Iraq Privileged Resolution

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying the obvious. We are living in a chaotic and dangerous world. But contrary to what some in this Chamber suggest, the solution to every problem is not expanding the U.S. military footprint. There are many of us who are deeply concerned about our renewed military involvement in Iraq. We believe we need a debate. We believe we need a vote. We believe the Congress ought to live up to its constitutional responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by a couple of my colleagues here today who share those concerns and who want to express their beliefs about how we should proceed on this issue. I would like to first yield to my colleague from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has been a leader on these issues. I yield her as much time as she may consume.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent words and for her leadership on this issue in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here with my colleagues, Congresswoman Lee and Congressman Jones, to talk about I think an issue that deserves a lot more discussion than it is getting. We need to take a look at the recent return of the U.S. military to Iraq.

Iraq is a complicated country with a long history of ethnic and religious divisions. It is now facing a crisis of governance and a crisis of invasion by extremist militant forces. Sadly for Iraq, the two are closely intertwined.

In large measure, Iraq is falling apart because of its sectarian government currently led by Prime Minister Maliki that excludes and represses most Sunnis, Kurds, and other ethnic and religious minorities; and an army that
thinks more about saving its own skin than protecting the Iraqi people. This is what has laid the foundation for extremist forces, namely ISIL, to enter Iraq and take control of disaffected communities and territory.

I do not believe we can fix this. Only the Iraqi people can fix this. And I certainly don't believe our brave and stalwart military men and women can fix this.

I believe that we should never have invaded Iraq. I also believe it is foolish to once again commit U.S. troops to try and save an Iraqi Government and army that cannot stand on their own.

As Joseph Cirincione wrote last month in ``Defense One'' magazine:

This debacle was predictable. In fact, it was predicted by dozens of analysts who knew a great deal more about Iraq than those who cheerleaded the invasion in Iraq in 2002 and 2003.

This is not to say ``we told you so'' but to warn that the desperate, quick fixes now being offered are false hopes. The hard truth is that there is little we can do to save the corrupt, incompetent government we installed in Iraq. If 10 years, millions of hours of work, and hundreds of billions of dollars could not build a regime that can survive, it is difficult to imagine any fix that can. Those seeking to blame the Obama administration for the collapse are engaged in a cynical game.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the entire Defense One article.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I believe President Obama has done the right thing to send U.S. forces to Iraq to increase the security and help protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel.

So far, he has sent two contingents--the first of 275 military troops on June 15 and a second deployment of 200 additional troops on June 30. With respect to the second deployment, he noted that they would also be used to reinforce the security of the Baghdad International Airport.

They would consist of additional security forces; rotary wing aircraft; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support. The President specifically noted that they are equipped for combat.

In between these two deployments, the President announced on June 19 and notified Congress on June 26 that he was sending 300 military troops to
train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces and to establish joint operations centers with Iraqi security forces, so we could share intelligence and coordinate plans on how to confront the threat of ISIL. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this deployment concerns me deeply.

In each of these three deployments, the President has rightly formally informed Congress consistent with the War Powers Resolution. The only reason a President has to inform Congress about such overseas deployments--the only time it applies is when the President--and I am quoting now from the War Powers Resolution--has introduced ``United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask to include for the Record the three notifications the President has sent to Congress on deployments of troops to Iraq.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think the President did the right thing to inform Congress because I believe that our troops have been introduced into a situation in Iraq where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. In fact, more simply put, if Iraq wasn't engaged in hostilities in a moment of crisis, we wouldn't have sent troops over there.

This is why last Friday, on June 11, my good friends and colleagues, Representatives Walter Jones of North Carolina and Barbara Lee of California, introduced a privileged resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 105, to direct the President to remove U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days, or no later than the end of this year, except for those troops needed to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel.

We did this for a simple reason. Congress has the responsibility to authorize the introduction of American troops where hostilities are imminent. In less than 3 weeks, in three separate deployments, the U.S. has sent at least 775 additional troops to Iraq.

We don't know what might happen next to those troops or to yet another deployment of additional troops, but we do know that Congress should debate it. We do know that Congress should vote on whether to authorize it or not.

That is what the Constitution of the United States demands of Congress. That is what the Constitution demands of us. Now is the time for Congress to debate the merits of our military involvement in this latest Iraq conflict--openly, transparently.

Do we approve of these deployments and any future escalation? If so, we should vote to authorize it. If we do not support it, then we should bring our troops back home. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. Congress has the responsibility to act on Iraq now.

Mr. Speaker, we did not introduce this privileged resolution lightly. By doing so, we started a process to hold a debate on our engagement in Iraq in the coming days, using the special procedures outlined under the War Powers Resolution. While this is an imperfect tool, it requires the House to take up this bill after 15 calendar days.

Like most of my colleagues, I would prefer for this House to bring up a bill authorizing our engagement in Iraq, and nothing in this resolution inhibits such important legislation from being drafted and brought before the House for a clean up-or-down vote. Frankly, I wish that were happening, but I have not heard that such an authorization is even under discussion, let alone being prepared for debate.

I regret to say that I only hear how we can avoid having such a debate. So my colleagues--Mr. Jones and Ms. Lee and myself--we introduced this concurrent resolution because we strongly believe that Congress has to step up to the plate and carry out its responsibilities when our servicemen and -women are once again being sent into harm's way.

The time for debate is now, not when the first body bag comes home from Iraq, not when the first U.S. airstrikes or bombs fall on Iraq, not when we are embedded with Iraqi troops trying to back an ISIL-held town, and worst-case scenario, not when our troops are shooting their way out of an overtaken Baghdad.

Now, Mr. Speaker, is the time to debate our new engagement in Iraq--before the heat of the moment--when we can weigh the pros and cons of supporting the Maliki government or whatever government is cobbled together should Maliki be forced to step down--now, before we are forced to take sides in a religious and sectarian war; now, before the next addition of more troops takes place--make no mistake, I firmly believe we will continue to send more troops and more military assets into this crisis--now, Mr. Speaker, before we are forced to fire our first shots, launch our first missiles, or drop our first bombs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, is when the House should debate and vote on this very serious matter. For those who say it is too early, too premature for this debate, I respectfully disagree. The administration has tacitly signaled when it notified Congress that our troops have been sent to a place where the threat of hostilities is imminent.

The longer we put off carrying out our constitutional responsibilities, the easier it becomes to just drift along, and this is what Congress has done over and over. We just kind of drift along, and it has to end. It has to end, Mr. Speaker. Congress must speak. Congress must act.

This resolution, should it pass, would direct the President to bring our troops home from Iraq within 30 days--or should the President determine that such a rapid withdrawal would pose a security question, then no later than by the end of the year, nearly 6 months from now.

It would not require those troops that have been deployed to safeguard the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel from withdrawing. They could remain and carry out their crucial roles of protecting our civilian personnel on the ground in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we need to take up this resolution. We need to debate our military engagement in this latest war in Iraq. We need to have a clean up-or-down vote, whether we stay in Iraq or whether we bring our troops home.

We owe that much to our troops and their families. We owe that much to the American people, and we owe at least that much to our own democracy and democratic institutions that require Congress to be the final arbiter on whether our troops are sent into hostilities abroad.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield to the conscience of this Congress on issues of war, a man I have great admiration for, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I look forward to a continued exchange on this issue with my colleague. I want to thank him for his passion on this issue and for reminding not only our colleagues, but the American people that there are really consequences to war.

One of the things that has frustrated me is that, for too long, we have avoided talking about the wars in this Congress, not just Iraq, but also Afghanistan.

My colleague, Mr. Jones, and I had an amendment to the defense authorization bill a few weeks back, which said that President Obama had mentioned a couple of years ago that we would be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Clearly, that is not going to be the case.

The amendment said that the President had to notify Congress of what our military plans were going to be in Afghanistan and that Congress should consider that and vote up or down on whether we should continue our military involvement in Afghanistan.

That is hardly a radical bill. It is simply a bill that says: Congress do your job, you have an obligation--a constitutional obligation when it comes to war.

This amendment, which was germane, it was in order--on the defense bill, no less--at the last minute, we were told we could not offer it, it would not be made in order because the leadership of this House didn't want that debate, they were afraid it might pass.

Well, that is the way democracy is supposed to work. If a majority in this place does not want to continue an endless war in Afghanistan or does not want to start another war in Iraq, then that ought to mean something.

My criticism right now is not with the White House. I may have some disagreements with the President in terms of what his policy on Iraq might be, but he has done his job, he has notified us, he has sent letters up to Congress that have announced the deployments that he is making, and it says--consistent with the War Powers Resolution, so this is not a complaint about the White House. We may disagree with their policy, but they did what they were supposed to do.

Our complaint is with this institution, that we are not doing what we are supposed to do. The Foreign Affairs Committee, in consultation with other relevant committees, ought to bring a resolution to the floor if they want to authorize the use of additional force in Iraq.

I would vote ``no.'' There are some in this Chamber that would vote ``yes,'' but there ought to be a debate. We ought to go into any new deployment--any new military intervention with our eyes wide open. We have lived through enough deception. We have been lied to over the years too many times. It is time for us to demand some truth when it comes to war. People ought to know what we are getting into.

By the way, one other thing that has troubled me greatly about these wars that we have been involved with is that we don't pay for them. We all complain about the deficit and the debt, and we have to dig ourselves out of this hole of debt. Trillions of dollars of that debt are directly related to these wars. We don't pay for these wars. We put them on a credit card.

I offered a bill a few years ago calling for a war tax, saying that if we are going to go to war, then we ought to pay for it--the American people ought to pay for it, and if the American people don't want to pay for it, maybe we ought not go to war.

This notion of going to war and putting it on a credit card and making believe like it is not a big deal has to stop, has to stop. The first George Bush, when he went to war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait--I wasn't for that war, I wasn't in Congress then--but nonetheless, when he went to war, he got the cooperation of all the Arab states in the region to pitch in to pay for it.

What wasn't paid for, Congress paid for, but it wasn't added to our debt. Now, it has become commonplace, and we don't even question it.

There are huge costs to these wars, not only in terms of blood, but also in terms of treasure. We nitpick on this House floor over whether or not we are going to feed hungry children or make sure people have adequate housing.

We say we don't have enough money, but when it comes to these wars, the sky is the limit--whatever you want, you can get.

Here is the deal: I would argue with you that that money has not been spent wisely. Notwithstanding the incredible service of our men and women, we are in Afghanistan right now propping up one of the most corrupt governments in the world, in the world.

In Iraq, we are now reentering a situation where even our own administration is saying the Maliki government is lousy, and we obviously hate this extremist group called ISIL, so we are going right in the middle, and I worry that we are going to be target practice for both sides.

One other thing--the Iraqi Army, as I mentioned earlier, has been trained by the very best of American military personnel. They have the best equipment, they have the best weaponry you can imagine.

They outnumber, overwhelmingly, these extremist groups that are now attacking Iraq. We read in The Washington Post last week that commanders of the Iraqi Army in areas that come under fire decide to leave--they basically desert--and so do the troops.

If they are not willing to fight after all that we have sacrificed, why the hell are we going back in there and thinking of fighting this? Now, this is the beginning--this is the very beginning of our reentry.

As Mr. Jones and I have said, we hope that it doesn't go any further than this, but this is the time when we ought to have a debate about what might happen and what we are prepared to do.

I am happy to yield to my colleague.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent remarks. I want to associate myself with every single word that he has said.

I believe deep down that the President of the United States does not want to get involved in another endless war in the Middle East, but sometimes things have a way of happening and sometimes things have a way of spinning out of control, and that is why this debate is so important and so timely now.

Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war has already claimed 4,500 American lives. 4,500 Americans have already been killed in the Iraq war. According to one study, over 500,000 Iraqis have also perished over the past decade of war. The UNHCR states that over 1 million additional people have been displaced in Iraq this year alone.

Linda Blimes, an expert in public finance at Harvard University, estimates that the total cost of the Iraq war for the United States will be $4 trillion when we take into account the long-term costs of health care and benefits for the veterans of that war.

The human and financial costs for us and for the Iraqis have been severe.

Let me just quote a few experts on military and foreign policy about this possibility of reentering the Iraq civil conflict.

Gordon Adams, a former senior White House budget official, said in mid-June:

What is happening in Iraq right now is both a cautionary tale and an unfolding tragedy. The caution is about the blithe American assumption that the United States is omnipotent, and that with enough money, goodwill, expertise, equipment and training, Americans can build foreign forces and bring security to troubled areas around the world. The tragedy is that what the U.S. does, and has done, leads down the road to failure.

Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Robert Gard, Jr., stated, on July 6:

The collapse of the Iraqi Army was not due to a shortage of trained Iraqi troops or the inferiority in firepower or equipment. The case was their lack of confidence in, and commitment to, Iraqi national institutions and leadership, both military commanders and political authorities. This intangible but essential element in combat effectiveness depends upon legitimate governance, not admonitions from foreign military advisers.

Retired General Barry McCaffrey, on June 12, said:

At the end of the day, if your army won't fight, it's because they don't trust their incompetence, corrupt generals, they don't trust each other. This is an enduring civil war between the Shi'a, the Sunni, and the Kurds. So I don't think we've got any options, and we'd be ill-advised to start bombing where we really can't sort out the combatants or understand where the civilian population is.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the United States should be involving itself militarily in a civil war, a sectarian war, a religious war, a struggle for power that has been going on for generations. We shouldn't be taking sides in this conflict.

I do believe that a region in turmoil is not in the best interest of the United States. But as so many have said, including the President, this requires a political solution and it requires the political will of all the key actors in the region, not just outside actors like the United States and the Europeans, but those in the region. The countries and leaders in the region need to step up to the plate and actually lead on finding a political solution or watch their neighbors go up in flames and hope the fire doesn't jump to their homes and destroy them as well.

This is why we need a full debate on what is happening in Iraq, in the region, what our options are, and whether or not we should keep sending troops to Iraq or not.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the bipartisan Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I cochair with my good friend Congressman Frank Wolf, held a briefing on the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Iraq. We had witnesses from the administration, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees Office, and several NGOs.

The situation on the ground in Iraq that they described is horrifying, but it stretches back over a year. The human rights and humanitarian crisis in Iraq did not begin with ISIL coming back into Iraq, but that certainly has worsened and accelerated the decline in security, protection, and basic rights for the civilian population.

Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the head of UNHCR said:

There will not be a humanitarian solution for the Iraqi crisis. It is absolutely crucial that the Iraqi political system find a way to overcome its political divisions and contradictions.

He urged Iraq's neighbors and Western countries to work together to find a political solution as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, this is where we should be putting our energy, not trying to find some sort of military path to civility in Iraq, because there is none.

I will enter into the Record today's Washington Post article on UNHCR's assessment of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Mr. Jones, Ms. Lee, and I have come to this floor because we are worried. We are worried because we have lived through the last many years of war and we have seen how things have gotten out of control.

I remember when the war in Iraq began. Then-Vice President Cheney was on all the news shows saying that it will be over in a few weeks or few months. No big deal. Don't worry. That was in addition to being told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which we all know now was a lie.

But the fact of the matter is all those rosy predictions did not come true. We were involved in Iraq for many, many years, and there was a high cost in terms of blood and treasure. Afghanistan, we were told that it would not be an endless conflict, and here we are today still involved in Afghanistan--the longest war in American history.

I hope that history doesn't repeat itself, and I know President Obama does not want history to repeat itself. I know he deeply wants to find a political solution. I know he does not want to see more troops be involved in the Iraqi civil war, but the fact of the matter is none of us know what is going to happen.

In a couple of weeks, this Congress will adjourn for several weeks of our summer break, and then we come back for only a couple more weeks and we adjourn again for many more weeks for the campaigns. I don't want to come back to a situation and have to react to a situation that is engulfed in an all-out mess, quite frankly.

I think we ought to be debating these issues now. We ought to be debating these issues with open eyes. We ought to have a transparent system, and we ought to live up to our constitutional responsibilities.

What happens when there are the first American casualties in Iraq? What happens? What is the reaction?

Some say maybe we don't have to send military troops; maybe we will just bomb them. We will send drones. We will send missiles.

As military expert Micah Zenko tweeted:

Unless the U.S. has bombs that can install wisdom and leadership into Prime Minister Maliki, air strikes in Iraq would be pointless.

And imagine the civilian casualties that would be associated with that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The Vice President of the United States, the President of the United States, and the Secretary of State came to Congress and told us there were weapons of mass destruction, implied there were nuclear weapons of mass destruction. And the deal was, it was a lie.

4,500 Americans died; 5,000 Iraqis died. We need to pay for the war. We didn't pay for the war. The brave men and women who served our country paid, their families paid, and the rest of us were asked to do nothing.

What I am suggesting to everybody in this Chamber now, whether you want to go back into Iraq or not, that is almost beside the point for the purpose of this debate. The issue is we ought to do our job in Congress. We have a constitutional responsibility that we seem to waive, that we seem to ignore.

We are bombing in Pakistan. We are bombing in Yemen. We had a military incursion in Libya. None of that was authorized by Congress. We are relying on these vague AUMFs that were negotiated over a decade ago to justify more military involvements in different parts of the world. What is wrong with debating these issues?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, that is not what the Vice President or the Secretary of State or the head of the National Security Council or the President of the United States were talking about. He knows that.

What was presented to us was not truthful. It was not truthful. We were deceived. The Vice President of the United States said the war was only going to last a couple of months. He said that on TV, on news shows. That was a lie. It was a lie, and I am sick and tired of being lied to.

One of the lessons that I think we should have learned from our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we need to ask the tough questions before we get involved--not in the midst of a conflict, not later on in the conflict.

We have a responsibility. Read the Constitution of the United States. The notion that the President of the United States--and, again, I don't believe he wants to get involved in a lengthy, unlimited, endless war in Iraq. But there is the notion that we are ramping up the number of troops, and those in Congress here are saying nothing. The leadership in this Congress says nothing. There is no authorization.

I guess it is easy to sit back as an elected official and not have to vote years from now. It is a lot easier. You don't have to take responsibility. If things go well, you can say, ``Hey, that was a good idea.'' If things don't go well, ``Gee, I would have been opposed to that.'' But we are not doing our job here. We are not even paying for these wars.

To my friends on the Republican side who complain about debt, where is the outrage on the fact that we don't even pay for these wars? I can't quite understand why people approach war in this Chamber with such indifference.

My colleague Mr. Jones and I tried to bring an amendment to the floor, as I said earlier, to debate whether we should stay in Afghanistan longer. We were not even allowed a vote. The amendment we offered was germane, was relevant, and the leadership of this House said you can't even debate or vote this.

The defense bill. We are at war. What can be more important than debating whether we should be involved in this war?

So this is the time. What Mr. Jones and Ms. Lee and I are saying is that this is the time to debate this, before the first soldier comes home in a body bag.

The major proponents of a new war in Iraq are those who disastrously got us involved in the first place; people like Dick Cheney and John Bolton, Senator McCain and Senator Graham.

We were deceived, and we should never let that happen again. We should never let that happen again. We should demand the truth. Congress should carry out its constitutional responsibilities and vote on whether or not to get militarily involved in Iraq again.

That is what this privileged resolution that Mr. Jones, Ms. Lee, and I have suggested that we vote on. I don't know why that is such a controversial issue, but for some reason in this Congress big issues like that don't ever seem to make their way for debate on the House floor.

This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue. In fact, there are Democrats who disagree with my position. There are some Democrats who believe we ought to continue to send more military aid and potentially more troops to Iraq, and there are Republicans who agree with me that we ought not to. So this is a bipartisan concern.

I will close by simply saying to the Speaker of the House: Give us a vote. Let us debate this issue.

To my fellow Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle: Live up to your constitutional responsibility. Demand a vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Source