Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter and statement by Coretta Scott King from March 19, 1986.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social

Change, Inc.,

Atlanta, GA, March 19, 1986.

Re Nomination of Jefferson B. Sessions, U.S. Judge, Southern

District of Alabama Hearing, March 13, 1986.

Hon. Strom Thurmond,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Thurmond: I write to express my sincere

opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a

federal district court judge for the Southern District of

Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are

deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office

as

United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free

exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to

our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his

office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly

black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not

be rewarded with a federal judgeship.

I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from

appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However,

I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions'

confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this

letter be made a part of the hearing record.

I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr.

Sessions.

Sincerely,

Coretta Scott King.

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, Senator Elizabeth Warren sought to bring to the attention of the Senate some material about an Attorney General nominee, Senator Jeff Sessions. She was silenced. She persisted. Ultimately, the Record of the Senate does not reflect the remarks she was trying to give.

In particular, Senator Warren was trying to bring to the attention of the Senate a statement and letter of Coretta Scott King from 1986. In 1986, then Jefferson B. Sessions was a U.S. Attorney, a Federal prosecutor who had been appointed for a position as a U.S. district judge.

At that time, Coretta Scott King wrote to the then-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Strom Thurmond. While the Senate may not entertain these remarks and while the Senate may stifle a United States Senator, this is the people's House and it is appropriate that the Record of this House, at least, reflect the comments of Coretta Scott King.

So I would like to use the time remaining to read her cover letter from March 13, 1986, and to read excerpts from the statement she attached to it.

``Dear Senator Thurmond:

``I write to express my sincere opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship.

``I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions' confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this letter be made part of the hearing record.

``I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Sessions.''

The statement attached to that letter is fairly long and very convincing, and I will read parts of it here:

``Mr. Sessions has used the awesome power of his office to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens in the district he now seeks to serve as a federal judge. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. Mr. Sessions' conduct as U.S. Attorney, from his politically- motivated voting fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights laws, indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge.''

``A person who has exhibited so much hostility to the enforcement of those laws, and thus, to the exercise of those rights by Black people should not be elevated to the federal bench.

``The irony of Mr. Sessions' nomination is that, if confirmed, he will be given life tenure for doing with a federal prosecution what the local sheriffs accomplished twenty years ago with clubs and cattle prods.''

``The actions taken by Mr. Sessions in regard to the 1984 voting fraud prosecutions represent just one more technique used to intimidate Black voters and thus deny them this most precious franchise.''

``In these investigations, Mr. Sessions, as U.S. Attorney, exhibited an eagerness to bring to trial and convict three leaders of the Perry County Civic League including Albert Turner despite evidence clearly demonstrating their innocence of any wrongdoing.''

``In fact, Mr. Sessions sought to punish older black civil rights activists, advisors and colleagues of my husband, who had been key figures in the civil rights movement in the 1960's.''

``Therefore, it is my strongly-held view that the appointment of Jefferson Sessions to the federal bench would irreparably damage the work of my husband, Al Turner, and countless others who risked their lives and freedom over the past 20 years to ensure equal participation in our democratic system.''

Clearly, if these criticisms set forth in this statement--the entirety of which will be made part of the House Record--indicate, as they did to the United States Senate in 1986, that Mr. Sessions should not be a district court judge, they also argue that he should not have been confirmed as Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, as many have explained on this floor, Trump's executive order, his Muslim ban, repudiates our values and violates our Constitution.

After 20 years on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I think it is important to come to this floor and explain how that executive order is harmful to our national security. Trump's executive order plays right into the ISIS narrative. It says that there is a clash of civilizations and that all Islam is our enemy. ISIS, which has, perhaps, a few hundred thousand followers, dreams of convincing all of Islam--dreams of convincing 1.5 billion Muslims--that they are at war with America and the West.

We do not have a clash of civilizations. We have a clash between civilization and the forces of darkness bent on destroying civilization, whether they reside in Raqqa or at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, I voted for the Rules Improvement Package suggested by the Ranking Member even though there are elements of the package that would not be needed by the Committee in normal circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's outrageous ban on Muslims so that the San Fernando Valley's own Darrius Hicks, an American citizen, can be reunited with his wife, who is a humanitarian worker working with Afghan war victims in Iran. She has been denied even the chance to schedule a visa interview at our embassy in Abu Dhabi.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the historic timeline. The Reagan administration and other administrations have failed in the past to veto anti-Israel resolutions, and that failure has not been helpful to the cause of peace. Over the last two decades, Israel has frozen or removed settlements in an effort to negotiate peace, all to no avail.

On November 29 of last year, this House unanimously urged our U.N. Ambassador to veto any U.N. resolution that sought to impose peace settlement terms. But a month later, our U.N. Ambassador ignored the input of this House and allowed the U.N. to adopt a one-sided resolution that sought to impose peace terms on the parties.

Worse yet, that U.N. resolution equates the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, with outposts deep in the West Bank that are illegal under Israeli law.

Today we consider a House resolution that has over 30 Democratic cosponsors. It is not a pro-settlements resolution. It strongly and repeatedly reaffirms our support for a two-state solution, achieved through direct negotiations, and it objects to a U.N. resolution that set back the cause of peace. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I will be circulating a letter for signature urging the administration not to prosecute General Petraeus. It will ask Eric Holder to use his prosecutorial discretion to close the file now. And if Attorney General Holder will not do so, to urge the President to immediately pardon General Petraeus.

Keep in mind that General Petraeus has an incredible record of service to our Nation. The items he disclosed, if any, were to an Army Reserve Officer who had security clearance, and the disclosure has not gone any further. Given his record to our country, we should not be spending taxpayer dollars in this prosecution.

But here is the delicious irony. While the prosecutors accuse General Petraeus of mistakenly disclosing confidential information--maybe they are right, maybe not--they themselves have clearly and intentionally violated law and disclosed confidential information, namely that they are making a recommendation to the Attorney General that he prosecute General Petraeus. So if the Justice Department has unlimited funds to investigate and prosecute, perhaps they should start with their own ranks and at least purge their ranks of those who violate their employment responsibilities and leak confidential information.

Mr. Speaker, if you trample on democracy and discard regular order, you can run a remarkably efficient House of Representatives.

This rule is an abomination of procedure, wrapped in another abomination of procedure, all wrapped up in a third abomination. It deals with three bills, but one of those bills contains 11 bills. Add it up. One rule, 14 bills.

Let's look at the 11 Financial Services bills. Eleven bills, zero amendments allowed. Why? We are told that, well, all 11 of those bills have gone through the committee without controversy or gone to the floor without controversy. Not true.

One of those bills extends until 2019 when banks have to comply with an important part of the Volcker rule. Has that extension to 2019 ever been voted on in committee? No. Has it ever been discussed on the floor? No.

And when the Rules Committee was asked, can we have an amendment to deal with this new matter, which has never been subject to a markup or a discussion on this floor, the answer is ``no.'' Why is that?

Because we need to improve Dodd-Frank.

The Financial Services bill contains quite a number of noncontroversial provisions that will improve Dodd-Frank, and we could improve our economy today and have a bill on the President's desk by the end of the month.

But no, the majority has structured this to force Democrats to vote against nearly a dozen good provisions so that they can say, look at those Democrats; they won't help the economy.

They are playing politics instead of legislating. It is morally wrong. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Will the gentleman yield for a point of truth?

Mr. Speaker----

Mr. Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Is there any method that allows me to object when a Member says something demonstrably false?

Mr. Speaker, I voted against suspending the rules and adopting the ``Supporting America's Charities Act.'' I think there are strong arguments in favor of this legislation and arguments of roughly equal weight that we should not at this time make these tax incentives permanent when they are not paid for.

As I have stated in the Congressional Record on many occasions, I believe that controversial matters should come up under regular order, allowing adequate debate time and preferably allowing for amendments from the floor. This legislation is controversial enough to warrant that attention.

Under these circumstances I could not vote to suspend the rules. I might well vote for this legislation if it came to the floor of the House through regular order, particularly if members were allowed to offer amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and would like to hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Soledad Canyon Settlement Act. This act is a testament to bipartisanship, fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, local consensus building, and tireless tenacity for the public good.

Bipartisanship: Here in this House, the bill is introduced, carried, and written by our colleague, Buck McKeon. In the Senate, the same language has been introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer and is supported by Senator Feinstein. You can't get any more bipartisan than that.

Fiscal responsibility: CBO says this bill costs the government zero dollars and zero cents. You can't get a lower cost estimate on a bill than that.

Environmental stewardship: this bill is supported by the Sierra Club, and this land will become the gateway to the new San Gabriel Mountains National Monument.

Local consensus building: this bill has the support of local leaders and legislators, Governor Jerry Brown, CEMEX, the local lease owner, and virtually everyone involved in public life in Santa Clarita, which is Los Angeles County's third largest city.

Tireless tenacity: Mr. Speaker, tireless tenacity for the public good is exemplified by our friend, Buck McKeon, 22 years in Congress and I believe 22 years focused on this problem, and now, on what may very well be his last legislative day, we have a chance to solve this problem in a way that I think exemplifies what we should be trying to do here in Congress.

In addition to Buck's tireless tenacity, I want to commend the city leaders of Santa Clarita, many-time Mayor Laurene Weste, who I believe is now a city council member and has been mayor of that city so often; Bob Keller, now the mayor pro tem; Ken Striplin, the city manager; and hundreds and thousands of people in Santa Clarita and the immediate area.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is needed because it will stop the mining of 56 million tons of sand and gravel, which is now incompatible with a city that has grown to more than double its size when the project was originally planned, and now constitutes an area of well more than a quarter million people.

This sand and gravel mining operation is incompatible with the new population of the area, and it is also incompatible with the roads and traffic which is busy not only at rush hour, but throughout the day.

I want to commend the gentleman from Santa Clarita for his decades of work for his district, and all the people of California.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Soledad Canyon Settlement Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is not a perfect plan. What America wants is a plan that guarantees success, and that success should be total destruction of ISIS immediately and without U.S. casualties. But the plan is a reasonable approach. It is the only approach on this floor. The alternative is to do nothing. No one has brought a better plan to this floor.

For those who say, ``Let's do nothing,'' reflect what we have accomplished through the President's action. The Yazidis have been saved from genocide. The Turkmen who otherwise would have been slaughtered in the many thousands are no longer besieged. The Mosul and Haditha dams are no longer under the control of ISIS. None of that would be true if the President had already not begun to take action.

I now yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, all the authority provided in this amendment will expire no later than December 11, 2014. Is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman.

Whichever comes first. So it could even be sooner than December 11.

Second, the administration has stated that it will use this authority to train Syrian fighters outside Syria. I have a fact sheet, which I will enter into the Record, provided by the administration, stating that the training will take place outside Syria and that the Saudis have agreed to host facilities.

Mr. Chairman, can you confirm that it is, indeed, the administration's plan to do the training outside Syria?

Is it your understanding that the training bases will be outside Syria?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answers.

Attached, please find a fact sheet on the Title X program,

as well as a Q&A your boss may mind helpful. I stand by ready

to answer any questions.

--Robert

Robert N. Marcus,

Special Assistant to the President, White House Office of

Legislative Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to focus on what is the appropriate foreign policy and what is the appropriate role in Congress.

I rise in support of this amendment.

In fact, the amendment is quite similar to the Free Syria Act, which was introduced by several of us, under the leadership of Eliot Engel, a year and a half ago. That approach of vetting appropriate Syrian forces and of providing training was a good but difficult policy then. It is a good and even more difficult policy now.

We have to vet those we train, and it should only be certain elements of the Free Syrian Army in that we should only cooperate with those who are not only going to stand up for the Sunni majority but protect the Christian and Alawite minorities, and we have to arm

only those who are strong enough and careful enough not to lose the weapons we give them to more extremist forces.

This arming of the Syrian rebels is part of an overall plan that will include American military action. There is general agreement of no boots on the ground or at least of no boots on the front lines, but let us speak honestly to the American people. The American people are asking for a guaranteed, successful plan that would provide the immediate and total destruction of ISIS, with very few or no American casualties. Such a plan cannot be created. Instead, the policy that this amendment is part of will contain and weaken and punish ISIS and keep limited American casualties, and hopefully avoid them altogether.

We must remember that the enemies of ISIS are nearly as evil and are probably more dangerous than ISIS itself. Those enemies include Assad, who has killed well over 100,000 of his own people and gassed many of them until he faced world pressure; Iran and Hezbollah, which have killed many hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans; and the Iraqi Shiite militias, including Mr. Maliki, who created the situation on the ground in Iraq which led to the creation of ISIS.

What is the role of Congress?

We look at article I and article II of the Constitution, with different roles for the President of the United States and Congress in military policy. Thomas Jefferson determined it was necessary to get the approval from Congress before he deployed marines to the shores of Tripoli--our first non-declared war, our first intervention in the Middle East. That wisdom is reflected in the War Powers Act, adopted in 1973. That act, I think, is a fair, constitutional, and reasonable clarification of the interaction of article I and article II--the war powers of the Congress and the Commander in Chief power of the President.

Now, under some questioning, the President and his administration have finally come up with their theory as to why Congress has already authorized the military action he anticipates. And that is, this Congress, in 2001, authorized every effort to go after al Qaeda. The forces of ISIS are a group that joined al Qaeda after 2001 and left al Qaeda a year ago or so. Does this mean you can leave al Qaeda, or are you always part of al Qaeda? Do we have several al Qaedas? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The President's authority to engage in this war is questionable. The fact that he is stretching the 2001 War Powers Act resolution is not commendable, but this Congress has also failed to play its role. We wrote a resolution in 2001. Instead of revising it, we leave it there, and then some of us are upset that the President stretches it or applies it to circumstances not then anticipated. We should be revising and repealing the War Powers Resolutions of 2001 and 2002, and we as a Congress should indicate what we think is the appropriate foreign and military policy. Instead, we focus only on the narrowest part of the President's policy. In doing so, we join with several administrations in being part of the multidecade decline of the role of Congress.

By our failure to repeal and replace the War Powers Act resolution, which no longer fits current circumstances, we are complicit with many administrations in the multidecade decline of the role of this Congress in shaping American foreign policy.

I look forward to restoring the balance provided by our Founders, to following the policies followed in the Jefferson administration, in following the War Powers Act, and in crafting a resolution applicable to today's circumstances rather than abdicating our responsibility and sitting back as the President stretches words that were never intended to apply to the situation we face in Iraq today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the events in the Middle East and with ISIS, and I want to address three separate areas. The first is what should be the role of Congress in deciding American policy on these horrific events.

Second is to respond to the unjustified attacks on the President of the United States by those who claim he doesn't have a plan, doesn't have a detailed enough plan, doesn't have a perfect plan, or whatever.

And the third is to discuss what should be our policy in the Middle East and what dangers there are, no matter which policy we pursue.

As we try to protect our Nation, we should also protect our Constitution. Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress the exclusive duty to decide when we declare war, when we go to war.

Article II makes the President of the United States Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

These two provisions need to be reconciled so that both the Congress and the President can make the decisions that the Constitution charges to them in our foreign and military policy.

This is not a new issue. President Jefferson sent our Marines, in the words of the song, ``to the shores of Tripoli'' in 1801. This was our first foreign military deployment. This was our first fighting and involvement in the Middle East. And most relevant today, it was the first use of our military abroad in the absence of a formal declaration of war.

Well, what did Thomas Jefferson think was the appropriate congressional role?

Thomas Jefferson sought and obtained advance authorization to put our Marines ashore in North Africa.

We still face the same constitutional provisions, but several decades ago, we passed the War Powers Act, a reasonable statute that harmonizes the two provisions of the Constitution that I have discussed.

The War Powers Act makes it clear that the President can act for 60 or 90 days without the authorization of Congress, but that is it. Beyond those time limits, deployments require congressional authorization.

Now, we have heard from the President that he respects Congress, likes us, consults with us, and would welcome our support. But the President, I am sure, consults with many academics and think tanks and foreign officials, not as a constitutional duty, but just because it makes sense to consult with them. And the President would welcome the support of The Heritage Foundation or The New York Times editorial board for his policies.

Saying that you welcome the support of Congress, or that you consult with Congress, has nothing to do with the legal rights of Congress and the American people.

Now, the President has taken a very unusual legal stance. He asserted broadly last night that he has the authority to conduct the bombing campaign, but he needs Congress to approve training Syrians and providing arms. This stands the Constitution on its head.

The main decision to be made here is whether we put our pilots and/or soldiers in harm's way, whether we wage war and cause casualties, and perhaps incur casualties. The far less important decision is whether we train a few hundred or a few thousand Syrians and provide them with weapons.

Keep in mind, this training and arming of Syrians has occurred for well over a year without congressional authorization.

What is happening here is the President wants us to vote in favor of his plan, or to take a vote of Congress and claim it is a vote in favor of his plan, when, in fact, we would only be voting on the smallest part of that plan, and that is, whether, without any risk of casualties to ourselves, without any risk that we would be directly causing casualties in the Middle East, to provide training to Syrian rebels. This is hardly what the Constitution requires.

Today, in response to my questions, the President's Deputy National Security Adviser explained, for the first time from this administration, why they think they have authorization to bomb Iraq and Syria without any further action from Congress. He cited the authorization to use military force passed in this House 13 years ago, in response to the tragic events which occurred 13 years ago to this day.

When Congress authorized going after al Qaeda, we never envisioned that that authority would be used in this manner.

Just as important, the President's plan is to go after ISIS, which has been repudiated by al Qaeda, which broke from al Qaeda, and which wages war against the al-Nusra Front, which is part of al Qaeda.

It is difficult to say that an authorization to use force against al Qaeda is an authorization to use force against those who are fighting al Qaeda, but it is a technical argument.

On the President's side, you can say that al Qaeda splintered, and that all the splinters constitute part of the organization that attacked us 13 years ago to this day.

That is why Congress needs to revise the authorization to use military force of 2001. We passed it for one purpose. Is it going to be there for 100 years?

Is it going to authorize things we never imagined?

Or shouldn't Congress define what it is we are authorizing under today's circumstance?

The other argument raised by the President's Deputy National Security Adviser is that the authorization to go to war against Saddam Hussein somehow applies to this situation. A reading of that resolution clearly shows that it is confined to Iraq, and would not justify that portion of the President's plan, a necessary portion, that involves bombing Syria.

So, again, Congress should vote on our authorization to use military force that is crafted to this situation at this time. But it is unlikely that we will do so because there is almost a silent conspiracy here in Washington.

Presidents want more power to act as they decide in the national interest, without having to ask Congress for authority. Members of Congress sometimes just want to avoid a tough vote.

So, the desire of the President to have all power, and the desire of some Members of this House to avoid responsibility, coincide with the idea of the President just boldly saying he has the authority to enter a new conflict and to enter it for far more than 60 or 90 days, and Congress never has to vote on the matter.

The President, of course, would like to say that he has a vote of Congress in favor of his plan. So we are going to end up with the sneakiest of all maneuvers.

What is likely to occur, and I hope it doesn't, is that we will vote next week on whether to continue government operations, whether to fund the government for the next several months, whether to prevent our national parks from closing, and buried in there will be a provision authorizing and funding the training of Syrian dissidents, and we will pass that package.

The President will claim that since we funded and authorized the training of Syrian dissidents, we voted for his entire plan, including the bombing. And Members of Congress can say they had no choice but to vote for the Syrian provision, but didn't actually like it, never really voted for it. They just voted to keep the national parks open. A silent conspiracy of empowerment and shirking responsibility.

What we should do next week is have three separate votes: one vote on whether to fund and authorize the arming of Syrians, because the President has asked for that vote; second, a vote on whether to authorize military force limited exclusively to air forces and not authorizing ground operations; and the third would be a vote to go further and authorize ground operations.

The exact contours of these resolutions should be subject to amendment and open amendment in this House. We would have to deal with the duration and the exact limitations. But then we would be performing our constitutional duty. Then we would be protecting the American Constitution.

I fear that, instead, we will cleverly avoid responsibility and the President will be able to say, ah, but you voted for my plan.

Now, in defense of the President, I want to respond to the constant harping that the President doesn't have a plan, doesn't have a detailed enough plan, doesn't have a strategy.

Well, first the President put forward a plan last evening. While Republicans have blasted it as insufficiently detailed, it is just as detailed as the plans put forward by the former President to invade Afghanistan and to invade Iraq.

Now, keep in mind, as we learned from those wars, whatever plan is put forward is going to be dramatically changed because once you engage in hostilities, things change.

Second, if the President were to provide as much detail as some hyperpartisan Republicans are demanding, he would then be attacked for revealing our strategy, our tactics, and classified information.

The only thing that holds together, creates consistency among certain extremist partisan Republicans, is that whatever the President does, it is wrong.

Then I have got to ask, where is the Republican plan?

Have Republicans coalesced around any plan?

Has any prominent Republican even put forward a plan?

Where is your plan?

Vice President Dick Cheney has not put forward a plan, just an expression of anger and partisanship. Speaker Boehner has not put forward a plan. The Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee majority has not put forward a plan.

There are a host of think tanks here in Washington that could aid Republicans in drafting a plan, yet, the Republicans have yet to even discuss their own plan, let alone coalesce around the Republican plan.

It seems like the Republicans do have a plan. Their plan is to reap political advantage from this crisis in the Middle East, while avoiding any responsibility for making decisions.

The Republicans are politically clever. And when I say Republicans in this speech, I am referring only to the hyperpartisan Republicans who have engaged in the activities that I described.

These Republicans understand that no one can draft the plan the American people really want. Americans want a plan that guarantees the immediate and total destruction of ISIS, without significant American casualties.

So hyperpartisan Republicans can constantly berate the President because he doesn't have a guarantee. He isn't offering immediate total destruction. He does have a plan designed to avoid American casualties.

Instead, we get a suggestion that somehow this guaranteed, no-cost, immediate total victory would be achieved if only we had a different President.

I think it is time for Congress to stop harping about whether the President has a plan. He has put forth a plan.

Now Congress must exercise its constitutional role in defining what authorizations the President is going to be granted and what portions of his plan are going to be authorized.

I look forward to--I hope, though doubt--a serious debate on the floor of this House, where we will discuss and vote on and amend and vote on the amendments of a resolution dealing with whether to arm Syrians and train them, with a resolution as to whether to have a long- term, multiyear, perhaps, bombing campaign against ISIS, and whether the President is authorized to use ground forces.

Finally, I want to focus on the Middle East, itself, and how complicated the situation is, and I want to praise the President not only for his decisive action but also for his wise caution, because the situation we face in the Middle East is far more complicated than the President's detractors would let on.

The natural reaction upon seeing those horrific videos is to say ISIS is the embodiment of all evil, and its total and immediate destruction is all that we need to do, that it should be our entire focus, but let's look at the situation. We look not only on the entity we want to destroy but also at who will be empowered by its destruction. Who is on the ground in Syria and in the Sunni areas of Iraq that is fighting ISIS and stands to gain if ISIS is destroyed? If we make the list, we see entities that are nearly as evil as ISIS

and are, if anything, more capable of hitting our homeland, of hitting Europe, of hitting targets outside the Middle East, than is ISIS itself.

First, we see that ISIS is engaged in war with the al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra is a dedicated branch of al Qaeda, one of its more capable branches. So the destruction of ISIS will, to some degree, empower al Qaeda and al-Nusra, since they are both rivals in fighting for support among extremist Sunnis.

Second, on the list of ISIS' foes is the Assad regime. Now, the very people who are attacking the President for not acting precipitously today were attacking the President last year for not bombing the Assad regime. So they attacked him last year for not bombing Assad and this year for not bombing Assad's number one enemy. The only consistency here is you are attacking the President for not bombing somebody. The fact is that Assad has the blood of many tens of thousands of people on his hands, and his empowerment, his success in removing the ISIS problem that he has, will be one of the disadvantages of destroying

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, September 15, 2014, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the effective action and wise caution shown by the President of the United States with regard to ISIS. We were all disgusted by the beheading of American journalists and alarmed by ISIS' early military successes.

Those who oversimplify the Middle East focus exclusively on the evils of ISIS and demand its immediate destruction without sufficient examination of the costs and the effects. The President recognizes that the situation calls for action but that its complexity also calls for caution. He has ordered over 150 airstrikes, which have punished ISIS, killing hundreds of its fighters and securing military victories at Mosul Dam, protecting the Yazidi minority, protecting our Kurdish allies, and protecting the Shiite Turkmen, four important military victories. And, just as importantly, we have pushed back ISIS and prevented its further expansion in Iraq.

Yet, the simpleminded argue that all of our problems in the Middle East would disappear if only we had a President with a different personality. Or

they assume that ISIS can be destroyed immediately without any American boots on the ground. The ground forces necessary to destroy ISIS immediately, that deployment would involve hundreds, if not thousands, of American casualties. Even if we had a victory over ISIS that was swift, our forces would be the ones on the ground. We would then be viewed as responsible for providing security, which would require a prolonged presence.

Now, some fantasize that Turkey or Saudi Arabia or somebody else-- just not us--will be willing to deploy ground forces and suffer major casualties. Well, keep in mind that Turkey and Saudi Arabia weren't willing to suffer any casualties to destroy Saddam Hussein in our final war against him, and that these two Sunni nations hate some of the enemies of ISIS as much they hate ISIS. If there are going to be troops on the ground, they will not just magically appear from others in the region.

The greatest flaw in the simple thinking is to focus exclusively on whom we want to destroy without asking who will be empowered by such destruction. Who are the enemies of ISIS that ISIS is fighting today? Who would step into the vacuum if ISIS were rapidly destroyed? Four entities: the al-Nusra front, ISIS' chief rival in Syria. The al-Nusra front, of course, is part of al Qaeda. Second, Assad, who has killed over 191,000 of his own people. Third, the extremist Shiite militias and perhaps former Prime Minister Maliki. These are forces that killed hundreds of Americans last decade. And fourth, Hezbollah and its patron Iran, who killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in 1983 and also killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq last decade.

Now, there is constant discussion that ISIS might have the ability to conduct operations outside the Middle East, perhaps against us. Hezbollah and Iran have killed hundreds of people in actions in Asia, South America, Africa, and Europe. So let us be clear: those who will take power if ISIS is swept aside are nearly as evil as ISIS. Let us applaud a President who has taken decisive action, acted with caution, achieved significant military victories, and done it all without a single American casualty.

Finally, there is the issue of Congress. What is our role? Some think that our role is to dodge tough votes, leave town next week, and stay away until Veterans Day, all without voting on what America is doing in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we ought to do our job. The War Powers Act allows the President to act for 60 or 90 days. After that, if Congress refuses to act, the President either has to violate the Constitution or summon Congress back and hope that we do our job. We ought to pass a resolution authorizing air operations for a significant period of time while not expanding the President's limited rights to deploy ground forces.

We ask our pilots to do their job. We in Congress should do ours. Let's consider a War Powers Act resolution. Let's take the tough vote.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider a technical violation of section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act. A fair reading of that section would indicate that it is drafted and focused on gratuitous prisoner releases, the many occasions prior to the adoption of that section when the prior administration or this administration chose to release a prisoner. When applied to the situation for which it was drafted, it is a practical and fully constitutional provision.

It is practical because it involves a 30-day delay in release of a prisoner where there is no particular hurry to release the prisoner. We release the prisoner 30 days after the notice; we make the decision to release the prisoner; the prisoner is released; and it gives Congress 30 days to perhaps pass a law prohibiting such release.

I believe it is constitutional because it doesn't interfere with the Commander in Chief's ability to safeguard and protect the soldiers under his command.

Now there is an attempt to criticize the President for not following this statute when it is applied to a situation for which it was not drafted and when it is applied in such a way where it becomes incredibly impractical, perhaps impossible, and constitutionally questionable.

We have had prisoner exchanges in every war we have fought, and they have been implemented by the executive branch. Even in World War II, we had prisoner exchanges before the end of the war.

Now, as a practical matter, if you have a 30-day delay in effectuating a prisoner exchange, it is not just the U.S. Government that has 30 days to think about whether to go through with the decision. You also give the enemy 30 days to think about it. And the hard-liners within the enemy's council can eliminate the deal. So it is impractical, especially if it was a good deal.

Now, this may not have been a good deal, but there may come a time when we have negotiated a very good, favorable-to-America prisoner exchange. And this provision would say it is prevented not by decisions of the Congress or the President, but by decisions made by our enemy in their council.

But, second, a prisoner exchange returns to the United States a soldier under the command and protection of the Commander in Chief. He has a constitutional duty to protect and hopefully return home safely our soldiers.

When you create a circumstance that makes it practically impossible to have a prisoner exchange because in order to have one you have to give the hard-liners within the enemy's council an ability to upset it, then you have, I believe, unconstitutionally interfered with the role of the Commander in Chief.

We tell our Commander in Chief to bring as many as possible of our men and women home safely. We cannot at the same time, in effect, prohibit any prisoner exchange with which the enemy hard-liners may disagree.

Now, I am not here to praise the Bergdahl decision. I think I disagree with it; I know I disagree with it. But I am here to say that this was a code section not designed to apply to the situation, cannot practically be applied to this situation, and is constitutionally questionable as applied to this situation.

Given that, how can it be said that it is a good use of Congress' time to pass some formal resolution attacking the President for not applying to this situation a code section so infirm?

I think that what we are doing today is dodging the real responsibility of Congress. We are engaged now in bombing ISIS. The Constitution says that Congress should play a role in making that decision. Many of our colleagues would prefer to dodge the issue. It is safer to attack the President for what he did in the past than to participate in the decisions of the future.

We should be dealing with an authorization to utilize military force against ISIS. We should be debating the term that that applies. We should be debating whether it applies to airpower alone or whether, under some circumstances, we should have boots on the ground.

But, no, we are not dealing with that. That is too tough a vote. That is a vote on which members of both parties might disagree. Instead, we are playing around with this resolution.