it is really nothing more than a political sideshow aimed at building its base, but it is a serious effort, I must say.

Remember when President Obama, Congressman Jeffries, when he was first elected, Senator Mitch McConnell said that their goal was to make President Obama a one-term President?

Well, they didn't accomplish their goal, so now, they are trying something else, and really, it is quite shameful, and the fact is that it is being funded with taxpayer dollars. This is nothing short than a violation of our constituents' trust. It is exactly like $2.3 million spent to preserve discrimination during the DOMA case.

There is no constitutional or judicial precedent to adjudicate political disputes in the courts. We are ready, willing, and able to have a serious conversation about creating opportunities in the middle class for people who are fighting and aspiring to become part of the middle class, who are living on the edges and on the margins.

We are ready, we have been fighting for this, and we want to have some consensus with the Republicans, so we can move forward on this, rather than filing lawsuits to detract from the real work that the Republicans, once again, refuse to do.

Every day, I hear from my constituents about their real struggles. Too many of our constituents are looking for work. Too many are working full time, and they are still living on the edge in poverty. One in five American children still lives in poverty.

Too many people in my district and throughout the country face real challenges, challenges that Republicans continue to ignore while pursuing an ideologically motivated lawsuit.

It is about time we put these political ploys aside and get back to work. We need to stop this politically motivated, extreme, and disturbing march toward impeachment because that is where this is going, and hopefully, the public understands that, and we need to end the lawsuit. Instead, we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform and fix the broken system that is tearing families apart.

Also, we have got to pass the Voting Rights Act and protect the voting rights of all Americans. We need to put workers back to work and raise the minimum wage. We need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits and roll up our sleeves and get back to work. I believe that the American people are going to see right through this.

So I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressmen Horsford and Jeffries for giving us the chance to really pull back the veil on what is really taking place with regard to this lawsuit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Vincent Harding. Known throughout the country as a scholar, activist, father, friend and former speechwriter for Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Harding has left an indelible mark on our national discourse. With his passing on May 19, 2014, we look to the outstanding quality of his life's work and the inspiring role he played in the Civil Rights Movement.

Born on July 25, 1931 in Harlem, New York, Dr. Vincent Harding began his education by attending New York public schools, graduating from Morris High School in 1948. After high school, he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from the City College of New York, and in the following year, he graduated from Columbia University, earning a Master's degree in Journalism. Dr. Harding went on to serve our country in the United States Army from 1953 to 1955.

In 1958, Dr. Harding met Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who urged him to move to the South to join in the Civil Rights Movement. Once in Atlanta, Dr. Harding and his wife, Rosemarie, founded the Mennonite House, an interracial service center and began engaging in a wide variety of social and political campaigns. Dr. Harding worked closely with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee to challenge segregation in the South.

As Dr. Martin Luther King's speechwriter, Dr. Vincent Harding drafted the famous and highly controversial speech, ``Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.'' Dr. Vincent Harding was a strong opponent to the Vietnam War and, as Chair of the History and Sociology Department at Atlanta's Spelman College, Dr. Harding was concerned that students were not aware of the situation in Vietnam. He worked to ensure that students and other Americans were aware of the atrocities occurring during the war in Vietnam.

Dr. Vincent Harding founded the Veterans of Hope Project in 1997, which is a multifaceted educational initiative encompassing the topics of religion, culture and participatory democracy. His work through Veterans of Hope emphasized the importance of nonviolence and a grass root approach to social change.

After the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, Dr. Vincent Harding worked with Coretta Scott King to establish the King Center in Atlanta, serving as the Center's first director. In addition, Dr. Vincent Harding wrote several books reflecting on the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King Jr., including ``Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero'' and ``Hope and History: Why We Must Share the Story of the Movement.'' Dr. Harding was deeply passionate about public service and impacted countless lives with his theology, activism and scholarly efforts. Dr. Harding once wrote that ``we are all a part of one another, and we are all part of the intention of the great creator spirit to continue being light and life.''

On a personal note, Dr. Harding was a loyal friend for over 30 years. During the late 1970's, I worked on Capitol Hill for Congressman Ron Dellums while raising two sons as a single parent. My sons wanted to attend the Penn Relays in Philadelphia, but we did not have a place to stay. A mutual friend called Vincent and Rosemarie to ask if we could stay with them. With no hesitation, they said yes, not knowing me and on short notice. I will always remember that weekend in their beautiful, warm home and their delicious meals. They treated us like family and our spirits connected. I did not see Vincent and Rosemarie again until the late 1990's when, as a Member of Congress, I attended a retreat in Santa Barbara sponsored by the Faith and Politics Institute. The Harding's led this retreat, which renewed my spirit, challenged my intellect and warmed my heart.

Today, California's 13th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding Civil Rights leader and social activist, Dr. Vincent Harding. His dedication and efforts have impacted so many lives throughout the nation. I join all of Vincent's loved ones in celebrating his incredible life. He will be deeply missed.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank Congressman McGovern for yielding, but also for his tireless leadership on this very important issue.

I am proud to join Congressman Walter Jones and Congressman McGovern in introducing this bipartisan resolution, and I thank them for their consistent support and work, as great Americans, to address these serious issues of war and peace.

This resolution simply prohibits the President to deploy armed services or to engage in combat operations in Iraq without specific debate and authorization from Congress, but this resolution also seeks to reclaim a fundamental congressional responsibility, the constitutionally protected right for Congress to debate and to determine when this country enters into war.

I also am personally concerned about mission creep. We hear many of the same voices who championed the unnecessary war in Iraq, once again, beating the drum for a renewed war in Iraq today.

Last month, President Obama announced that 300 personnel would be sent to Iraq, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support, supported by attack helicopters and drones. A few days later, he announced another 200 personnel were soon to be deployed. There are promises to send many additional Hellfire air-to-surface missiles.

Now, I, too, believe President Obama does not intend to send ground troops to Iraq, but we need to make sure that Congress reasserts its constitutional responsibility on this grave issue.

After more than a decade at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with thousands of United States lives and billions of dollars lost, the need for Congress to reclaim its war-making powers is more critical than ever.

Let me remind you, it was this absence of full debate that led to Congress passing the overly broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of 9/11. This law has been used to justify everything from the war in Afghanistan, warrantless domestic and international surveillance, holding prisoners indefinitely in Guantanamo, and conducting drone strikes in countries that we are not at war with.

I couldn't vote for that resolution because I have always believed that such

consequences are grave for the United States' national security interests unless we fully debate these issues and, of course, to our standing in the world. We did not debate that resolution any more than 1 hour, and I have continued to attempt to repeal and address the problematic actions justified under this law ever since.

On July 16, Congressmen McGovern, Jones, Rigell, myself, and others-- over 100 Members of Congress from both parties wrote a letter--and we signed that letter--to President Obama to come to Congress for an authorization before any military escalation in Iraq, exactly what this resolution would do.

I will insert the letter into the Record.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 02, 2014.

President Barack Obama,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: We join you and with those in the

international community who are expressing grave concern over

the rise in sectarian violence in Iraq over the last days and

weeks. The consequences of this development are particularly

troubling given the extraordinary loss of American lives and

expenditure of funds over ten years that was claimed to be

necessary to bring democracy, stability and a respect for

human rights to Iraq.

We support your restraint to date in resisting the calls

for a ``quick'' and ``easy'' military intervention, and for

your commitment not to send combat troops back to Iraq. We

also appreciate your acknowledgement that this conflict

requires a political solution, and that military action alone

cannot successfully lead to a resolution.

We do not believe intervention could be either quick or

easy. And, we doubt it would be effective in meeting either

humanitarian or strategic goals, and that it could very well

be counter-productive. This is a moment for urgent

consultations and engagement with all parties in the region

who could bring about a cease fire and launch a dialogue that

could lead to a reconciliation of the conflict.

Any solution to this complex crisis can only be achieved

through a political settlement, and only if the process and

outcome is inclusive of all segments of the Iraqi

population--anything short of that cannot successfully bring

stability to Iraq or the region.

As you consider options for U.S. intervention, we write to

urge respect for the constitutional requirements for using

force abroad. The Constitution vests in Congress the power

and responsibility to authorize offensive military action

abroad. The use of military force in Iraq is something the

Congress should fully debate and authorize. Members of

Congress must consider all the facts and alternatives before

we can determine whether military action would contribute to

ending this most recent violence, create a climate for

political stability, and protect civilians from greater harm.

We stand ready to work with you to this end.

Sincerely,

Barbara Lee; Sam Farr; James P. Moran; Janice Hahn; Peter

A. DeFazio; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Michael M.

Honda; Scott E. Rigell; Chellie Pingree; Betty

McCollum; John Garamendi; James P. McGovern; Richard M.

Nolan; Beto O'Rourke, Members of Congress.

Katherine Clark; Zoe Lofgren; Earl Blumenauer; George

Miller; Anna G. Eshoo; Julia Brownley; Hakeem S.

Jeffries; Chris Gibson; Jackie Speier; John J. Duncan,

Jr.; Judy Chu; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; Alan Grayson;

James A. Himes, Members of Congress.

Michael H. Michaud; John B. Larson; Mark Pocan; Reid J.

Ribble; Frank Pallone, Jr.; Karen Bass; Maxine Waters;

John Conyers, Jr.; Walter B. Jones; Peter Welch; Jared

Huffman; John P. Sarbanes; Ed Pastor; Grace F.

Napolitano, Members of Congress.

Alcee L. Hastings; John Lewis; Jose; E. Serrano; Nydia M.

Valazquez; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Andre Carson;

Gloria Negrete McLeod; Jim McDermott; Keith Ellison;

Lloyd Doggett; Rush Holt; Bobby L. Rush; Emanuel

Cleaver; Bennie G. Thompson, Members of Congress.

Lois Capps; Kurt Schrader; Jerrold Nadler; Mark Takano;

Collin C. Peterson; Ann McLane Kuster; Justin Amash;

Charles B. Rangel; Raul M. Grijalva; Niki Tsongas;

Kathy Castor; Michael E. Capuano; Yvette D. Clarke;

Matt Salmon; Kyrsten Sinema; Donald M. Payne, Jr.; Lois

Frankel; Rosa L. DeLauro; Richard E. Neal; Eleanor

Holmes Norton; Alan S. Lowenthal; Stephen F. Lynch,

Members of Congress.

Paul Broun; Cheri Bustos; Marcy Kaptur; Sheila Jackson

Lee; John Tierney; Henry Waxman; James R. Langevin;

Thomas Massie; Carolyn B. Maloney; Tony Cardenas; Steve

Cohen; Howard Coble; Donna F. Edwards; David Cicilline,

Members of Congress.

Ann Kirkpatrick; Donna Christensen; William Pascrell;

Luis V. Gutierrez; Robin L. Kelly; Marcia L. Fudge;

Dave Loebsack; Paul D. Tonko; Mike Doyle; Jan

Schakowsky, Chaka Fattah; Suzanne Bonamici; Joseph P.

Kennedy, III; William R. Keating, Members of Congress.

Also, let me remind you that last month, we debated the Defense Appropriations bill. Over 150 bipartisan Members supported my amendment that would have prohibited funds from being used to conduct combat operations in Iraq.

This resolution, which is bipartisan, merely requires the President to come to Congress, should he decide to engage in an escalated combat role in Iraq.

The reality is, though, there is no military solution in Iraq. This is a sectarian war with longstanding roots that were enflamed when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must be political and take into account all sides.

The change Iraq needs must come from Iraqis rejecting violence in favor of a peaceful democracy and respect for the rights of all citizens.

Madam Speaker, the American people agree. After more than a decade of war, thousands of American lives lost, and billions of dollars spent, the American people are rightfully weary.

Before we put our brave servicemen and -women in harm's way again, Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibility and vote on whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq.

Of course, after we pass this resolution, I urge the Republican leadership to bring up our bill, H.R. 3852, to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

I want to, once again, thank Congressman McGovern for staying the course. He was one of the first Members calling for an end to the war in Iraq and to bring our brave troops home. He has provided tremendous leadership through a variety of legislative efforts. This is just another one of those efforts. So I want to thank you again, Congressman McGovern and Congressman Jones.

I thank all of the Members who are supporting this, including our leadership. Congress should never allow war authorizations to remain on the books in perpetuity. We don't do this for the farm bill. We don't do this for the transportation bill. Sooner or later, we need to repeal the initial authorization.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank our ranking member for yielding and for your tremendous support on so many issues that affect working men and women, the middle class, the working poor, and the poor. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4935, which is the so-called Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an improvement at all. This bill fails to make permanent a key child tax credit improvement for working families earning as little as $3,000 a year. Instead, this bill permanently extends it to higher income families.

A permanent child tax credit must address the needs of all families, but especially the ones who earn the least. Extending a permanent child tax credit that helps wealthy families while failing to make permanent the credit for those living in poverty is just not fair. It is un- American.

This failure would have a devastating impact on more than 5 million families that are already struggling to make ends meet and who need the credits the most.

The President clearly understands this.

In the Statement of Administration Policy, it is clear that the President understands this. Actually, he understands that this also not only affects the 5 million families, it cuts it for an additional 6 million families. And so I am very pleased that the White House has advised that they do not support this and, hopefully, a veto threat would come if it ever got that far.

Now, yesterday, I might say, Chairman Ryan--and I have to remind us that he rolled out his plan to reduce poverty. Yet, today we see this bill, which would increase poverty.

I am not sure what is going on, Mr. Speaker. We are here to protect all families, particularly those living in poverty. Why in the world would we try, or the Republicans, at least, try to put a compassionate voice and face on such draconian policies?

The rhetoric of yesterday, as it relates to the Ryan rollout of the antipoverty program, is totally inconsistent with the reality of what we are dealing with and seeing today.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Thank you very much.

Let me thank you, Mr. Pocan, for yielding but also for organizing, not only this Special Order tonight, but for having these Special Orders in order to really raise a level of awareness with regard to these important issues facing millions of Americans in our country. We know that you are here every week, sometimes by yourself, but I have to thank you for your tremendous leadership and for helping the Progressive Caucus continue to beat the drum on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we all know today that, of course, the Republican Budget Committee chair, Paul Ryan, rolled out his expanding opportunities for all plan for addressing poverty in America. That is what it is called.

I can say, like you, I am happy to see that there are some areas we can work on together in this plan. That includes fixing our broken criminal justice system, expanding and supporting the earned income tax credit if we don't, as his plan calls for, rob Peter to pay Paul. I am glad to see that the conversation on poverty in this country is finally catching up and catching on with my Republican colleagues at the national level.

We have been working for a long time--our task force, you, all of us here tonight on this floor and others--to try to get this urgent issue the attention it really requires here in the House of Representatives, but we know that, ultimately, most of Mr. Ryan's recommendations are more about rhetoric than reality.

My question in looking at his list of proposals is, first of all: Where is the jobs plan? We all know that the primary means and pathway out of poverty is a good-paying job with benefits.

Add to that that his proposal has, really, the same--I call it--old- time block granting proposals that we have seen, once again, for, I guess, 4 years in the Ryan budget. In fact, if you will recall, the Ryan Republican budget takes more than two-thirds of its cuts from programs that serve low-income and vulnerable Americans. When he talks about consolidating programs, including SNAP, into block grants, it is as if he is forgetting that his budget cuts $300 billion in these 11 programs for the next 10 years. I can't quite figure out why the rhetoric in the plan lays this out, but yet his budget takes the same plan and cuts $300 billion.

It does nothing, as I said, to create jobs. It does nothing to provide Americans a living wage or to extend unemployment insurance to the 3.3 million long-term unemployed. People really need to understand that this plan is not about substance. It is about Republicans trying to put a compassionate face on their draconian policies. That is what this is about.

Some of us have raised some key questions about this proposal, and I would like to just lay out some of these questions when we are evaluating his plan. The House Ways and Means Committee, under the tremendous leadership of our ranking member, Sandy Levin, laid out some of these questions, which include:

Does compassionate conservatism really just mean cutting spending while saying you are about caring for the poor?

Will this plan include proposals that have been shown to both reward work and reduce poverty, such as increasing the minimum wage and extending benefits to the long-term unemployed who are looking for work?

Will Representative Ryan support flexible assistance to States to help struggling Americans or will he push States to cut such assistance?

Will Mr. Ryan's proposal fit into a balanced approach to address the deficit?

I just have to say, Mr. Pocan and others who are listening tonight, in this block granting proposal and in many of his proposals, there are work requirements. For any of the services or for any of the programs, you have to have a job. They have cut workforce training, and they have not created any jobs, so their work requirement as eligibility for programs that help provide this bridge over troubled waters just doesn't make any sense. It is wrong. Unless you have got a full- employment economy and unless the recession has really ensured that everyone has a good-paying job, then a work requirement to be eligible for benefits in order to help reduce poverty or to help lift you out of poverty is just counterproductive, and it doesn't make any sense. This is something that we have to continue to work on in terms of Mr. Ryan. We need this conversation. It needs to be bipartisan.

This week, some of us are taking the Live the Wage Challenge from the Raise the Wage coalition. We are living on $77 a week, which is what a minimum wage employee in this country has to live on after taxes and housing expenses. We are doing this, though, to raise awareness of the everyday struggles of millions of our constituents. We will be off of this $77-a-week budget in a week, but millions of our constituents won't be. I wish that this plan would really have a pathway so that millions of our constituents would be able to live off of a good-paying job with benefits.

Finally, let me just say that this Congress should focus on supporting and expanding programs that are working to lift people out of poverty--programs that have worked for the last 50 years since the war on poverty began--such as Head Start. I will tell you that we have got a long way to go. We shouldn't talk about cutting these programs. They have helped people move into the middle class. We know that. We should not play politics with poverty.

I hope the Republicans really get real about reducing poverty rather than trying to fool the public, and that is what is happening now. They are trying to fool the public with this new brand, and it is a new brand of conservative compassion, but I will tell you that this rhetoric has nothing to do with the reality of the Ryan budget. This is where the rubber meets the road.

Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to talk about this.

Yes.

It was $300 billion by consolidating the 11 programs that he wants to block grant to the States.

It is more than clever. I think it is wrong to mislead the public as it relates to the numbers. It is cooking the books. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It may be budget neutral, but, definitely, the cuts will take place in order to get to a budget neutral plan, and that is the problem I have with this. By consolidating all of these programs and by block-granting these programs, who is going to see the cuts and feel the cuts of the block granting? It is going to be the most vulnerable.

Thank you very much for raising that, but it is true. We see this on the Budget Committee each and every day.

It was very interesting. Of course, they have opposed the Affordable Care Act and have tried to repeal it--what?--50- some times now, but yet have captured the savings, which the Affordable Care Act is very clear on having made, to base their budget on those captured savings.

I think that, again, it is fuzzy math, and it is a way to deceive the public. It is a way to promote their policies of making sure that those who have access to affordable health care now don't have it in the future and that those who need it will be prevented from gaining it through the Affordable Care Act.

Exactly, Congresswoman Moore. I am glad you raised that because that is exactly what happens.

First of all, there will be some requirements of the States but not many, and once the States run out of money, it is too bad. Food stamp recipients may or may not receive the type of assistance they need to help them with this as a bridge over troubled waters. It is not a fair system. We would see more people being cut from SNAP rolls, and we would also see more people needing food stamps because of the safety net being eroded even further. So it is a catch-23. Block-granting all of this to the States would harm the most vulnerable.