[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 154 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10959-H10971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 563
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of November 18, 2005, providing for
consideration or disposition of any of the following
measures:
(1) A bill or joint resolution making general
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006,
any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon.
(2) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3199)
to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism,
and for other purposes.
(3) A bill or joint resolution relating to flood insurance.
(4) A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 563 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII
that requires a two-thirds vote to consider a
[[Page H10960]]
rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee against
certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee; applies a waiver
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of November 18,
2005 providing for consideration or disposition of any of the following
measures:
First, a bill or a joint resolution making general appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, any amendment thereto, or
any conference report thereon; second, a conference report to accompany
the bill H.R. 3199, to extend and modify authorities needed to combat
terrorism and for other purposes; third, a bill or a joint resolution
relating to flood insurance; and finally, fourth, a bill to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 563 that the
Rules Committee reported in order to ensure that we are able to
complete the work of the American people in a timely and a proper
manner before the Congress adjourns for Thanksgiving. In the following
week, Members from both sides of the aisle will return to their
districts to spend Thanksgiving with their families and with their
constituents. However, before doing so, there remains important work to
be done; and, Mr. Speaker, this rule will ensure that it gets done.
From making appropriations that keep this government running to
ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to keep this
country safe, to insuring Americans against floods, to finally
strengthening the economy while cutting the budget, this rule gives the
House an opportunity to move forward on an important legislative
agenda, though difficult choices have and will continue to have to be
made for the sake of the American people, and for the sake of an agenda
of which all Americans can be proud. Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage
all of my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying
legislation for which it provides.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1615
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
I thank my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let me, before I begin, let me ask my friend from
Georgia, does his leadership plan to amend this martial law rule in any
way to add any other issues besides the ones that have been listed?
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, yes, we will have an amendment to the rule, which I will
present at the end of the debate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Could the gentleman just tell me generally what the
topic is going to be?
Mr. GINGREY. The amendment would basically say, ``A resolution
relating to United States forces in Iraq.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day in the House. This House, I
think, is about to embark on a process that should dismay every single
Member of this House. The only way keeping us from going down this road
is I think to vote down this martial law rule.
While I have many strong objections, and many of us on this side have
strong objections, to martial rules in general, we have been
accommodating in the past when they come to matters like important
conference reports or emergency pieces of legislation that we need to
get done before the recess. But this matter on Iraq does not qualify in
that category. In fact, we just received a copy of the resolution just
a couple of minutes ago about what they plan to bring up here.
This is not about a debate on Iraq. This is about politics, clear and
simple. I will go further to say that I believe this is a deliberate
effort to attack a Member of this House and his views because the
majority is afraid of this man and afraid of his views and afraid of
his words, so they believe that somehow he has to be attacked, that we
need to take some quick action here on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, we should have a debate on Iraq. We should have had a
debate on Iraq a long time ago. But what we are about to have is not a
debate on Iraq. This will not be able to be amended, there be a limited
amount of time for Members to be able to express their views, and,
quite frankly, it is demeaning to this institution, it is demeaning to
our soldiers, and it is demeaning to those who have raised questions
about the war in Iraq. It is demeaning to the American public who now
overwhelmingly have questions about this war in Iraq. They want us to
take this issue seriously and not just play politics with it.
The fact of the matter is that from the very beginning, the efforts
of this leadership have been geared toward covering up all of the facts
about the war in Iraq. We were presented faulty intelligence. When we
found out there were no weapons of mass destruction, we wanted a full
investigation to figure out what actually went wrong, whether any of
that intelligence had been manipulated. We were told we cannot have
that investigation, we cannot have that discussion.
The fact of the matter is that we have had no formal investigations
and no formal oversight of this war in Iraq. We sent a bunch of our
soldiers off to war without proper equipment, without the proper body
armor and Humvee protection, and this in spite of the fact that a few
months before we went to war, we passed a defense authorization bill
which essentially ordered the Pentagon to provide our soldiers with all
the necessary equipment that they would need if they should ever go
into war. Why did not that materialize? Where was the oversight into
that?
Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been lost in this war in
Iraq. We do not even know where it has gone, and nobody can give us an
answer, and there is no investigation, there is no oversight, there is
no debate.
The fact of the matter is this Congress has been complicit with the
White House in covering up the facts. The situation at Abu Ghraib
prison, I would argue that that instance probably more than anything
else has been responsible for poisoning the hearts and minds of so many
people in Iraq and the region. And rather than getting to the bottom of
it, rather than making sure it never happens again, what has this
Congress done? Covered up. Sweep it under the rug. Make believe it
never happened.
You want a debate on Iraq? We should have a debate on Iraq, but not
this bit of political theatrics. There are Members who believe that we
should end this war immediately. I am one of those. There are Members
who believe we should add more troops to the ones we already have in
Iraq over there. All of us should have the opportunity to be able to
debate this in a serious way.
Do you want to respect our troops? That is how you do it. You make
sure we are doing our job. We have not been doing our job, and there is
no objective person in this House, even those of you who staunchly
support this war and advocate continuing staying the course, who can
tell me things are going the way they were planned.
There are none of us in this Chamber who are going to fight in this
that war, none of us are going to put our lives on the line, and, with
very few exceptions, none of our kids are going to be fighting in that
war. So it takes absolutely no courage for anybody in this chamber to
wave the American flag and to say, ``Stay the course.''
This is not about a debate on Iraq, this is about political cover for
you. This is about finding a way to not answer the tough questions.
This is about a way to cover the administration's backside at a time
when we should be demanding questions.
Congress should be doing its job, and this process, this process is a
disgrace. We owe the people of this country, we owe the troops who are
fighting bravely at our request over in Iraq, we owe them much more.
So, Mr. Speaker, this martial law rule needs to be defeated.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not attack any Member of this body.
This amendment follows the rules of decorum of this body.
The gentleman from the other side just listed a litany of complaints
in regard to Iraq. Members on his side of
[[Page H10961]]
the aisle even have what is known as the ``Out of Iraq Caucus.'' I do
not know if the gentleman from Massachusetts is a part of that
membership or not, but we have, this side of the aisle, have heard
repeatedly from Members on their side of the aisle, and not just one
high-profile ranking member with strong defense credentials. Oh, no.
No. We have heard every night of the first session of the 109th
Congress from the 30-something Group, several Members on their side of
the aisle, pounding this President, coming within an inch or less, Mr.
Speaker, of accusing the President of lying, of out and out lying,
repeatedly accusing the President of misleading the public about Iraq,
demanding the immediate pullout of our troops.
Mr. Speaker, they are going to have the opportunity today on the
floor of this House to vote yes or no, do they want us to immediately
pull our troops out of Iraq, and that is all this amendment is about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, anybody who believes that what we are doing today is not
in response to the comments by one single Member of this Congress, a
Member who is highly respected by both sides of the aisle, a Member who
is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, a Member who is an expert on
military and defense issues, anybody who believes we are not doing this
in response to that, quite frankly, defies credibility. This is a
personal attack on one of the best Members, one of the most respected
Members of this House, and it is outrageous.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how dare you. How dare you. Yesterday, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking Democrat on the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a 27-year marine, a veteran of, I
believe, three tours in Vietnam, a well-known conservative hawk,
announced that he was introducing a resolution that was meant to
stimulate a thoughtful and profound debate on how we salvage a failed
policy in Iraq. That resolution was meant to stimulate the kind of
hearings that Bill Fulbright ran during the Vietnam War, hearings which
could bring in the best military minds and the best experts on the
Middle East to try to help us find a new direction to American policy
in Iraq.
The reaction of the Republican leadership of this House is nothing
short of disgraceful, and, in my view, that reaction dishonors the
traditions of this House and this democracy.
This resolution, which is now going to be offered as an amendment to
this rule out of the Rules Committee, is nothing less than an effort to
drive a stake through the heart of the Murtha resolution, without any
effort to get at the facts with respect to Iraq.
For the House to be asked to vote on whether or not we ought to
withdraw immediately from Iraq without having the benefit of those
thoughtful hearings is a disgraceful abdication of our responsibility
to think this issue through clearly and with judgment. I am absolutely
appalled, I am absolutely appalled, at this action. It is a cheap
political stunt that does a disservice to every serviceman and woman
fighting in Iraq today, and whoever thought up this pipe dream should
be ashamed of themselves. It brings incredible shame to this House.
If I have to choose between supporting the Murtha resolution, even
without these hearings, and the failed, discredited policy that we are
now pursuing in Iraq that dead-end nowhere-going policy, I would
happily endorse as an alternative the Murtha amendment.
It is irresponsible of the House to be dealing with this in this
manner. What this House ought to do is to set aside the cheap political
tricks and to address the thought behind the Murtha proposal. This
House, instead of politicizing this issue, ought to try to find a way
for once to bring people in this institution together, instead of
dividing them by phony, cynical, political, outrageously tricky and
sneaky maneuvers like this.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that this amendment to the
resolution basically says, ``Resolved, that it is the sense of the
House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in
Iraq be terminated immediately.'' It does not reference any Member
whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and in strong opposition to
the underlying resolution. Our mission in Iraq is clear: Peace through
strength, victory through resolve. Those who would have us retreat
immediately have forgotten what appeasement does to the Islamic
extremist madmen and murderers. Our goal in Iraq is honorable and wise.
We must see this through to our victorious end. The choice is that
simple, yet that important.
In his 2005 speech commemorating Veterans Day, President Bush
affirmed that it is courage that liberated more than 50 million people
from tyranny in the last century, and it is courage that will once
again destroy the enemies of freedom.
As the stepmother of a proud Marine, Douglas Lehtinen, who, together
with my future daughter-in-law Lindsay, is currently serving our Nation
in Iraq, and as the wife of a decorated Vietnam veteran, I have
witnessed this courage and this commitment to the mission of liberty.
In one of his e-mails from Iraq, Dougie asked that I remind the
American people that it was not the United States who asked for this
global struggle against Islamic extremists. It was the Islamic
jihadists who targeted the free world and our Nation long before we
entered Iraq. We cannot afford to yield the victory to the Islamic
extremists by withdrawing now.
Dougie forwarded a piece to me just yesterday by Lieutenant General
James T. Conway which best summarizes the opinion of many of our troops
about the need to stay the course. Conway states: ``Our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines realize that the biggest threat to mission
accomplishment depends on what their fellow Americans do. The
insurgents realize full well that the only choice they have of
defeating the U.S. military is to weaken the will of the American
population.''
{time} 1630
He adds, The insurgents in Iraq maim and kill the less protected
Iraqis, but their real target is that portion of the American public
that is shaped by the news media.
Let us heed the message from our men and women in our Armed Forces
serving in Iraq. They are in the best position to assess what we need
to do, and they are asking us not to pull out of Iraq at this juncture.
Iraq is at one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to
fight terrorism worldwide.
Our ability to project major Armed Forces to the very heart of the
Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war
against terrorism the ability to directly address the tactical and
ideological challenges of Islamic extremists. Through the promotion of
an incipient Iraqi democracy, we continue our concerted efforts to
counter the root causes of Islamic extremists in the region. These
radicals are fully cognizant that the emergence of a new and democratic
Iraq will inevitably threaten their very survival because freedom
threatens them. Democratic governments deny them the funds, the
weapons, and the sanctuary that they need to survive. Democracy denies
them the new recruits that they need.
As such, Mr. Speaker, we must continue to support the people of Iraq
in their efforts to strengthen their emerging democracies whose pace of
development has been astounding. In January, the people of Iraq turned
out in droves to vote in their first free democratic elections. In
October, they once again voted to approve their Constitution, and today
they are busily preparing for elections in December that will continue
Iraq in its transition from a brutal totalitarian state to a free
democratic nation. It takes time. We will succeed.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentlewoman who just spoke,
I
[[Page H10962]]
have to tell you, I am tired, I think we are all tired, of the
rhetoric. You want to discuss this issue seriously, let us have a real
debate, not an hour in which we will debate this resolution that cannot
be amended. That is ridiculous. That is demeaning to this House of
Representatives.
We are not doing our job. This is about war. We have troops in harm's
way. We have lost over 2,000 Americans. We have members of our Guard
and Reserves on double and triple deployments; and the best you can do
to respond to what is going on, all the mess that has been created over
there is to bring this up for 1 hour. This is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) was a hero
in Vietnam. The gentleman is a hero today.
We know that the Bush administration deliberately misled the American
public about nuclear weapons in Iraq, about al Qaeda in Iraq. And now
out here on the House floor, in a continuation of their deliberate
misleading of the American public, they are refusing to have a debate
on the Murtha resolution.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has called for a debate
on the redeployment of troops consistent with protecting their security
and the security of our country and maintaining over the horizon forces
to protect our country, to promote democracy and diplomacy that will
protect our country.
What this group of Republicans, what the Bush-Cheney White House is
doing today is a continuation of the perpetuation of the fraud on the
American public. This is not the debate on the Murtha resolution. This
is an attempt to undermine the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha), to continue their attempt to undermine any critic of their
administration rather than having a real debate on the war in Iraq that
serves the American people, the American fighting men and women, and
every single person in the world.
I have known Jack Murtha for nearly 30 years and I have enormous
respect for his patriotism and his expertise on military matters.
I've heard Jack Murtha speak about what is going on in Iraq and about
the adverse effect that this war is having on our troops and our
Nation's security. I agree with him that it is time for us to start
bringing our troops home, and I support his proposal to do so.
This is a war that was based on false and misleading intelligence
from the Bush Administration about Iraqi nuclear weapons, and which has
been bungled at almost every stage by incompetence and mismanagement on
the part of the White House and the civilian leadership at the
Pentagon. Our brave troops deserve better than to be asked to continue
risking their lives for a mistake. At this point it has become clear
that our troop presence in Iraq is making the situation over there
worse, not better. The Iraqi people need to know that the U.S. is going
to end its occupation of their country, and that they need to assume
responsibility for their own security.
We should get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, consistent
with ensuring their safety. Instead of continuing this diversion, which
has only harmed America's international reputation, we should refocus
our nation's energies on capturing Osama bin Laden and disrupting and
destroying the Al Qaeda terrorist organization that was responsible for
the September 11th attacks.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a perfect time to talk about the very
brave acts of our men and women who are serving to defend this Nation.
I recently led an armed services trip to Iraq. The very first person
that I met looked me in the eye and he said to me, Ma'am, do not worry
about me. He said, I know what I am doing. He said I know what the
threat to this Nation is; and if I have anything to do with it, we will
never have another attack on our Nation. He picked up his gear. He
said, So do not worry. Just pray for me. And he walked away.
The thing that I brought back from that trip to Iraq, and I realized
it immediately, is that these men and women are true heroes. They
volunteered to serve in our military and many of them have volunteered
to serve in Iraq because they understand the threat that faces this
Nation if we were to fail. But what they want to know, Mr. Speaker, is
what is America saying and what is America thinking?
They watch C-SPAN. They watch the words that you say. And I was proud
to be able to be there in Iraq and tell them the stories of America,
about true Americans who value what they are doing who are at Sea World
and stand and clap and cheer, the marines that walked through the
airport in Ireland on our way back and everyone stood and everyone
clapped for those marines.
The reason we are on this floor today talking about this is because
the other side has made this an issue; and for the last several months,
all we have heard is that we need to bring our troops home.
I do not know if you have seen the letter that has come from a-
Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi. One of the quotes in this letter is: ``Things
may develop faster than we imagined. The aftermath of the collapse of
American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents is
noteworthy.''
When the speaker of the Iraq General Assembly came to Washington
about 6 weeks ago, four of us went to hear him; and he repeatedly said,
there is no other option. When Members of this body went on January 30
to the first election in Iraq, there were two things that they said to
our Members: one, you cannot have purple ink on your finger because you
are not an Iraqi; and, two, do not abandon us.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of a democracy and freedom in Iraq.
If we were to cut and run like they expect us to do, then what is going
to happen is the 2,000-plus Americans who have died and given their
lives for freedom will be for naught.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we defeat this resolution on the floor today
and show those men and women that are watching us on TV that we support
what they are doing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentlewoman, if she wants to honor our
troops, then give us a real debate. Do not bring this piece of garbage
to the floor with an hour left at the end of the day. This is not
honoring our troops. We are doing them a disservice. You are
politicizing this war, and it is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for me as an American, as
a Member of Congress, to see that we have reached a point that those
who want to be critical of the President's entrance into this war and
how it is being conducted now have to be called cowards and we are
cutting and running and we are not deserving of being called Americans.
The vicious attacks that are taking place by people who never served
their country is really something that is really painful.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has earned the right to
have an opinion. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has
served this country. The gentleman has served not only in the Army but
he served right here in this Congress. And what is he up against? Who
are these people making these dirty, nasty remarks against his
character and those who support him? They are people who say that we
are going to stay in this war until we win; that we are going to fight
and die in this war until we win; and we are not going to leave until
we win and not one day sooner.
Fight who? Who is going to surrender? What are the conditions? If you
can be critical of what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is
going to say, how can you not be critical of the confused way in which
we are getting involved in this war where we do not know what the enemy
looks like, we do not know what flag they carry, we do not know who is
going to surrender.
It is time for us to be civil. If you want to be concerned about our
troops, you have to be concerned about why they are there. And for the
President of the United States on Veterans Day, the day that all of us
veterans hold so true
[[Page H10963]]
and that brings us together, to attack his political opponents on that
day and then to send out with his tuxedo-clad Vice President as someone
to attack other people, other Americans, this is a sad day.
But the bottom line is if you love these troops like the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) loves these troops, you will be
supporting this legislation.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman on the other side complained about not having enough
time to discuss this resolution. We will have a minimum, Mr. Speaker,
of 3 hours. We are debating right now the same-day rule. Then we will
debate the rule on House Resolution 571 and then have the debate on the
resolution itself. So there will be plenty of time for Members on both
sides of the aisle to express their opinions on this hugely important
issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has a lot of passion;
and when a lot of passion is embracing an issue, things are said that
are very harsh and I think at times untrue.
Earlier we heard that there were quote/unquote dirty, nasty remarks
against him, referring to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
No one is saying that about the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha). The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has a great deal
of respect on both sides of the aisle and across the Nation.
This resolution is very simple. It is expressing a sense of the
House. It has three lines to it. It says: ``Resolved, that it is the
sense of the House of Representatives that deployment of United States
forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.''
We are in a war for the Free World, and I think part of what we have
to do and understand is the enemy himself. Al Qaeda is not fighting for
a religion. They are fighting for political power by using a religion.
Their targets on Americans, Jews, secular Muslims, and other Islamists
like Shiites and Sunni Muslims.
They have killed and maimed innocent men and women and children from
many faiths and walks of life. Their goals are measured in steps that
include Iraq and every country from Spain to the Philippines, all under
one theocratic government.
They oppose the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to
vote, women's rights, education for women, religious freedom. They
oppose music, movies, even the right to choose your own clothing, your
own education, even who gets to drive. They despise who we are and what
we stand for as Americans. And it is spelled out on their Web sites,
their videos, their cassette tapes. It is written in their material. It
is on the laptops that we have captured, and it is undeniable.
Al Qaeda's goals are confirmed in a letter on July 9, 2005, from
Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Al-Zawahiri is the number
two man in al Qaeda, the spiritual leader of Osama bin Laden, his
advisor. Al-Zarqawi is al Qaeda's director of jihadist attacks. He has
been in Iraq since before Operation Iraq Freedom.
In this letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's director of
jihadist attacks, al-Zawahiri says, We have four goals. The very first
goal is to expel Americans from Iraq.
If this resolution were to pass today, it would be headline news on
al Jazeera TV. They would declare victory in al Qaeda, and it would
jeopardize every American across the face of the globe. We have to
decide where this battle is going to take place. Is it going to be in
Iraq where every American carries a gun, or will it be on the streets
of New York and Washington, D.C.
I say we vote this resolution down for the safety of our troops and
our citizens.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if people do not like this resolution,
they can vote against the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
Earlier today, the Democratic members of the House Intelligence
Committee issued a letter to the chairman of our committee protesting
his decision to shut down a bipartisan investigation into the
intelligence failures that led us into war. Failure to learn from the
mistakes of the past is an abdication of our responsibility to the
American people and dangerous for our country. If we do not learn
lessons, we will repeat mistakes.
It is likewise the responsibility of this House to conduct rigorous
oversight over our policy in Iraq. There is now broad consensus in the
country that we need to change course.
{time} 1645
Many of us have offered thoughtful suggestions to do just that.
Let me be clear, it is not our troops who have failed. They are
performing heroically, as are our intelligence personnel. A month ago,
on my most recent visit to Iraq, I had dinner with troops from
California who are part of Task Force Baghdad. They are doing an
outstanding job.
Reasonable people can differ on whether we should redeploy troops in
6 months or 16 months and what events should drive that redeployment,
but today we stand united that a change of course is urgently needed.
We stand united behind the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha),
our colleague, a 37-year veteran who has had his patriotism attacked by
the White House, but who is not backing down, and we stand united that
the Republican leadership should not use a stunt like this to score
political points.
In case anyone missed it, the terrorists do not care whether we are
Democrats or Republicans. They are not going to check our party
registration before they blow us up.
I take a back seat to no one in my efforts to craft bipartisan
solutions to problems. Iraq policy is failing, and it is time for this
House to be bipartisan as the Senate was earlier this week, and it is
way past time for this White House to give us a serious strategy and to
clarify its intentions with respect to no permanent bases, no design on
Iraqi oil, and a plan to help build true power sharing among the ethnic
factions and true operational capability in the Iraqi security forces.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This resolution is
intended to divide us, to put partisanship in the way of patriotism.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I must say, Scoop Jackson must be spinning in his grave.
The late Democrat Senate leader would be shocked to see his party has
now been taken over by Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan and the radical
extremists on the left who do not like George Bush so much that now
they are going to put danger to our troops by siding with the
terrorists that it is time for an immediate pullout.
I plan to vote ``no'' on the Democrat resolution for immediate
pullout. I think it is irresponsible, and it definitely sends the wrong
message to our troops.
I represent the 3rd Infantry Division. I am proud to represent the
3rd Infantry Division. I know many of these soldiers. I have dealt with
them. I have gone to their funerals. I have gone to their services, and
I would like to quote what the leading General said, General Webster,
yesterday, who is in charge of the 3rd Infantry, the troops on the
ground, and I am proud to say is a friend of mine, and I am proud to
say is an extremely thoughtful and patriotic, brave American. General
Webster said, in response to the Democrat call for immediate
withdrawal, ``Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost
this year, that their lives would have been lost in vain.''
He continued to say that Iraq's armed factions would likely take a
cue from a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal to lie low, gathering their
strength and laying plans for renewed conflict as soon as Americans
leave. In fact, the Democrat Party now seems to be taking their cue
from France: Lose, leave and wait.
The Democrats seem to want to cut and run and dishonor the sacrifices
of those who are doing such a great job already. The President has
said, and as much as the Democrats hate sometimes, it appears, the
President's policies, he said, ``Our strategy is to clear, hold, and
build.''
What have we done is we have rounded up 116 al Qaeda rulers. A number
of tips from the indigenous folks on the ground have risen from 442 in
February
[[Page H10964]]
to 3,341 today. That is cooperation by the Iraqis themselves. We have
trained 210,000 Iraqi security forces, and we have more than 20
operating bases that are ready that they are doing a good job of. We
have rebuilt 3,404 schools, 304 water and sewer treatment facilities,
257 fire/police stations, and 149 health services. This is progress.
Mr. Speaker, they just overwhelmingly passed a resolution adopting a
new Constitution October 15, and in December, they are going to have
their own elections for their own government. That is progress. Do not
cut and run. Stand firm with our troops.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. McGOVERN. The gentleman from Georgia just referred to this as a
Democratic resolution. I would like to inquire of the Chair if he knows
who introduced this legislation.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman stated a parliamentary
inquiry.
The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from Massachusetts has
stated a parliamentary inquiry. The chair can only identify the Member
who introduced the legislation, which was Congressman Hunter.
Mr. McGOVERN. Congressman Hunter, a Republican?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have served in this House for 22 years,
all of them on the House Armed Services Committee, and my esteem for
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the wisdom he has
accrued over defense and military matters has increased every year. He
is a real American. He is a patriot. He is a marine. He is the best
embodiment of Semper Fidelis that I have ever known.
He made a proposal yesterday that I, myself, do not fully agree, but
I have profound respect for the man who made it, and I watched the pain
that he experienced as he agonizingly laid out what the conclusions
were that he had come to. To take this proposal and trash it,
trivialize it is outrageous. To treat Jack Murtha this way, a great
American, a wonderful patriot, is beneath contempt.
This resolution takes a profound issue we face, whether and when we
wage war, and makes it another cheap pawn in the political process. You
present a resolution that purports to be a facsimile or proxy of Jack
Murtha's resolution when it is nothing of the kind, nothing of the
kind, and then you dare to call it something it is not, a Democratic
resolution.
This is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, and all I can say is, at long last,
have you no shame?
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the
time.
I believe it is imperative in this body that we have an open and
frank dialogue on issues that are of concern to us. I am disturbed and
disappointed, frankly, by some of the rhetoric I have heard, because we
are judged and we are acquitted and/or we are found guilty by those
words, but the luxury we have is they are simply words here.
The impact of those words, though, on the other side of the ocean, in
the AOR, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that in this small world, not only
do our friends but also our enemies watch, and they do not understand
our concept of openness, of tolerance, of free speech and spirited
dialogue.
Indeed, sometimes remarks that have been made in this Chamber have
been used for the recruiting of suicide bombers. I think that one
thing, and I would have to say quite candidly, is in our oversight: It
is also important that we have oversight on our own words.
The comments that were made yesterday by a man with a distinguished
military record, who I do not fault one bit, fly in the face of the
comments of hundreds of soldiers, ranging from junior enlisted
personnel across the AOR to my West Point classmates who are commanding
brigades on the ground and disagree categorically, based on the phone
calls that I got last night, including one from the commander of
America's premier counterterrorism organization, who asked what in the
world was happening here to make those kind of comments to encourage
our enemies.
However, remarks irresponsibly given, not based on facts, simply do
this: They place policy over politics while our young men and women are
on the front line and unwittingly cooperates with and emboldens our
enemies.
Liberal leadership has stated that they do not have a policy on Iraq,
as one of your leaders said yesterday, but will have one in an
appropriate time, I am sure in time for the 2006 election.
Because we are accountable for our words, I urge a yes on this rule
to bring this resolution to the floor so the time for tough talking
will end, and there will be accountability. If people want to make hard
statements, they can be accountable for their words because of this.
Because of our words, our troops are going to endure the consequences
of those statements, and I urge all of you to be accountable for the
statements that have been made.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I do so
because it does not seem to me reasonable to bring us into a debate
over a very serious issue where our young men and women are in harm's
way without hearings, without giving it any thought, without any
careful thinking or examination, but thrusting it, thrusting us into
voting on a resolution that is, as the gentleman from Georgia said,
three lines long.
In Texas we have saying that ``this dog don't hunt,'' and it does not
hunt. This political strategy speaks to an observation that was made to
us in a hearing recently by General Kelley from the Army. He said, We
are a Nation at war. We are a Nation at war except in Washington, DC.
We are not a Nation sharing the sacrifice. Nothing exemplifies his
testimony better than the so-called debate here on this rule.
In August, we honored four soldiers that are recipients of Purple
Hearts, and one of the sergeants told me, Congressman, does anybody in
Washington understand that we have a flawed strategy where we are being
subjected to a mentality of ``The Charge of The Light Brigade?''
So I went back and I looked up ``The Charge of The Light Brigade'' by
Lord Tennyson, and I will just read a portion of it:
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred,
`Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
`Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Every day our men and women are riding convoys into that valley of
death. Shame on us for this resolution. Vote against it.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues are coming down
here and accusing us of slandering our friend and fellow Member, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and that is absurd. It is not
about him, and it is not about any of us. It is about foreign policy
and national security, and, quite frankly, this idea on the left that
we can and should immediately withdraw is not only a bad idea, it is
dangerous. How do you tell a 19-year-old American, fighting, bleeding
for their country, that it is all pointless? How dare you do such a
thing?
You may not agree with the way things are being managed, but do not
minimize the importance of what we are doing in Iraq. You all on the
left opened up this debate. I think they have been itching for a fight
for a long time from the way their comments have sounded, and now they
would like
[[Page H10965]]
to sneak out of the room and avoid this topic.
The left in Congress wants a debate on the idea of immediate
withdrawal, and since they have been wanting it, we are going to have
it. The left wanted to go out. They wanted to talk about this with no
regard for the big picture, with no regard for constituents, who have
families, who are fighting. Well, now, we are going to have to stand
here, they are going to have to stand here. And they are going to take
the heat and take the debate.
We are fighting because we do not want our kids living in a world
dominated by terrorism. We are fighting for freedom.
{time} 1700
The left works real hard to isolate Iraq from the Middle East and
from the global war on terrorism. The left actually thinks terrorists
separate Iraq from the war on terrorism.
We know that is not true. We know it is not true.
I do not believe America is willing to give up on what is the war for
the Free World. I do not think they are willing to give up on the war
for the Free World.
The left wanted the debate. Let us have the debate. They are going to
lose the debate. The American people have stronger backbones than the
radical left.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman who just spoke keeps on talking about how the
Democrats want to call for immediate withdrawal without providing for
the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops and the protection of our
troops. Only Mr. Hunter, the Republican from California, has called for
that in his resolution. None of us have called for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from Pennsylvania
spoke with courage and conviction about the war in Iraq, and there is
no one in this body who knows more about our national defense and has
devoted more of his life to our troops and our security than Jack
Murtha. But evidently his speech has prompted this stunt that the
Republicans are pulling here to force a vote on a resolution never
considered by any committee.
Well, I must tell the Members that like the intelligence that led to
war, the resolution before this body is a fake. Republicans are
describing this resolution as a Murtha resolution, but it is not his
language and differs in key ways from his proposal.
One of the points Mr. Murtha raised yesterday was the misuse of
intelligence on Iraq. He called the war a flawed policy wrapped in
illusion. Like Mr. Murtha, I voted for that war. And like him, I have
profound concerns about the intelligence, that it was warped and
twisted to justify an invasion.
My concerns are deeply personal. I voted for the war resolution
because the President said Iraq would soon brandish nuclear bombs; and
like millions of Americans, I was misled.
I raised concerns about the nuclear intelligence in a letter to the
President on March 17, 2003, before any bullets were fired and before
the war started, and I am going to attach this letter to my statement,
but I want to read a part of it.
I wrote: ``Dear, Mr. President, in the last 10 days, it has become
incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and others in
the administration have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain
nuclear weapons is a hoax. The evidence in question is correspondence
that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an
African country. For several months this evidence has been a central
part of the U.S. case against Iraq. It has now been conceded that this
evidence was a forgery. Even more troubling, the CIA, which has been
aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence
as reliable.
``The implications of this fact are profound. It means that a key
part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that
your own intelligence experts do not believe is credible. It is hard to
imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious
explanations, knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence, both have
immediate and serious implications.''
I made that request 2\1/2\ years ago, and I am still waiting for an
answer. The President has never explained how forged evidence could
become a cornerstone in the case for the war on Iraq.
Yesterday, the gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke with courage and
conviction about the war in Iraq. There is no one in this body who
knows more about our national defense--and who has devoted more of his
life--to our troops and our security than Jack Murtha.
His speech has prompted this stunt by the Republicans to force a vote
on a resolution never considered by any committee. Like the
intelligence that led the Nation to war, the resolution before this
body is a fake. Republicans are describing this resolution as the
Murtha resolution. But it is not his language and differs in key ways
from his proposal.
One of the points Mr. Murtha raised yesterday was the misuse of the
intelligence on Iraq. He called the war ``a flawed policy wrapped in
illusion.''
Like Mr. Murtha, I voted for the war. And like him, I have profound
concerns about how the intelligence was warped and twisted to justify
an invasion.
My concerns are deeply personal. I voted for the war resolution
because the President said Iraq would soon brandish nuclear bombs. And
like millions of Americans, I was misled.
I raised concerns about the nuclear intelligence in a letter to the
President on March 17, 2003--before any bullets were fired and before
the war started. I ask unanimous consent to introduce this letter into
the Record.
I wrote:
Dear Mr. President: . . . In the last ten days, it has
become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence
you and other Administration officials have cited regarding
Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. . . .
The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates
that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African
country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a
central part of the -U.S. case against Iraq. . . . [I]n your
State of the Union address, you stated: ``The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery.
. . . Even more troubling, . . . the CIA, which has been
aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the
evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are
profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been
building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence
experts . . . do not believe is credible.
It is hard to imagine how this situation could have
developed. The two most obvious explanations--knowing
deception or unfathomable incompetence--both have immediate
and serious implications.
I made that request 2\1/2\ years ago. And I am still waiting for an
answer. The President has never explained how forged evidence could
become a cornerstone of the case for war in Iraq.
And this body has been part of the cover-up. We've averted our eyes
and shut down our oversight committees. The Washington Republicans who
run this body are afraid to ask questions and embarrass the President.
They have abrogated their solemn constitutional obligations to hold the
executive branch accountable for its abuses.
As the ranking Democrat on the House Committee in charge of oversight
and investigations, I have requested hearings to review:
(1) The way intelligence was manipulated by people in this
administration. On my website--www.reform.democrats.house.gov_there is
a report of 237 misleading and inaccurate statements made by the
President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Defense and the
National Security Adviser, based on what they knew at the time and not
what we learned later.
(2) An investigation of prison treatment by the U.S. after Abu Graib.
(3) An investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame for
political purposes, even though it jeopardized our national security.
(4) An investigation of the secret meetings Vice President Cheney had
with energy executives regarding our energy policy.
The Republicans should do the work required under our Constitution--
do the oversight to provide the checks and balances to avoid a
concentration of power in an imperial and out of touch administration.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2003.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing regarding a matter of
grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon
initiate the first preemptive war in our nation's history.
The most persuasive justification for this war is that we
must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.
[[Page H10966]]
In the last ten days, however, it has become
incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and
other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq's
efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What's more, the
Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the
evidence at the same time you and other Administration
officials were citing it in public statements. This is a
breach of the highest order, and the American people are
entitled to know how it happened.
As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution
condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite
serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I
believed congressional approval would significantly improve
the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I
believed that you had access to reliable intelligence
information that merited deference.
Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by
your views about Iraq's nuclear intentions. Although chemical
and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument
for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of
Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is
why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many
have looked to you for honest and credible information on
Iraq's nuclear capability.
The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates
that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African
country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a
central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19,
the State Department filed a response to Iraq's disarmament
declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State
Department response stated: ``The Declaration ignores efforts
to procure uranium from Niger.'' A month later, in your State
of the Union address, you stated: ``The British government
has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa.'' Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing
reporters.
It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery.
On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence
that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was ``not
authentic.'' As subsequent media accounts indicated, the
evidence contained ``crude errors,'' such as a ``childlike
signature'' and the use of stationary from a military
government in Niger that has been out of power for over a
decade.
Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware
of this information since 2001, has never regarded the
evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are
profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been
building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence
experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is
credible.
It is hard to imagine how this situation could have
developed. The two most obvious explanations--knowing
deception or unfathomable incompetence--both have immediate
and serious implications. It is thus imperative that you
address this matter without delay and provide an alternative
explanation, if there is one.
The rest of this letter will explain my concerns in detail.
Use of the Evidence by U.S. Officials
The evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from an
African country was first revealed by the British government
on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair
released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons
of mass destruction. As the New York Times reported in a
front-page article, one of the two ``chief new elements'' in
the report was the claim that Iraq had ``sought to acquire
uranium in Africa that could be used to make nuclear
weapons.''
This evidence subsequently became a significant part of the
U.S. case against Iraq. On December 7, Iraq filed its weapons
declaration with the United Nations Security Council. The
U.S. response relied heavily on the evidence that Iraq had
sought to obtain uranium from Africa.
For example, this is how the New York Times began its
front-page article on December 13 describing the U.S.
response:
``American intelligence agencies have reached a preliminary
conclusion that Iraq's 12,000 page declaration of its weapons
program fails to account for chemical and biological agents
missing when inspectors left Iraq four years ago, American
officials and United Nations diplomats said today.
``In addition, Iraq's declaration on its nuclear program,
they say, leaves open a host of questions. Among them is why
Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa in recent years.''
The official U.S. response was provided on December 19,
when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the
Security Council. As the Los Angeles Times reported, ``A one-
page State Department fact sheet . . . lists what Washington
considers the key omissions and deceptions in Baghdad's Dec.
7 weapons declaration.'' One of the eight ``key omissions and
deceptions'' was the failure to explain Iraq's attempts to
purchase uranium from an African country.
Specifically, the State Department fact sheet contains the
following points under the heading ``Nuclear Weapons'': ``The
Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.
Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?'' A
copy of this fact sheet is enclosed with this letter.
The Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa were deemed
significant enough to be included in your State of the Union
address to Congress. You stated: ``The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa.'' As the Washington Post
reported the next day, ``the president seemed quite specific
as he ticked off the allegations last night, including the
news that Iraq had secured uranium from Africa for the
purpose of making nuclear bombs.''
A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told
reporters at a news briefing that Iraq ``recently was
discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from
Africa.''
Knowledge of the Unreliability of the Evidence
The world first learned that the evidence linking Iraq to
attempts to purchase uranium from Africa was forged from the
Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. On March 7, Director ElBaradei
reported to the U.N. Security Council: ``Based on thorough
analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of
outside experts, that these documents--which formed the basis
for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and
Niger--are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded
that these specific allegations are unfounded.''
Recent accounts in the news media have provided additional
details. According to the Washington Post, the faked evidence
included ``a series of letters between Iraqi agents and
officials in the central African nation of Niger.'' The
article stated that the forgers ``made relatively crude
errors that eventually gave them away--including names and
titles that did not match up with the individuals who held
office at the time the letters were purportedly written.''
CNN reported: ``one of the documents purports to be a letter
signed by Tandjia Mamadou, the president of Niger, talking
about the uranium deal with Iraq. On it [is] a childlike
signature that is clearly not his. Another, written on paper
from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of
October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had
not been foreign minister of Niger for 14 years.''
U.S. intelligence officials had doubts about the veracity
of the evidence long before Director ElBaradei's report. The
Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that ``the CIA first
heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in
late 2001'' when ``the existence of the documents was
reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand.'' The Los
Angeles Times quotes one CIA official as saying: ``We
included that in some of our reporting, although it was all
caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that
information.'' The Washington Post reported on March 13:
``The CIA . . . had questions about `whether they were
accurate,' said one intelligence official, and it decided not
to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure
weapons of mass destruction.''
There have been suggestions by some Administration
officials that there may be other evidence besides the forged
documents that shows Iraq tried to obtain uranium from an
African country. For instance, CIA officials recently stated
that ``U.S. concerns regarding a possible uranium agreement
between Niger and Iraq were not based solely on the documents
which are now known to be fraudulent.'' The CIA provided this
other information to the IAEA along with the forged
documents. After reviewing this complete body of evidence,
the IAEA stated: ``we have found to date no evidence or
plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons
programme in Iraq.'' Ultimately, the IAEA concluded that
``these specific allegations are unfounded.''
questions
These facts raise troubling questions. It appears that at
the same time that you, Secretary Rumsfeld, and State
Department officials were citing Iraq's efforts to obtain
uranium from Africa as a crucial part of the case against
Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials regarded this very same
evidence as unreliable. If true, this is deeply disturbing:
it would mean that your Administration asked the U.N.
Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to
rely on information that your own experts knew was not
credible.
Your statement to Congress during the State of the Union,
in particular, raises a host of questions. The statement is
worded in a way that suggests it was carefully crafted to be
both literally true and deliberately misleading at the same
time. The statement itself--``The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa''--may be technically
accurate, since this appears to be the British position. But
given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you
intended--that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought
uranium from Africa--was simply false.
To date, the White House has avoided explaining why the
Administration relied on this forged evidence in building its
case against Iraq. The first Administration response, which
was provided to the Washington Post, was ``we fell for it.''
But this is no longer credible in light of the information
from the CIA. Your spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked about
this issue at a White House news briefing on March 14, but
[[Page H10967]]
as the following transcript reveals, he claimed ignorance and
avoided the question:
Q: Ari, as the president said in his State of the Union
address, the British government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium
from Africa. And since then, the IAEA said that those were
forged documents----
Mr. Fleischer: I'm sorry, whose statement was that?
Q: The President, in his State of the Union address. Since
then, the IAEA has said those were forged documents. Was the
administration aware of any doubts about these documents, the
authenticity of the documents, from any government agency or
department before it was submitted to the IAEA?
Mr. Fleisher: These are matters that are always reviewed
with an eye toward the various information that comes in and
is analyzed by a variety of different people. The President's
concerns about Iraq come from multiple places, involving
multiple threats that Iraq can possess, and these are matters
that remain discussed.
``Thank you [end of briefing].
Plainly, more explanation is needed. I urge you to provide
to me and to the relevant committees of Congress a full
accounting of what you knew about the reliability of the
evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew
this, and why you and senior officials in the Administration
presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the
Congress, and the American people without disclosing the
doubts of the CIA. In particular, I urge you to address:
(1) Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about
the credibility of the forged evidence to other
Administration officials, including officials in the
Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National
Security Council, and the White House;
(2) Whether the CIA had any input into the ``Fact Sheet''
distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and
(3) Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of
the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium
from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the
statement.
Given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate an
expeditious response to these questions.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Ranking Minority Member.
____
Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the
United Nations Security Council
Anthrax and Other Undeclared Biological Agents
The UN Special Commission concluded that Iraq did not
verifiably account for, at a minimum, 2160kg of growth media.
This is enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax--3 times
the amount Iraq declared; 1200 liters of botulinum toxin;
and, 5500 liters of clostridium perfrigens--16 times the
amount Iraq declared.
Why does the Iraqi declaration ignore these dangerous
agents in its tally?
Ballistic Missiles
Iraq has disclosed manufacturing new energetic fuels suited
only to a class of missile to which it does not admit.
Iraq claims that flight-testing of a larger diameter
missile falls within the 150km limit. This claim is not
credible.
Why is the Iraqi regime manufacturing fuels for missiles it
says it does not have?
Nuclear Weapons
The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from
Niger.
Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?
VX
In 1999, UN Special Commission and international experts
concluded that Iraq needed to provide additional, credible
information about VX production.
The declaration provides no information to address these
concerns.
What is the Iraqi regime trying to hide by not providing
this information?
Chemical and Biological Weapons Munitions
In January 1999, the UN Special Commission reported that
Iraq failed to provide credible evidence that 550 mustard
gas-filled artillery shells and 400 biological weapon-capable
aerial bombs had been lost or destroyed.
The Iraqi regime has never adequately accounted for
hundreds, possibly thousands, of tons of chemical precursors.
Again, what is the Iraqi regime trying to hide by not
providing this information?
Empty Chemical Munitions
There is no adequate accounting for nearly 30,000 empty
munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.
Where are these munitions?
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Programs
Iraq denies any connection between UAV programs and
chemical or biological agent dispersal. Yet, Iraq admitted in
1995 that a MIG-21 remote-piloted vehicle tested in 1991 was
to carry a biological weapon spray system.
Iraq already knows how to put these biological agents into
bombs and how to disperse biological agent using aircraft or
unmanned aerial vehicles.
Why do they deny what they have already admitted? Why has
the Iraqi regime acquired the range and auto-flight
capabilities to spray biological weapons?
Mobile Biological Weapon Agent Facilities
The Iraqi declaration provides no information about its
mobile biological weapon agent facilities. Instead it insists
that these are ``refrigeration vehicles and food testing
laboratories.''
What is the Iraqi regime trying to hide about their mobile
biological weapon facilities?
Summary
None of these holes and gaps in Iraq's declaration are mere
accidents, editing oversights or technical mistakes: they are
material omissions.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let us make it clear that this is not a stunt. It is not an attack on
an individual. It is a very legitimate question. Jack Murtha is a
distinguished veteran. He is a good friend. We have joined together on
many more defense issues than we have been apart on, and he has got an
excellent background in defense, and he has every right to take the
position that he has taken. We are all masters of our own opinion and
our own position, and he studied this issue, and that is his position.
The reason I think it is important for this House to speak now before
we break for a couple of weeks is because the impression has gone out
around the world, carried on international news agencies, U.S. news
agencies to friends and foes alike. The impression has gone out that
Congress is withdrawing its support of the mission in Iraq. And if we
look at the Washington Post and look at the front page, that is
precisely what we see. If we looked at the headline on CNN and many
other of the electronic news media, that is what we see.
But more importantly, it is not just important as to what our allies
think or what our adversaries think. The most important people on this
stage are the people wearing the uniform of the United States. And
people who are reading the media, watching the media, those 140,000
personnel presently stationed in Iraq are obviously getting an
impression about the United States Congress and its position with
respect to all of the publicity that has emanated not just from this
body and statements that have gone out from this body but also from the
other body that happened just a couple of days ago and the headline
stories that emanated from that.
Now, all of us, and I can just say as the chairman of my committee,
we have held lots of hearings, lots of briefings. We held full House
briefings for every Member of the House, Democrat and Republican, where
they could ask our intelligence officers, with no handlers from the
White House present, every single question that they wanted to have
answered. We have had full briefings on armor, on troop deployments, on
operations. Everybody here is competent to answer this question: Should
we terminate our deployment in Iraq?
Now, of all the issues that we have studied over the last year or so
that we have been working on, this is certainly one that we all have a
background in now. Nobody can complain now that they have been duped
and therefore this is not a real question or a solid question or an
important question to answer. So we are going to let every Member
answer that, and I hope that the message that goes back to our troops
in Iraq, and I know that the message that will go back to our troops in
Iraq, is that we do not support a precipitous pullout from Iraq, and
that will do more to restore their morale than anything else this
Congress could do.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Can I inquire of the gentleman from California how he intends to vote
on the resolution that he has introduced that does not provide for the
protection of our troops?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against a precipitous
termination of our deployment in Iraq.
Mr. McGOVERN. You are going to vote against the Hunter amendment.
[[Page H10968]]
Thank you for voting against your own amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. But I am going to allow you to vote ``yes.''
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members
that it is improper to walk in front of a Member speaking in the well.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the troops in this country are going to be
surprised to find out that the Republican chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee filed a resolution saying that it is the sense of
the House of Representatives, apparently as he sees it, that the
deployment of the United States forces in Iraq be terminated
immediately. Apparently, the Republican chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee thinks that we should not have an orderly withdrawal
of the troops, thinks that we should not provide for their safety and
protection on the withdrawal, thinks that we should not do the things
that Mr. Murtha suggested that we do.
It is either that, sir, or they are going to think that this is some
sort of a trick, that you filed this so that we would have been looking
at something that Mr. Murtha did not want us to look at. Because if you
are concerned about what the message is that the troops are getting in
Iraq, you would, in fact, have a full-fledged debate here so that Mr.
Murtha and other Members of both parties could express clearly and
succinctly what it is they believe ought to happen in terms of policy.
But that is not what we are seeing here. You should have a chance for
Mr. Murtha to discuss his idea on protecting the troops when there is a
redeployment or redeploying to over the horizon so that there will not
be a spread of terrorism, of making sure that any redeployment is made
with the protection and the safety of the troops. But I do not think
that is what is going on here.
You talk about your respect for Mr. Murtha. You talk about his known
knowledge for the military, and yet it is you, sir, who comes down here
and says that the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee proposes that the House of Representatives put their
statement and their resolve that we should deploy immediately from Iraq
and not protect our troops, apparently, because it does not say that,
and not provide for their safety, not provide for redeployment
somewhere over the horizon so that we will be sure that terrorism does
not spread there and we will be ready for any emergency.
If instead you want the troops to get the message that that is not
what we want, then why did you not work with your delegation over there
to make sure that Mr. Murtha's resolution could be proposed and debated
and explained fully and then this country could have the benefit of a
full discussion of where the policy is going, because this
administration, apparently, has no clue and has no idea. They
politicized the lead-up going into the area, and now you are
politicizing how it is we are going to get this country back in order
and out of there.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would also advise Members to
address their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
And let me make this point: that the resolution is written in
precisely the way that I think describes the essence of the publicity
that has emanated from Washington, D.C. This is a message that has been
sent to our troops; and if you look at the e-mails coming in, I think
the question is well described, and I think that it manifests what a
lot of people now think, especially uniformed people in the Iraq
theater, and it is precisely the question before the House that the
gentleman will have an absolute right to vote on; and I would hope that
this is not Mr. Murtha's position. He will have a chance to vote ``no''
on it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand it to ever be the habit
of this institution for a Member on one side taking it upon himself to
interpret the meaning of a resolution of a Member on the other side
without giving that Member the courtesy and the respect of allowing
them to put forward what the meaning and intention of their own
resolution is. I think, sir, you are playing games.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate to my friend, he said
this should not be about Mr. Murtha, and it is not about Mr. Murtha. It
is about the message that has been sent around the world, as evidenced
by e-mails coming back in from our troops now who think that the
Congress is pulling the rug out from under the mission.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask Members to respect the
gavel and the time yielded.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know a single Democrat who supports the Hunter
resolution that would basically provide for the immediate withdrawal
without the protection for our troops. This is a counterfeit. This is
an insult to this institution. And to not allow us to have a real
debate, to not allow us to bring up different proposals, I think,
undercuts the process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from
California why he introduced a counterfeit Murtha resolution rather
than allowing us to vote on the real Murtha resolution, if he wanted us
to vote at all.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me answer my friend.
This is a letter from an army captain in Iraq. He says in this e-
mail: ``I am a U.S. Army captain currently serving in Iraq, and I am
shocked and appalled by Rep Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal.
Please, please, please convince your colleague to let us finish this
critical job. He is correct that the deployments and service and
casualties are hard on all of us. He is wrong about what is
demoralizing to us. What is demoralizing is a Congress which no longer
stands behind our mission.''
That is why we are offering this resolution. That is obviously the
message that is going out to thousands of servicemen around the world.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For 24 hours you maligned a great Member of this House, a decorated
Vietnam War veteran. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
{time} 1715
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in response to the speech of one decorated
veteran of this institution, the Republican chairman of the Committee
on Armed Services has taken this position of that Member, and he has
written this abbreviated, interpreted version which mischaracterizes
the position of Mr. Murtha. This is signed by Mr. Hunter, and it has a
number on it. Just think of the mischief al-Zarqawi can do with this
when he puts it on the Internet. We have a signed document from the
Chair of the--chairman of the Committee on Armed Services asking for
immediate withdrawal.
Now, I have an e-mail, too. We all get them. This is from the
president of the Oregon War Veterans Association, who did disagree with
Mr. Murtha and knows my position against the war. He said, ``I am
writing not only to thank you for your service, but also to ask you to
be cautious about politicizing the war effort in Iraq. It is our
determination to keep our servicemembers safe from injury that may come
from pure partisan political sabotage,'' and if a fabricated document
fabricating the position of the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee with his signature on it which is now winging its way around
the world is not pure partisan political sabotage, I do not know what
is.
If you have good sense, you will withdraw this resolution. We will
even give you unanimous consent to do it, Mr.
[[Page H10969]]
Hunter. But if you will not, maybe you can start doing your job: Hold a
few hearings and a little bit of oversight in what is going on in Iraq,
and maybe we can even act like the bipartisan Senate and ask that the
President report to us on his goals, objectives and progress in Iraq.
But none of this has happened in this House. This is the only
substantive action you have taken on Iraq since we went in there, and
you should be awfully ashamed.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to make it clear on my part
that it is impossible to impugn the character of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania because we could not do it if we so intended. Like so many
of our citizen soldiers, their service did not end with their military
career, and they continue to serve our country.
But I would hope that this rule would be adopted because this is a
question that we have all had to answer. My constituents have asked it.
It is incumbent upon me to respond, and I would think it would be no
different today.
But I would hope the consequence of this rule being passed and this
resolution being debated with free vote of conscience on either side of
the aisle is that should it fail, is that we then strive to find a
bipartisan plan for victory in Iraq, and an articulation of our war
aims that can motivate the American people to galvanize behind it. For
if we do not, whatever happens to this resolution, our resolution to
prevail in this cause will be gone, and our cause will be nil, and the
sacrifice will be in vain. Vote for adoption of the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am confused. When I came
here, I was told that the Republicans had put the Murtha resolution on
for debate, and then I saw what they put on. I was just wondering and I
have a question where they got this. Did they, by any chance, get it
from CBS and Dan Rather?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today's debate should be about one thing,
whether or not we believe that this administration and this President
are pursuing sound and competent policy in Iraq. Instead, the
Republican leadership has orchestrated a pathetic, partisan political
ploy in an effort to distract the American people from this
administration's failure in Iraq. The Republican leadership is making a
mockery of Jack Murtha's able and selfless service to his country in a
blatant abuse of power.
This leadership has rushed a resolution to the floor that bears no
resemblance to Jack Murtha's considered position on Iraq. The war is a
matter of life and death for our servicemen and for the people of Iraq,
and this Republican leadership has instead decided to make it a
political power play. This is a disgusting offense to Jack Murtha, to
every one of our veterans, and, most importantly, to all of our brave
men and women serving today.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), our newest Member.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I stood at Arlington National
Cemetery attending the funeral of a young Marine from my district. He
believed what we are doing is the right thing, and had the courage to
lay his life on the line to do it.
A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio
Representative from the 88th District in the House of Representatives.
He asked me to send Congress a message: ``Stay the course.'' * * *
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will report the
words.
{time} 1730
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed at any Member
of the House, and I did not intend to suggest that they applied to any
Member, most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I therefore ask for unanimous consent that my words be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
Mr. SNYDER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the gentlewoman's words. And I accept, as one Member, her offer to have
her words withdrawn. But I encourage all of us here tonight to
recognize the seriousness of what we are about and to choose our words
carefully. Our side is greatly offended by this process. I suspect that
you have a fair number of Members that are not very satisfied with it,
either. My suggestion would be that the resolution be withdrawn and we
come back and discuss it another day.
However, I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman's words
will be stricken.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, in the heart of the spirit of discussion,
I have received many telephone calls and e-mails asking us to show the
world that we do support this effort. That is what we are here about.
That is the debate that is at hand, whether we support this war or that
we do not support this war. My constituents, the world, expect us to
stay the course.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from
Georgia how many more speakers he has on his side.
Mr. GINGREY. I have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my
time for the purpose of closing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close for our side here.
Mr. Speaker, sadly, this Republican resolution is consistent with the
dishonest political way the Republican leadership has acted over the
past 3\1/2\ years. This Congress has not served as a check. It has not
served as a coequal branch of government. This Republican Congress is
only interested in covering up for this administration. We have lost
over 2,000 American men and women in Iraq. Thousands more are wounded.
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in this war effort, our
credibility around the world is at an all-time low, and this is the
best that you can do for our soldiers, this resolution? This is it?
This is our debate on Iraq? This is what the American people get for
all of what they have gone through, all the sacrifices they have made?
As for this legislation by the gentleman from California, which
hasn't had a hearing and hasn't had a markup, if it comes up, I am
going to vote against it. I think all of us are going to vote against
it because it does not provide for the safe and the orderly withdrawal
of our forces. Nobody on this side has said anything other than that.
Let me close with this: to my Republican friends, Jack Murtha isn't
afraid of you. He has faced down a lot worse than some of the pathetic
smears that we have heard from the other side today. And let me be
clear to all of you. If you truly oppose this resolution, if you want
to honor our soldiers, if you want to do your job and hold this
administration accountable, which we are supposed to do, then you
should oppose this rule.
If you oppose the rule, we are not going to have to deal with this
lousy bill. We will come back and do it right. To vote for this rule is
to politicize a war and that is a mistake. All of us whether we are for
this war or against this war, whether Republican or Democrat or liberal
or conservative, we should not want to politicize this war. To do so is
tragic.
Mr. Speaker, by moving ahead with this resolution, we demean the
service of our soldiers. We demean the families who have lost loved
ones in this war. We demean this institution. We need to do our job.
This is not about a game of political gotcha. This is about doing the
right thing, making sure we are on the right course, that we can
disagree about that, but we can respect each other's opinion without
trying to smear one another.
And so I would urge all my colleagues for the sake of collegiality,
for the sake of civility in this House, for
[[Page H10970]]
the sake of doing the right thing for the people of this country and
especially for our troops overseas vote down this rule. Vote down this
rule. Let's end this right now, and let's come back and let's do it
right and let's get the American people what they deserve: a real,
thorough, honest debate and discussion on the war in Iraq.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I close this debate by thanking the various
Members of this body from the chairmen who have shepherded these
legislative initiatives to the conferees whose hard work has given this
House the opportunity to move our legislative agenda forward. While
this process may not be perfect, Mr. Speaker, it is at the end of the
day a process in which Members can work together through compromise and
long hours to complete the work of the American people.
This is good governance; and, Mr. Speaker, good governance is never
easy, but it never should be. This is serious work and the American
people deserve every ounce of our attention and every ounce of our
labor to see their agenda realized. Again, I would like to urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the misguided Hunter
troop withdrawal resolution. How irresponsible this is.
Instead, let me thank Congressman and Marine Jack Murtha.
Thank you for your patriotism.
Thank you for your honorable discernment of duty . . . to America . .
. to our troops . . . to the cause of victory and freedom in Iraq. Your
judicious resolution deserves hearing by the American people, our
troops and this House.
Yesterday, you stood high on this Hill. Your message reached the
American people. And it reached our troops and their commanders. Unlike
the Bush Administration, you have a plan for Iraq. Your plan is real.
It says:
Within six months, redeploy our troops consistent with their safety.
Create a quick reaction force in the region.
Back that up with an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
Push the diplomacy button hard to secure and stabilize Iraq.
You don't want America's soldiers to be viewed as the enemy of
freedom. For indeed they are its champions.
You spoke the truth when you said our soldiers have been made the
victims of freedom in a growing counterinsurgency movement inside Iraq
caused by the Bush-Cheney Administration's bungling, misleading,
distorting and propagandizing of this war.
You were right in letting the American people know that since Abu
Gharib the Bush-Cheney Administration has lost U.S. moral authority in
the Middle East. Since Abu Gharib, American casualties have doubled.
Since last year, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per
week to over 700 last year.
Yes, winning means winning the hearts and minds of the people, over
there, not just here. Victory means political victory as well as
military victory. Our military has done everything asked of them. Our
diplomats have been missing in action. Our troops were not led to
believe that their lives would be lost in a counterinsurgency movement.
Our troops are trained to fight force on force. The challenge America
faces in the Islamic and Arab world is being made worse every day by
the Bush Administration's miscalculations and misreading of the enemy.
Every day, we see the Bush Administration wins us fewer friends.
America will win when the people we are trying to liberate believe we
are their friends, not their enemies. 80% of Iraqis are strongly
opposed to the presence of coalition troops and nearly half of the
Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified.
This is not a prescription for victory. The time for the Murtha Plan to
begin is now.
Thank you Jack Murtha for placing your life in the line of fire for
our troops and for freedom. Your resolution has a right to be heard and
debated as a way forward to freedom.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gingrey
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia:
Add at the end the following:
(5) A resolution relating to U.S. forces in Iraq.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think a number of people on this side of
the aisle and maybe on the other side of the aisle did not hear what
the amendment is. Could it be repeated, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Clerk will re-report
the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk re-reported the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous----
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has offered an amendment to
the resolution. A vote will occur on the amendment to the resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may state her inquiry.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. My inquiry is if this amendment is voted
on, does this mean that the underlying resolution could not be
withdrawn as we would like for it to be so that we can debate in a
civil manner the discussion of our troops in Iraq?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is debating a rule that would
enable the debate of a resolution.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I might restate, if this
resolution is voted on and it succeeds, is there then an opportunity to
have by unanimous consent the resolution itself withdrawn? Does this
block the withdrawal of the resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is uncertain what the gentlewoman
is asking. The rule is under consideration.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate the indulgence of the Speaker.
We have now had an amended rule. My question is----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule has not yet been amended. An
amendment has been proposed.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We may ultimately have it. My question is,
if the rule passes, can we still have the opportunity to have the
actual bill withdrawn?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A measure may be withdrawn from
consideration at any time before the House has acted thereon by
decision or amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is my
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the amendment and on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211,
nays 204, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 606]
YEAS--211
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
[[Page H10971]]
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Beauprez
Berman
Boswell
Boyd
Cunningham
Flake
Fossella
Gallegly
Hall
Jindal
Kind
LaHood
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Towns
{time} 1805
Mr. FORTENBERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable
to vote on H. Res. 563. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________