Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11885-H11893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 612, VICTORY IN IRAQ RESOLUTION

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 619

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 612)
expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to
achieving victory in Iraq. The resolution shall be considered
as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on International Relations; and (2) one motion to recommit
which may not contain instructions.
Sec. 2. On the first legislative day of the second session
of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, the House shall not
conduct organizational or legislative business.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. 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, yesterday was an extraordinary day not only in the
history of Iraq but the history of the world. We saw the third free and
fair election take place in the country of Iraq, and for the first time
in the history of that nation we saw the people of Iraq choose their
own leaders.
On January 30 of this year, there were many people who thought it
could not happen, there were many terrorist attacks, and it actually
was slow in coming. As you will recall, the pictures that we saw of
voting stations where early on no one voted, but ultimately 8.5 million
Iraqis voted to put into place a coalition government that was charged
with the task of fashioning a constitution, a constitution that would
work to bring together the very disparate factions that exist within
Iraq, the three that we know of, the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurdish
populations, and of course the other divisions that exist in the
country.
Mid-summer, we saw the work on that constitution proceed. We saw the
August date approach. There were problems, difficulties. And then we
saw the October 15 election rapidly approach, and people from all over
the world, including leaders of the U.S. forces there, were uncertain
as to whether or not the Iraqi people would in fact ratify their
constitution.
Mr. Speaker, we saw a 64 percent voter turnout, roughly 10 million
Iraqis voting, and 78 percent of the people of Iraq from throughout the
country among all of those three disparate factions within the country
came together and overwhelmingly, with a 78 percent vote, ratified that
constitution. The existence of that constitution called for
parliamentary elections to take place, and for, as I said, the first
time in the nation's history we yesterday saw the Iraqi people choose
their own leaders, a 275-member parliamentary assembly.
Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet the exact outcome of that election,
but there are a number of very important things we do know about
yesterday's election. We thought that there would be wide-ranging
terrorist attacks, when in fact there were very few if any difficulties
with the election at all when it came to attacks. We saw something that
came as a great surprise to so many people, and that was a 70 percent
voter turnout.
Mr. Speaker, 11 million Iraqis voted in this election. If one looks
at where it is that we are headed, it is an amazing testament to what
the United States of America and our Coalition Forces have done.
We, as a body, strongly support our troops; and we, as a body,
strongly support the mission of our troops.

[[Page H11886]]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do, at this point, is share with my
colleagues the resolution that, if we approve this rule, will be
considered. It is a resolution introduced by the very distinguished
chairman of the Committee on International Relations. And I should say
parenthetically that our thoughts and prayers are with Chairman Hyde
right now as he is going through a very difficult situation in his
family. But in his absence, I know that from the International
Relations Committee our colleague from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) came
before the Rules Committee last night and testified on behalf of this
resolution; and she was joined by the distinguished ranking member of
the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Lantos).
The resolution reads as follows, Mr. Speaker: Expressing the
commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in
Iraq.
Whereas, the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take
place under the newly ratified Iraqi constitution, represented a
crucial success in the establishment of a democratic constitutional
order in Iraq.
And whereas, Iraqis who by the millions defied terrorist threats to
vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United
States and Coalition Forces.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that:
1. The United States House of Representatives is committed to
achieving victory in Iraq;
2. The Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for
the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy and a defeat for the
terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;
3. The House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express
solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their
goal of a free, open, and democratic society;
4. The successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the
presence of U.S. Armed Forces, U.S.-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition
Forces;
5. The continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will
be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can
stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;
6. Setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United
States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their
deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is
fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
7. The House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous
sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and
their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition Forces;
and,
8. The House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that with
the support of the American people and the Congress, the United States
Armed Forces, along with the Iraqi and Coalition Forces, shall achieve
victory in Iraq.
That is what House Resolution 612 says, Mr. Speaker; and it is very
clear to me that an overwhelming majority of the House of
Representatives will be supportive of this effort.
Now, I think that it is important for us to also look back at a
number of the charges that have been leveled over the past couple of
years. There was no strategy, no plan for victory in Iraq. We have
constantly heard that from many over the past several months. I got, as
I know all my colleagues did, this 35-page document that was put
forward by the President as he began his campaign in the past several
weeks to enlighten the American people on what our strategy for victory
in Iraq is.
Now, there are many who believe that this is some great revelation,
but the lead page of this 35-page document, Mr. Speaker, refers to a
speech that was delivered 3 weeks, actually about 3\1/2\ weeks, before
we began our military engagement in Iraq.
In February of 2003, President Bush said as follows: ``The United
States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new
government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will
ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis
must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have
their rights protected. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained
commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq
as long as necessary and not a day more.''
Now, that was stated by President Bush on February 26 of 2003, and I
commend this document to my colleagues, in which it refers to the fact
that we have seen extraordinary achievements take place since we began
our effort in Iraq. The impact that it is having on the region is
underreported. The positive salutary effect of what the United States
of America, the Iraqi Security Forces, and our Coalition Forces have
done has had, I believe, an extraordinarily positive impact on nations
like Egypt that for the first time in its history held, as I was told
by the defense minister of Egypt, because of what we have done in Iraq
they held multicandidate elections; in Lebanon where we have seen
people, because of what we have done in Iraq, standing up for the cause
of freedom say that they will give their lives to ensure that the
Syrians do not control their country. So throughout the region we are
seeing very important developments.
Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that we continue to live in
a very dangerous world, and that region of the world is particularly
dangerous. All one needs to do is look at the statement made most
recently this week from Iran's leader about the continued quest towards
undermining the cause of freedom and liberation and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes it very clear. We congratulate the
people of Iraq. We underscore the fact that the Iraqi Security Forces,
the United States of America and our Coalition played a critical role
in finally bringing about the self-determination which the people of
Iraq are now enjoying; and it makes it clear that the region is still a
very dangerous spot on our globe and that any kind of artificial
timetable that were put into effect calling for our withdrawal would
undermine the tremendous successes that we have been able to see over
the past nearly 3 years and, I believe, could jeopardize the future of
these people who are just now getting a taste of the kind of freedom
that we take for granted.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of our committee, for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, last night and this morning, like all my colleagues, I
watched the news reports about the parliamentary elections in Iraq.
This is a proud day for the Iraqi people, and it is fitting that this
Congress, this House of Representatives, recognize the courage of the
Iraqi people, their desire to take control of their own destiny, and
how much they have suffered to achieve this taste of democracy.
As has been stated by so many analysts in the news media, one of the
most important outcomes of this election was the significant
participation for the first time of Iraqi Sunnis in this election, many
of whom, according to news reports, were encouraged to vote, escorted
to the polls or guarded at the polls by armed Iraqi insurgents.
Everyone in the House of Representatives is proud of the Iraqi
people. Everyone in this House respects the efforts made by our
uniformed men and women to help the Iraqi people get to this historic
moment.
This House could have sent a strong unified message to the Iraqi
people, our troops in Iraq, and to the international community in
support of our troops and in support of the brave Iraqi people. But,
Mr. Speaker, once again, as it has so often done in the past, this
Republican leadership has chosen to include controversial language in
this resolution, knowing that it will provoke sharp and divisive debate
over Iraq.

{time} 0930

Rather than choosing to send a united message to the world, the
Republican leadership has cynically and deliberately decided to
highlight our divisions rather than our unity.
Late last night, the ranking member of the House International
Relations Committee, one of the most respected leaders in this House on
human rights, Congressman Tom Lantos, came before the Rules Committee
with a resolution that focused on congratulating the people of Iraq for
three successful elections conducted in Iraq this year. The resolution
further praises our troops

[[Page H11887]]

for their contributions to peace and stability in Iraq. And, Mr.
Speaker, he was rejected out of hand.
Shame on the majority to treat one of the most respected Members of
this body in such a fashion. Shame. Mr. Speaker, there are many points
of view in this House about how the U.S. should proceed in Iraq. Even
among the majority, there are differing points of view. I for one
believe these successful Iraqi elections provide an opportunity for the
United States to change course in Iraq and begin bringing U.S. forces
home. As we pass the 1,000th day of the war in Iraq, I believe we must
begin the transition to putting the Iraqis in charge.
After 3 years of war, the United States claims, for better or for
worse, the elimination of Saddam Hussein from power, and that the
United States has furthered the Iraqi political process, culminating in
the passage of a Constitution and now the first democratic election and
Iraq's first constitutional government.
At this point, plans for a full transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis
demands a change in course, one that puts Iraqis in charge. Iraq can't
move forward with 160,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. Embassy in the
world, and with Iraqi public opinion behind a timetable for withdrawal.
Mr. Speaker, many years ago Vermont Senator George Aiken said of the
disastrous Vietnam war that the United States should declare victory
and go home. Well, the elections in Iraq and the other milestones
constitute a sufficient reason for the United States to declare that it
has done all it can in Iraq, and it is time to reverse the Bush
administration's policies.
President Bush's unwillingness to announce a plan to remove U.S.
troops within a clear time frame and his refusal to renounce the use of
permanent U.S. military bases there undermines his rhetoric about Iraqi
democracy and will undermine the legitimacy of the new Iraqi
Government. Our occupation of Iraq complicates the transition to
democracy. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had it right,
Mr. Speaker, when she said last month that the United States can
support democracy, but we cannot impose democracy. And it is a deadly
combination when democracy is equated with occupation.
While the President continues to give speeches on the war, the
American people have become disenchanted with the administration's Iraq
policies and its failure to disclose a plan for withdrawal. Let us be
clear, Mr. Speaker. The President has a credibility gap when it comes
to Iraq. According to a December 8 New York Times/CBS poll, 59 percent
of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the war
in Iraq, and 70 percent do not believe that he has developed a clear
plan to get American troops out of Iraq.
We have lost more than 2,100 soldiers dead and over 15,000 wounded,
overstretched our military, placed our homeland and those of our allies
at greater risk, and still this President persists in a useless quest
for, quote, victory.
But excuse me, Mr. Speaker, just what is ``victory''? Who defines it?
Who decides when ``victory'' has been achieved in Iraq? Is it the Iraqi
people themselves? Is it President Bush, who has already declared
``mission accomplished''? Is it next year? Or the year after that? Or 5
years or 10 years down the road? Is it when we have lost 3,000 troops
in Iraq? Or 5,000? Or 10-? How many more American troops do we have to
sacrifice? How many more Iraqi lives must be sacrificed before we
decide that ``victory'' has been achieved?
While most Iraqis are confident in yesterday's parliamentary
elections, two-thirds are opposed to the presence of U.S. troops,
according to a poll released on December 12 by ABC News and Time
Magazine. According to news reports, many of the Sunnis turned out in
such large numbers yesterday because they see it as a means to end the
U.S. occupation of their country. Arab voices through the Cairo process
are helping change the dynamic in a positive way and are filling a role
that the U.S. no longer needs to play.
The President must work with the United Nations and Iraq's Arab
neighbors to develop an interim arrangement as American troops depart.
The best way to preserve the gains made so far is to commit to long-
term financing for reconstruction, working with the new Iraqi
Government to set a timetable for withdrawal, and to arrange for an
over-the-horizon troop presence.
The Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this House
should be spending less time on spin and speeches and more time on
preparing for bringing American troops home. The way out of Iraq begins
by genuine respect for the will of the Iraqi people and their desire
for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq. The President can begin to
demonstrate this respect by putting an end to the attempted
manipulation of Iraqi public opinion with fake news written by Pentagon
contractors, the unambiguous announcement that the U.S. will not
maintain permanent military bases there, and the immediate initiation
of a coherent plan for the withdrawal of our forces there. This will
not only give the vast majority of the Iraqi people what they want, but
the new Iraqi Government its strongest chance for success.
Unlike what is stated in this resolution, there is nothing
``artificial'' about this approach. Congress, too, has a responsibility
to take action where the Bush administration falters. Today we should
praise the Iraqi people, but tomorrow this Congress should move to
must-pass legislation to force beginning to bring our forces home.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to these statements made about
public opinion polls, I would like to point to my colleagues the ABC
News poll about which my friend referred. Seventy-one percent of the
Iraqis polled said that their lives were very good or quite good; 61
percent reported the security situation is very good or quite good in
the area where they reside; 64 percent said they expect their lives to
be much or somewhat better a year from now.
I know that my friend from Ohio is introducing a resolution, he spoke
about it earlier today, talking about the independence and the Iraqis
making a choice as far as our presence. The Iraqi President, Jalal
Talabani, made it very clear in an editorial that he wrote in the Wall
Street Journal. He said:
``A timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they
have to do is wait. Military plans must be flexible. We should have the
suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist
threat.''
That is not an American military leader making that statement. That
is the President of Iraq.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, my friend
from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
As a member of the International Relations Committee, I rise in
strong support of this resolution and take a moment to express our
prayers and good wishes to the author of this resolution, who labors at
the side of his namesake at this very hour in a hospice in Illinois.
It is extraordinary day today, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress
that has had the privilege to travel to Operation Iraqi Freedom on
three different occasions, the news that 11 million Iraqis, with Iraqis
on point handling the security during these elections, 70 percent of
Iraqis turned out. It was, in no uncertain terms, a victory for
democracy in Iraq. And it is my privilege and honor to rise this
morning on this floor in support of the rule and the underlying
resolution that confirms this great day in the history of freedom,
December 15, 2005, when millions of Iraqis defied terrorists to say
``yes'' to democracy.
I stand also in support of the affirmative statements in this
resolution that this House of Representatives is committed to achieving
victory in Iraq and sees this election as a crucial victory for the
Iraqi people and a defeat for the terrorists in that country. It is
also in this resolution an effort to state emphatically the rejection
of the wisdom of an artificial time line and also to recognize the
extraordinary sacrifices made by members of the United States Armed
Forces and their families. It is about them that I rise especially
today, Mr. Speaker.
This week at my office in Muncie, Indiana, a group of the citizens
that I

[[Page H11888]]

have the privilege of serving came to protest our military presence in
Iraq, to urge the withdrawal, as some have done and continue to do, of
our forces from this nation. And while it is their right to do so, let
me say emphatically, it is my duty to stand with our Commander in
Chief, to stand with our soldiers in the field, and to stand with the
good people of Iraq until we achieve a total victory for freedom in
this nation.
I derive that sense of duty from seven names that I felt obligated to
mention today. They are the names of the soldiers that I represented
until they stepped into eternity, who fell in Operation Iraqi Freedom,
from eastern Indiana.
Lance Corporal Matthew Smith.
Private Shawn Pahnke.
Specialist Chad Keith.
Staff Sergeant Frederick Miller, Jr.
Sergeant Robert Colvill, Jr.
Specialist Raymond White.
Lance Corporal Scott Zubowski.
These seven men didn't leave their post, and this Congressman won't,
either. It is them and to their credit and to their grieving families
that I rise in support of this resolution today. It is the sacrifices
of over 2,000 American soldiers who laid down their lives for the
freedom that we saw demonstrated in the streets of every corner of Iraq
yesterday that I support this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member on the
International Relations Committee, who was denied his request to offer
his amendment here on the floor today.
Mr. LANTOS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in sorrow, not in anger, because this morning
could be a morning of unity and celebration and congratulations.
Yesterday in unprecedented numbers the people of Iraq rejected the
threats and intimidation of the terrorists and chose a new permanent
national Parliament, the first fully sovereign, elected democratic
assembly in the history of Iraq. This should be cause for celebration
for the Iraqi people, for our troops, the troops of our allies and the
Iraqi security forces who bravely protected the Iraqi people who came
out to vote. Unfortunately, the resolution before us does not do that,
and that I deeply regret.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that there is a spectrum of views on my side
of the aisle on how to deal with the difficult situation in Iraq in the
weeks and months ahead. Yesterday I was asked with a number of other
Democrats to go to the White House. I sat next to the President as we
talked about the possibility of building a united approach to this
difficult dilemma. But the leadership, in a rigid, unbending, almost
ruthless fashion, refused to take one single word of change or
modification in their resolution. It was a take-it-or-leave-it
proposal, which is inappropriate in a democratic legislative body where
some of us have been attempting to operate in a bipartisan fashion.
I introduced a resolution and asked the Rules Committee to make it in
order. My resolution congratulates the Iraqi people on three democratic
national elections, encourages all Americans to support the Iraqi
people, and commends our troops and those of our allies and the Iraqi
forces for protecting their people at election time.
That is the resolution which should be before us today. We would get
a unanimous vote, and we would send a message to our troops and to the
whole world that Congress is united. Instead, by rigidly demanding
total adherence to the Republican formula, there will be an ugly,
divisive debate in this body this morning. This is not in our national
interest.
I wish to use the balance of my time to read the resolution that I
believe ought to be before us, Mr. Speaker.
The text of my resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 613

Whereas the people of Iraq have consistently and
courageously demonstrated their commitment to democracy by
participating in three elections in 2005;
Whereas on January 30, 2005, the people of Iraq
participated in an election for a transitional national
assembly;
Whereas all segments of Iraqi society actively participated
in the approval of a new Iraqi Constitution through a
referendum held on October 15, 2005;
Whereas reports indicate that the people of Iraq voted in
unprecedented and overwhelming numbers in the most recent
election, held on December 15, 2005, for a new, national
parliament that will serve in accordance with the recently-
approved Iraqi Constitution for a four-year term and that
represents the first fully sovereign, elected democratic
assembly in the history of Iraq;
Whereas this remarkable level of participation by the
people of Iraq in the face of dire threats to their very
lives has won the admiration of the world;
Whereas the Iraqi elections could not have been conducted
without the courage and dedication of the members of the
United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other
nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces
of Iraq; and
Whereas the December 15, 2005, election in Iraq inspires
confidence that a robust, pluralistic democracy that will
bring stability to Iraqi society is emerging: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) congratulates the people of Iraq on the three national
elections conducted in Iraq in 2005;
(2) encourages all Americans to express support for the
people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve a free, open, and
democratic society; and
(3) expresses its thanks and admiration to the members of
the United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other
nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces
of Iraq, whose heroism permitted the Iraqi people to vote
safely.

Mr. LANTOS. There isn't a Member in this body who could not subscribe
to this. This is not the time for an ugly and divisive debate. And with
its rigidity and total unwillingness to listen to half of this body,
the majority has chosen to give us an ugly and divisive debate.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to my very good friend from California by saying, first and
foremost, there is nothing ugly and divisive about the debate that we
are about to undertake, that we are in the midst of right now, number
one.
Number two, I think it is important to note that while all of the
recommendations that were made by the minority were rejected, I have
just been given by the staff of the International Relations Committee
an outline of those two recommendations that were made. They were to
entirely delete the resolved No. 6 clause in the resolution, which was
the language that I read which says that we cannot establish an
artificial timetable for withdrawal, which is exactly what President
Talabani said in his piece, number one. And, number two, it underscored
the fact that there was a desire from the minority to change the goal
of achieving victory to establishing stability in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for us to note that there
should be, in fact, complete bipartisanship in our goal to not have an
artificial timetable complying with the request of our men and women on
the ground there along with President Talabani, as well as making sure
that we achieve victory in Iraq. Nothing, nothing, has to be divisive
about this debate. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the
day, an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives will
support this, because we want to do more than simply pat our men and
women in uniform on the back and pat the Iraqi people on the back. We
want to talk about the importance of sustaining what took place
yesterday for the future of Iraq.
Mr. LANTOS. Will my friend yield?
Mr. DREIER. I will in just a moment. We have got a limited amount of
time. I look forward to engaging my friend, but I promised the former
Secretary of State of Michigan that I would yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
her. At this point I would like to do that and then would look forward
to any comments that my friend would offer.
Mr. LANTOS. I would like to comment on your observation.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. I look forward to it.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you for your courtesy.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying resolution as
well, because this House must show our troops, the Iraqi people, and
our terrorist enemies that we are committed to achieving victory in
Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago, I spoke with a constituent of
mine named PFC Josh Sparling. Josh serves

[[Page H11889]]

in the 82nd Airborne Division with the 3rd of the 504th, also proudly
known as the Blue Devils. Josh was wounded by an IED while serving with
his unit in Ramadi, Iraq. He is currently at Walter Reed Hospital
recuperating from surgery, with doctors working literally to save his
leg.
When I talked to Josh, he did not want to complain about his wounds
nor the pain that they were causing him. No, this American hero wanted
to talk to me about the progress being made on the ground in Iraq, and
how well the new Iraqi troops performed in the field, and how committed
the Iraqis were to reclaiming their country from the terrorists.
His proudest day in Iraq was when he provided security in the Iraqi
election last October. He watched thousands of Iraqis singing and
celebrating on their way to polling stations. It made him proud that
the American military was accomplishing their mission to spread peace
and hope and freedom and democracy. He was disappointed that he was not
in Iraq right now with his unit providing security for yesterday's
election and watching the left flank of his buddies.
Mr. Speaker, that is commitment. That is dedication, what we expect
and what we get from our brave men and women in uniform. Yesterday's
election was a great victory for the Iraqi people, more proof of an
historic pivot in that part of the world, and now is not the time to
wave the white flag just as our Iraqi allies begin the difficult
business of forming a new democratic government.
We cannot redeploy troops based on political concerns instead of
needs on the ground to secure victory. We must not let down all of our
brave men and women in uniform who have served so remarkably. We cannot
let down over 11 million Iraqis who yesterday stuck a finger in the eye
of the terrorists as they stuck their finger in that blue ink. We
cannot give our terrorist enemies a victory which they cannot achieve
on the battleground.
We need to send a message, this House needs to send a message, today
that we are committed to completing the mission. Vote ``yes'' on the
rule and the underlying resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) to respond to what the chairman of the
Rules Committee had said, let me make clear, nobody is talking about
waving a white flag here. What we are talking about is trying to figure
out a way to make a bad situation less bad. The polls have shown
clearly that the majority of the Iraqi people want us out of Iraq. When
a majority wants something, they usually get what they want, because
that is what a democracy is about.
We don't know a lot about democracy in this House because we are
routinely shut out of being able to have debates and votes on important
issues. But the bottom line is that those of us who are advocating that
the President set some sort of a timetable are doing so because we
think that that is a way to strengthen the situation, to give the new
government over there a chance to succeed. I don't believe it can
succeed if it is viewed as a puppet of the United States. I don't
believe it can succeed with a huge U.S. occupation over there. I don't
believe it can succeed with the largest U.S. Embassy in the world over
there. I don't believe it can succeed if those are the conditions.
And so having said that, let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield a minute to my friend
from California as well.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you.
My good friend Mr. Dreier suggested that there will not be a divisive
debate this morning. That divisive debate has already begun. You need
to listen to the words of what my colleagues are saying. I attempted to
avoid this divisive debate this morning. I attempted at the end of this
session to have this Congress go home with a unanimous vote
congratulating the Iraqi people on what they have done; congratulating
our military, our allies and the Iraqi forces for making it possible
for them to vote.
There are divisions on policy, and it is an ostrich policy to pretend
that there are no divisions. I may agree with the gentleman's view
about a timetable. That is not the issue. The issue is that the last
discussion of Iraq in this body will show division, bitterness and
divisiveness, and that could have been avoided with a little bit of
flexibility and consideration on the part of the majority for the views
of almost one-half of this body.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? I have yielded 2 minutes to the
gentleman. I think he still has time.
I just would like to say that I believe that the resolution that has
been brought forward is one which recognizes the directive, the call
from the President of Iraq. It recognizes the sense of the men and
women in uniform who are on the ground there. And I believe that an
overwhelming majority, and I will say to my friend, there may be some
Republicans who choose to vote against this measure. I don't know that
every Republican is going to vote in support of this resolution, but
this resolution underscores the importance of victory in Iraq.
Mr. LANTOS. Reclaiming my time, it is in the national interest to
show the greatest degree of unity in this body, and your resolution
does the opposite.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of the authors of
the amendment that was rejected last night in the Rules Committee, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules
Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend, the distinguished Rules
Committee member from Massachusetts, for yielding me time.
Last night I made the statement in the Rules Committee that I would
not participate in the debate. I do not intend when the debate begins
to have anything to say, and quite frankly if I had the wherewithal, I
would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side not to say anything as
well. But I do know a little bit now, having served on the Rules
Committee for a little while, about closed rules, and I know when we
have closed rules, we restrict democracy.
We come here to advocate for democracy in Iraq, as rightly we should.
But I come this morning to advocate democracy for the Members of the
House of Representatives who have a different point of view that needs
to be heard regarding this important matter having to do with our
Nation. Like my friend and mentor, Tom Lantos, I feel that there will
be division as a result of the resolution as filed. I quite frankly am
a bit surprised that so many people in the majority who argue that the
war should not be politicized have done an act, although subtle and
nuanced, that is as political as most things that we do here.

{time} 1000

I do not decry politics. That is what we do for a living. But when it
comes to this Nation, we all have a responsibility to stand together.
There is no one in this Congress that does not support the military of
the United States in every aspect of what it has done. There is no one
in this Congress that wants us to fail in achieving victory in Iraq and
anywhere that terror exists in this world. We have a vested interest in
that. We have a natural right to pursue that particular interest.
But to fashion a resolution that ignores the language that Mr. Lantos
offered, that does precisely the same thing with civility all
throughout it, I cannot imagine that we have passed yet another closed
rule and that we have restricted a sensible, civil resolution offered
by Mr. Lantos, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Hoyer.
In that light, I consider it to be the kind of act that is seemingly
becoming the pattern with so many people in this House who represent so
many constituents who are not being heard.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to my friend.
First of all, let me say that as a member of the Rules Committee, I
am very proud of this democratic, small ``d,'' institution; and I am
very proud of the work of the Rules Committee. I would like to say that
in this session of Congress more amendments offered by Democrats have
been made in order than amendments offered by Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that as my friend talks about
ideas

[[Page H11890]]

being shut out, that is a mischaracterization of what has happened
here. We have come forward with a sense of the Congress resolution, a
simple resolution is what it is. I would like to share with my
colleagues, since we are talking about the process of democracy in Iraq
and the process of democracy here in the United States of America and
in the people's House, according to the Congressional Research Service,
they state on simple resolutions, ``Simple resolutions express
nonbinding opinions on policies or issues (the `sense' of the House or
Senate) or deal with the internal affairs or prerogatives of the House.
For example, they are used to establish select and special committees,
appoint the members of standing committees, and amend the standing
rules. In the House, the Rules Committee reports its special rules in
the form of simple resolutions.''
This is a simple resolution which I believe is going to enjoy strong
bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans will, I believe, in
overwhelming numbers support this resolution which simply says, Mr.
Speaker, that we recognize the incredible sacrifice by our troops, we
recognize the incredible sacrifice and suffering that the Iraqi people
encountered under Saddam Hussein and the struggle that they have gone
through over the past 3 years. And it recognizes what has been clearly
stated by Iraq's President, by our men and women in uniform and by the
people of Iraq, and that is establishing some artificial timetable
would undermine the process of democracy.
One must look at the letter which has gotten a great deal of
attention that was sent from the number two operative in al Qaeda, Mr.
Zawahari to the lead operative for al Qaeda in Iraq, the center of
terrorism from Zarqawi. And he has said in that letter, Democracy is
coming and there will be no excuse for violence thereafter.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we do everything that we
can for the stability of Iraq, the stability of the region, and the
stability of the world, that we must maintain that path towards
democracy. The coalition forces, the Iraqi security forces are making
that happen.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in 20 seconds I put to the
Chair a simple question: If this resolution is so simple and
noncontroversial, why did it come through the Rules Committee? And is
it not true that Mr. Lantos' resolution is also simple, and there was
nothing to preclude the Committee on Rules from hearing the Lantos
matter, had you chosen? And are you not the greatest exemplar of not
having closed rules, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to my friend.
I will simply say that I believe we should do everything we can to
pursue the deliberative process here. I believe that the Rules
Committee does that. We have a management responsibility. We bring
resolutions through the Rules Committee. If there is controversy, I
believe that recognizing our strategy for victory in Iraq is the right
thing to do. People in Iraq, our men and women on the ground, recognize
that.
I believe it is the right thing to do and I look forward to a strong
and overwhelming bipartisan vote in support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the chairman for not answering my
question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the Rules Committee respects a
deliberative process in this House or that it is somehow democratic or
receptive to alternative ideas, I think demonstrates to me that the
chairman has pretty low standards when it comes to being inclusive.
The bottom line is, on important issues, on important matters like
this one, we are routinely shut out. I mean, the chairman may be on
board with what the President is doing in Iraq, but there are many of
us who have great concerns. And the fact of the matter is, the section
that is controversial in this bill deserves debate, not in the context
of this resolution, but we should be on this floor debating this for a
period of time and let everybody have their chance to present their
viewpoint on what our policy should be in Iraq.
We should be debating Iraq almost every day. I mean, we are at war.
We have lost 2,100 American servicemen and women; 15,000 are wounded.
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we do not like to
talk about it except in the context of these resolutions that kind of
get dropped on us and brought to the floor; and we are supposed to
praise our troops, which we all do.
We want to congratulate the democratic voting in Iraq, which we all
do. But then tucked into this is a provision which some of us find
objectionable.
This administration has a credibility gap, in my opinion, when it
comes to Iraq. We have been misled too often, and it is time to demand
the truth. It is not acceptable to embrace an open-ended U.S. policy
toward Iraq that suggests that we put all our faith in the President.
He has been wrong on everything. There were no weapons of mass
destruction. There was no tie to al Qaeda. There was no imminent threat
to the United States from Iraq, and he rushed us into war. He said we
would be greeted as liberators. Here we are approaching the third year.
We are not greeted as liberators. We are stuck in a mess.
Mr. Speaker, I will also point out to the chairman of the Rules
Committee that if you read the front page of today's Washington Post it
says, ``Iraqi Vote Draws Big Turnout of Sunnis.'' Underneath,
subheadline, ``Anti-U.S. Sentiment is Motivator for Many.''
A majority of the people in Iraq want us to begin the process of
withdrawal; and what you are asking us to do is to embrace a resolution
that says we will be there for as long as the President wants us, and
that is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, like the President's wishful, staged
declaration of ``Mission Accomplished'' on that aircraft carrier 2\1/2\
years ago, or the Vice President's declaration that the insurgency was
in its ``final throes,'' this resolution proclaims the desire of
Congress for ``victory'' in Iraq.
Instead of dispatching our troops in adequate numbers, this Congress
made one speech after another. Instead of covering our troops with
adequate, impenetrable armor, this Congress passed one paper resolution
after another like this, which provided little shield from those who
would do our brave men and women harm.
Well, each day's news shows how out of touch this Administration and
its congressional followers continue to be. Like the administration,
this Congress has no idea what victory means other than trying to
escape the morass that its bad judgment got us into.
I believe that victory in Iraq, which we all desire, begins with a
commitment to championing the truth. This is an administration that
cannot utter ``Iraq'' without saying ``9/11,'' even though it knows
there is absolutely no connection between the two.
To win a war you have to shoot straight. Our young men and women in
Iraq and Afghanistan understand that, but this administration and its
congressional followers demonstrate again and again that they do not--
when they are discussing the real weakness of the Iraqi army or fail to
do so, the strength of the insurgency, or the length our armed forces
should be deployed.
They are so proud of the democratic choices made in Iraq this week
and so very fearful for there to be any democratic choices on the
resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others.
They fear a democratic debate in this House because their position is
one of complete weakness. They have waved the white flag themselves at
the possibility of a true debate in this Congress.
What we need is a genuine debate about the best pathway for our
security in Iraq. The President finally conceded over 30,000 civilians
have died in this invasion. We have passed 2,000 young, brave men and
women in the service of America, and we are on the way to 3,000.
This administration has begun a public relations offensive when what
we need is an offensive for the protection of our families. It has
abandoned that

[[Page H11891]]

in favor of a meaningless political victory, not a real plan for
success for the security of our families.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I first say to my friend from Texas (Mr. Doggett) that this notion
that we are going to stay just as long as President Bush wants us to
stay and not a day longer, well, actually, what President Bush has said
is that we will stay as long as necessary and not a day longer. And
that was part of the initial strategy that was launched on his speech
on the 26th of February 2003. And it is very, very clear that the
President of Iraq has said that any kind of artificial timetable would,
in fact, jeopardize the prospect of democracy.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Has the President or your resolution been willing to
declare that it rejects the idea of permanent bases in Iraq?
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I will say that the President has
said in that speech that we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary
and not 1 day longer. That is very clear to me, and so it is obvious.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the very, very able
fighter for freedom, our great friend from Springdale, South Carolina
(Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am here today in support
of the rule and the underlying resolution, in very strong support. I am
here as a Member of Congress. I am here as a 31-year veteran of the
Army Reserves and the National Guard.
I am also proud to be the father of a son who served for a year in
Iraq. I know firsthand of the progress that is being made there, along
with other Members of Congress.
We should be proud that Chairman Hunter, his son served in the
Marines for a year in Mosul. Mr. Skelton had a son serve in Afghanistan
in the war on terrorism. Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Akin of
Missouri, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, and Mr.
Saxton of New Jersey, all of us have had family members who have
participated in the global war on terror, and we are so proud of their
successes.
Additionally, I would tell you that I disagree with Democratic Leader
Pelosi. I believe that her position is wrong. I believe that proposing
a withdrawal is giving your game plan ahead of time. You do not do it
in football; you do not do it in politics. And you do not do it in a
time of war. It is my view that we should understand that war is
unpredictable.
Of all times, this week 61 years ago we found out the
unpredictability of war and that is the Battle of Bulge. Tens of
thousands of German troops secretly were located in the Ardennes
Forest, attacked our troops in Luxembourg, in Belgium, and in Germany
itself, and we lost 17,000 Americans. This could not be projected, this
surprise attack.
We need to be prepared. So I am very proud that indeed progress is
being made.
Our President has a wonderful plan of developing the Iraqi Security
Forces, developing the Iraqi economy and the political situation, as we
saw yesterday with the historic turnout of millions of Iraqis to build
a civil society. And the bottom line is, it protects the American
people.
This is exactly what America did after World War II, developing the
democratic society of Japan which now is one of our great allies. We
have the same potential to protect American families now.

{time} 1015

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating today is an H. Res.
resolution. Basically, this is just a sense of the Congress. It is
largely symbolic.
One of the complaints that many of us on this side of the aisle, and
I know some of the people on the Republican side have as well, is that
we kind of skirt around the real issue, which is what the policy is.
Staying as long as it is going to take, that is not a policy. That is a
sound bite.
The President does not know where we are going in Iraq. He has given
speeches that have been heavy on rhetoric, but not particularly big on
specifics.
If we want to do something helpful here, bring a binding bill to the
floor here that sets out our policy, and let us have it out. Let us
have the debate. Let us talk about what our policy should be in Iraq.
Let us come back next week or let us come back for a week in January
and have this debate. Let us discuss what, in fact, our policy should
be in Iraq. We are not doing that. This is all symbolic.
Notwithstanding the fact that we have 160,000 troops over there, that
over 2,100 Americans have died over there, and 15,000 Americans have
been wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, we have yet
to have a real policy debate on this House floor about what course we
should take in Iraq. That is what we want. That is what we are hoping
for. I do not think that is unreasonable.
To bring a largely symbolic resolution to the floor and tuck in it
this kind of policy statement, give us an hour during the debate on the
resolution to talk about everything, that is not the way we should be
doing business around here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, the odds of success in Iraq are not enhanced
by Congress continuing to act as a rubber stamp for President Bush. We
need a change in strategic vision in Iraq.
This resolution says that setting a timetable somehow is a Communist
plot, but, in fact, the President himself set timetables in Iraq when
he set timetables to have transitional elections in Iraq. He set
timetables for elections because it focused the Iraqis to demand
performance, and that is what we should do in setting a timetable to
transition to Iraqis true sovereignty for three reasons.
Reason number one, we should no longer provide a crutch for an
indefinite period of time to the Iraqi politicians. We need to focus
their minds on making the compromises that are necessary if a real
government is going to be followed. We cannot fall into the trap of
enabling Iraqi politicians to continue their bickering. They need a
solution.
Number two, people say a timetable will encourage more violence. Let
me ask you this: If there is a young unemployed man who is angry about
foreign troops marching on his neighborhood, what do you think will
make him more angry and more likely to plant an IED, the fact that we
tell him we are going to leave in a year or so, or tell him we are
going to stay there as long as George Bush says so? We need to tell
them that we are going to come home.
The third reason we ought to think about this is that in our
briefings we have received, we have been told that the Iraqi military
will be fully trained by next December 2006, and it is realistic, it is
commonsense, it is a measure to focus the Iraqi politicians on the
necessity of seeking compromise, to say that we should begin
transitioning next year and substantially conclude by December 2006.
During that time I have one message for the administration. They need
to do a better job arming the Iraqi military forces. They need radios,
they need Humvees, they need logistics. We cannot allow that force to
fall apart. We need to defeat this resolution.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) has 3\1/4\ minute remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to
simply focus on the issue that is constantly raised here, and that is,
the notion that we somehow impose closed rules on every piece of
legislation.
There have been 113 rules considered on the House floor in the first
session of the 109th Congress. With the exception of those rules which
by statute or simple resolutions or appropriation continuing
resolutions, 10 percent of those 113 rules have been closed rules.

[[Page H11892]]

We allow for a free floor in debate. More Democratic amendments than
Republican amendments have been made in order. So we are enjoying
democracy right here in the people's House, and the people of Iraq are
enjoying the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, given the stated interest in democracy here
in the House, I would ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to permit
for division of the question so that we could express our unanimous
support for the various provisions of this resolution, except for that
on which we have disagreement as to the best way to achieve success in
Iraq. At this point, so that we can have the kind of democracy that
occurred this week in Iraq, of which the majority seems so proud, and
actually have it right here on the floor of the House, I ask unanimous
consent for a division of the question on the provisions of this
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The majority manager of the resolution has
not yielded for the purpose of such a request.
Mr. DOGGETT. Given his professed interest in democracy, I am sure he
will yield for that unanimous consent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California yield?
The gentleman from California is indicating that he does not yield for
that purpose.
Mr. DOGGETT. Shocking, truly shocking, that democracy cannot exist
here on the House floor.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I
will close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me remind the Members of this House,
the chairman of the Rules Committee talked about how generous the Rules
Committee is. This year, in the 109th Congress, we have had 43
restrictive rules, 22 closed rules, plus three additional closed rules
that were included in one rule, H. Res. 351, and we have had 11 open
rules as far as appropriations bills.
Let me also simply say my point was that on important matters we
usually have closed rules, as we did yesterday on the pension bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question so I could amend the rule and allow the House to consider
House Resolution 613 instead of House Resolution 612. House Resolution
613 was introduced last evening by International Relations Ranking
Member Lantos, the Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip Steny
Hoyer and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), which expresses
congratulations to the people of Iraq on three national elections
conducted in 2005.
This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee early this morning,
but unfortunately, it was rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment and the text of House Resolution 613 immediately prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, regardless of how Members of this House
feel about the war in Iraq, I think all of us want to congratulate the
people of Iraq for holding these historic elections and for getting out
to vote despite the significant risks. We all want to congratulate our
troops, but quite frankly, there is language in this bill that some of
us consider inflammatory, that some of us strongly disagree with, and I
would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so
that we can have a unified message and not a divisive message here in
the House.
Mr. Speaker, we have been in Iraq now for over 1,000 days, and I
believe we must begin the transition to putting the Iraqis in charge.
President Bush's unwillingness to announce a plan to remove U.S. troops
within a clear time frame and his refusal to renounce the use of
permanent U.S. military bases I think undermines his rhetoric and I
think endangers the chance for democracy to succeed. Our occupation in
Iraq complicates the transition to democracy.
People can disagree with me on this, but the fact of the matter is we
should be debating this issue of how we deal with Iraq not in an H.
Res. form, but in a binding resolution here on the House floor. We have
time to debate Merry Christmas resolutions here in the House, but we
never have the time to debate in a real way and in a meaningful way
this war in Iraq.
We have sent thousands of our servicemen and -women into harm's way
in Iraq. I would argue we rushed into this war. We have paid dearly for
what the politicians in Washington have decided to do. We owe our
troops better than just coming up and saying, stay the course. We owe
them more than saying we are going to stay there until victory is
achieved.
What is victory? I mean, nobody has defined what victory is. The
President says we will know when we get there. Well, that is not good
enough. That is not good enough for anybody in this House. That is not
good enough for our soldiers.
We owe these brave men and women more than just a pat on the back and
a congratulations. We owe them a real policy, and we owe the people of
Iraq who have sacrificed so much the right to determine their own
future. They want us to begin to extricate ourselves from Iraq. We
should do that, and I would hope that my colleagues will vote ``no'' on
the previous question so we can bring up a resolution that truly unites
this body and not divides it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen these buttons that my colleagues on the
other side have been wearing, although I do not see them wearing it
this morning, but they wore them last night, that says, debate Iraq. I
just listened to a statement by my friend from Massachusetts, and I
would say what is it that we are doing right now?
We have just gone through a very rigorous debate on the Defense
appropriations process. It was considered under an open amendment
process. We have gone through the Defense authorization process, and we
have had a full debate on that. Every single day on the House floor at
least one Member stands up to outline his or her position on the issue
of Iraq. We are debating it constantly here, and it is a very healthy
and important debate for us to have.
Mr. Speaker, as I have been listening to this debate, which has been
taking place over the past hour, a name sticks in my mind. The name is
J.P. Blecksmith. J.P. Blecksmith is a young marine who was tragically
killed in one of the biggest battles in Iraq a year ago last month. It
was the battle of Fallujah, and since he died, I have gotten to know
his family, and his parents have repeatedly said to me personally, have
gone on television and said this, that in the name of their courageous
son who is a marine killed in the battle of Fallujah, it would be
absolutely reprehensible for the United States of America to cut and
run, for us to leave Iraq on some artificial timetable.
So, Mr. Speaker, today is a day of celebration. I cannot understand
why my colleagues would say that the following line is somehow
contentious. It simply says, while congratulating the Iraqi people for
this overwhelming success that they had yesterday, congratulating our
men and women in uniform and the Iraqi security forces and the
coalition forces, it says basically what President Talabani of Iraq has
said in a Wall Street Journal editorial. The resolution says, Setting
an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed
Forces from Iraq or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq
and redeploying them elsewhere in the region is fundamentally
inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq.
What is contentious about that? I cannot understand why anyone would
believe, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot come together with a strong
bipartisan vote, making sure that the success that we enjoyed on
January 30 and October 15 and just yesterday in Iraq is sustained.
We know that Mr. Zarqawi has made it very, very clear that, as
democracy blossoms, terrorism will come to an end.
So let us do everything within our power to support this resolution,
to support our troops, to support the sustained victory of the people
in Iraq. I urge support of this resolution.

[[Page H11893]]

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 619, the Rule for H. Res. 612 Expressing
the Commitment of the House of Representatives to Achieving Victory in
Iraq

Amendment in nature of substitute:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 613)
congratulating the people of Iraq on the three national
elections conducted in Iraq in 2005. The resolution shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the resolution and the preamble to final
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on International Relations; and (2) one motion
to recommit.''
____

H. Res. 613

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today, without a doubt, we should
congratulate the Iraqi people for what appears to be a successful,
high-turnout election.
For the third time this year, courageous Iraqi citizens have
enthusiastically exercised their democratic rights.
But successful elections do not, and cannot, obscure the devastating
national tragedy that is the Iraq war.
It doesn't change the fact that over 2,100 Americans have died for
weapons of mass destruction that never existed.
It doesn't change the fact that this war has turned Iraq into a
hotbed of terrorist activity.
It doesn't change the fact that our troops are sitting ducks for the
insurgents, who have been emboldened--not deterred--by our military
presence in Iraq.
Here's the bottom line: a successful Iraqi election should, at the
very least, reinforce the imperative of bringing our troops home. If
Iraq is truly able to self-govern, then we have no business occupying
their country and meddling in their affairs.
I've argued all year long that it's time to restore Iraqi sovereignty
and give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. If the election is a watershed
moment as the White House claims . . . then what is the continued
justification for having our troops over there in harm's way?
Now is the time to enlist the support of the international community
to establish an interim security force for Iraq. But that's just the
start.
As I've written to the President in a letter signed by 61 other
members of the House, the United States must also launch a ``diplomatic
offensive,'' recasting our role in Iraq as reconstruction partner
rather than military occupier.
We must also lead the way in establishing an international peace
commission to oversee the post-war reconciliation and coordinate peace
talks between Iraq's various factions.
The majority of the American people aren't behind it. Our global
allies aren't behind it. The Iraqi people aren't behind it. Even Iraqi
leaders--Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish alike, who agree on practically
nothing--have united around a call for the United States military to
leave.
With the Iraqi people having voted once again, let's offer the
ultimate vote of confidence in their democracy. Let's reward the self-
sufficiency they've demonstrated--by giving them their country back and
bringing American soldiers home.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________