[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11905-H11920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       VICTORY IN IRAQ RESOLUTION

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the 
resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of 
Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 612

       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 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 United States Armed Forces, United 
     States-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, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and 
     Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 619, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous

[[Page H11906]]

consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I 
congratulate the Iraqis for their successful election and request an 
open debate on Iraq on the House floor.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Solis).
  (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 612. I honor 
and support our troops and request an open debate on Iraq on the House 
floor.


                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to remove 
communicative badges while engaging in debate.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  (Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 612. I honor 
and support our troops and request an open debate on Iraq on the House 
floor.
  Yesterday, millions of Iraqi citizens cast their ballots in national 
elections to constitute the country's first full-term National Assembly 
since the U.S. invasion. This achievement should be recognized, and I 
would enthusiastically support a resolution that simply commends the 
Iraqi people and U.S. troops for their commitment to the democratic 
process under extraordinary circumstances.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership, once again, refuses to 
suspend politics at the water's edge. House Resolution 612 seeks to 
make yesterday's elections a vindication of President Bush's misguided 
Iraq policies and a basis for continued military engagement in a 
country that overwhelmingly desires the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
  Accordingly, I rise in opposition to H.R. 612, and I take this 
opportunity to announce my support for H.J.Res. 73, Congressman John 
Murtha's plan for the strategic redeployment of U.S. troops.
  Those familiar with my record know that I have consistently opposed 
the President's decision to invade Iraq. The war was always predicated 
on the false premise that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass 
destruction. This Congress was negligent in not demanding more proof of 
the President and then refusing to hold him accountable for his 
exaggerated and unfounded claims.
  His war strategy was equally flawed. He has failed to provide the 
resources our men and women in uniform need to be successful, and 
American lives have been lost as a result. In 2002 and 2003, Army Chief 
of Staff General Shinseki warned that not enough boots on the ground 
would lead to a power vacuum that our enemies would exploit. 
Tragically, his premonitions--ignored by President Bush and his 
political appointees--have been borne out.
  To date, approximately 2,150 brave Americans and an estimated 30,000 
Iraqis have been killed in Iraq, and there appears to be no immediate 
end to the quagmire in Iraq.
  As a Member of Congress, I have wrestled with whether this ``war of 
choice'' has become a ``war of necessity,'' but I am persuaded by 
developments in Iraq that the presence of U.S. troops is fueling the 
insurgency, compromising the readiness of our military, undermining 
respect for the U.S. abroad, and shortchanging domestic priorities, 
including homeland security.
  I, therefore, am announcing my support for H.J.Res. 73, introduced by 
Representative Murtha, calling on President Bush to immediately 
redeploy U.S. troops and diplomatically pursue security and stability 
in Iraq. I am convinced that the withdrawal of U.S. troops will 
undercut the insurgency, which relies on popular opposition to the U.S. 
presence.
  I remind my colleagues that, if experience has taught us anything, it 
is that democracy cannot be forced upon a nation by gunpoint.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
612, and in honor and support of our military personnel, I earnestly 
request an open debate on the war and occupation in Iraq.
  I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 612, the measure offered by 
Representatives Hyde and Ros-Lehtinen.
  In pushing this measure rather than the one offered by Congressman 
Steny Hoyer, Republicans are once again denying the House of 
Representatives the opportunity for free, fair, and open debate on our 
continued involvement in Iraq. This maneuver is pure subterfuge 
designed to hide the Bush administration's continuing coverup of the 
rationale behind their behavior in Iraq, as well as the incompetent and 
corrupt manner in which American occupation of Iraq has been carried 
out.
  The Republican leadership has the responsibility to bring a genuine 
and serious debate over Iraq to the floor, so that all of the 
implications of our continued involvement can be thoroughly debated 
before the eyes of the American people. H. Res. 612 does nothing to 
address this responsibility.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I 
congratulate the Iraqis for their election. It is time to bring our 
troops home with no permanent bases in Iraq.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Baldwin).
  (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I 
honor and support our troops and request an open debate on Iraq on the 
House floor.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution. I honor and support the troops in Iraq and ask that we have 
an honest, open debate on the Iraq war on the House floor.
  I rise in opposition to this resolution H. Res. 612. I share in the 
celebration for the successful parliamentary elections that took place 
in Iraq yesterday. It is my sincere hope that the event marks an 
important step toward establishing the long-term political stability in 
the country and the political legitimacy of its government.
  However, this resolution goes beyond congratulating the Iraqi people 
for their bravery and success in yesterday's election. It pays more 
homage to the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq than 
it devotes to the bravery of the Iraqi voters. Frankly, I have opposed 
this Administration's decision to go to war from the beginning and 
voted against extending the President the authorization to use military 
force against Iraq. I did so because the war aims of this 
administration seemed confused and I thought we should allow the U.N. 
weapons inspection team to complete its mission before embarking on a 
war footing.
  What I resent most about this resolution is that there was no attempt 
by the majority to work with Members on this side of the aisle to 
arrive at a consensus resolution that we can all support. I can only 
conclude that it is interested only in gaining political one upmanship 
than it is in reaching bipartisan agreement on congratulating the Iraqi 
people for their progress toward democracy.
  Additionally, this resolution sends the message that anyone 
advocating a draw down of U.S. forces 6 days or 6 hours earlier than 
the president does is imposing an ``artificial deadline'' and proposing 
a cut-and-run strategy. I reject that characterization. What I want to 
see from this administration is a timetable for training a viable Iraqi 
security force that would allow for an orderly draw down of our troops. 
After reading this resolution and listening to series of statements by 
the President on our Iraq strategy, I am truly concerned that we have 
no orderly way out of our predicament. It is my conclusion that our 
current course only continues our open-ended obligation.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson).
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the resolution. I honor and support our troops and request an open 
debate on the House floor on the Iraqi war.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver).

[[Page H11907]]

  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I 
congratulate the Iraqi people on the completion of their parliamentary 
election and I request an open debate on Iraq.
  The parliamentary election concluded yesterday in Iraq is a towering 
achievement and if this resolution spoke to that achievement I would be 
happy to vote for it.
  But the votes have not even been counted and we cannot yet know 
whether this parliamentary election will produce elected members 
proportionately from the many ethnic and religious groups that make up 
the Iraqi people. That is necessary for the give and take and political 
compromises that occur in a healthy and mature democracy, to lead to a 
stable and unified Iraqi nation. I think every member of this House 
hopes this parliamentary election will lead to a stable free and 
democratic Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people and especially the 
courageous Americans who have died or are now serving in Iraq.
  What we do know is the constitution under which this parliamentary 
election has been held has major flaws. Under the constitution the 
central government powers are exercised through a weak and perilously 
divided executive; provisions remain that will further fracture Iraq 
into smaller regions drawn along religious, ethnic, and tribal lines; 
and incredibly, the huge revenues from oil, the greatest Iraqi natural 
and national resource, are reserved solely for the use of the region 
where the oil is produced. These factors bode extremely poorly for the 
establishment of a stable, free unified Iraq and the constitution will 
surely have to be greatly modified.
  Given those problems it is at the very least premature to be 
trumpeting victory in Iraq whatever that victory may ultimately look 
like. Over a 15 year period America has engaged in two wars in Iraq. 
President Herbert Walker Bush, with the full support of the United 
Nations and a broad coalition of participating nations, followed his 
military commanders' advice by deploying 500,000 troops to liberate 
Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion. Saddam Hussein was driven out of Kuwait 
with only 19 American soldiers losing their lives.
  In contrast, President George W. Bush, without U.N. support and only 
a small coalition of the so called ``willing,'' rejected his highest 
military commanders' advice and deployed only 140,000 troops to 
overthrow Saddam Hussein, occupy Iraq, and establish a free and stable 
Iraq. Establishing a free and stable Iraq is a noble goal. Yet after 
two and a half years of war, occupation, and insurgency, our casualties 
in this ill-conceived and incompetently managed war in Iraq have now 
passed 2,155 American soldiers killed.
  More than 2,000 of those deaths have occurred since the President 
George W. Bush declared ``Mission Accomplished'' 30 months ago.
  I fervently hope that this resolution, a year from now, will not show 
this House with as much egg on its face as that ``Mission 
Accomplished'' declaration produced.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Watson).
  (Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I 
congratulate and honor the Iraqis for their successful election. I 
would request an open debate on Iraq on the House floor.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Moore).
  (Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution. I congratulate the Iraqis for their successful election, 
and I ask for an open, honest debate on the prosecution of this war.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters).
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members that communicative 
badges cannot be worn on the House floor when under recognition.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 612. I 
congratulate the Iraqis for the election, and I agree with Barbara Lee: 
it is time to bring our troops home, and there should be no permanent 
bases in Iraq.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 612. 
I congratulate the Iraqis for their successful election and request an 
open debate on Iraq on the House floor.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
612. The reason is I support and honor our troops and request an open 
debate on this subject on the floor.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez).
  (Mr. GUTIERREZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
612. I honor and support our troops and request an open debate on Iraq 
on the House floor.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine 
Brown).
  (Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 612. I honor and support our troops and request an open debate in 
the people's House on the Iraqi war on the floor of this House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution: in 
honor and support of our troops in Iraq, in opposition to our policy on 
the war in Iraq, and in urging the Republican leadership of the House 
to grant this an open and adequate debate on the entire question of our 
policy on Iraq on the floor of this House.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman. I rise with a humble spirit to salute the people of Iraq who 
have shown us the ability for a successful election and ask that we 
honor and support our troops, but yet have an open and full debate on 
the redeployment of our troops on the floor of the House regarding 
Iraq.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on House Resolution 612.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This resolution before us clearly and explicitly states that this 
body is committed to achieving victory in Iraq. The United States 
should not go back on its commitments to confront tyranny and to ``make 
the world safe for democracy.'' Failure is not a part of the American 
nature nor of our moral fiber. It is certainly not a concept that is 
acceptable to our men and women in the Armed Forces.
  When we talk about progress in Iraq and concrete benchmarks for 
measuring success, we need only look back at yesterday's landmark 
nationwide elections in Iraq. Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission 
reported that at least 97.5 percent of planned voting centers were 
opened, monitored by up

[[Page H11908]]

to 120,000 observers, including 800 accredited by international 
observer groups.
  The U.N. envoy to Iraq said that the initial signs are very positive, 
adding that ``anecdotal evidence shows that there has been good 
turnout, that it was inclusive, and that security was well 
maintained.''
  Are we not in agreement that yesterday's vivid example of democracy 
taking root in Iraq was a profound victory for the Iraqi people, for 
our sons and daughters who continue to place themselves in harm's way, 
and a resounding defeat to the brutal Islamic jihadists? Are we not in 
agreement that this election empowers the people of the region who have 
toiled under brutal dictatorships for far too long and that the success 
of democracy yesterday in Iraq aided our efforts in the global war 
against terror? Are we not in agreement that these elections could not 
have been possible without the presence of our men and women in the 
Armed Forces?
  If we are in agreement that these most recent Iraqi elections were a 
success and were met with very little violence and widespread 
participation due to the presence of U.S. forces in support of Iraqi 
security, then we should be in agreement with the totality of the text 
of the resolution before us. We should not leave the Iraqi people at 
this most critical juncture. We should not leave before they are fully 
capable of protecting their own nation, their people, and their 
incipient democracy from those who seek to destroy what they have been 
creating because they wish to turn Iraq into a safe haven for Islamic 
militants and extremist elements like Iran and Syria.
  This is not in our nature, Mr. Speaker. This is not what our troops 
want, and it is not what the Iraqi people want.
  References have been made to calls for U.S. withdrawal, but let us 
review some of those. Iraqi officials have not made such requests to 
the U.S. Government. The Arab League, for example, their statement says 
that it was the result of undue political pressure by rogue regimes, 
particularly Syria and Iran, whose foreign minister was involved in the 
drafting of the final communique.
  We are fully aware that these pariah states have a vested interest in 
seeing Iraq fail and assisting the foreign fighters who are launching 
attacks against Iraqis and our U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. We 
have achieved significant progress thus far in Iraq. The political and 
the psychological transformation that has taken place in Iraq will have 
long-term positive impact on our efforts to curtail the spread of 
Islamic extremists and jihadist activities.
  Saddam Hussein would not be on trial today for his crimes against 
humanity, and most of the villainous heirs to his legacy would not be 
neutralized were it not for the critical role played by our U.S. Armed 
Forces personnel. Without the presence of our forces, the people of 
Iraq would not have had the opportunity to participate in the January 
30, 2005, nationwide elections. They would not have returned to the 
polls on October 15, again to approve their Constitution and would not 
have been celebrating their new found democratic freedoms by 
participating in yesterday's yet another historic election.
  Our mission, however, Mr. Speaker, remains only partially 
accomplished. Iraqi security forces are taking up more of the military 
burden, and the new coalition for strategy for ``clear, hold, and 
build'' is denying the insurgents many of their former sanctuaries.
  The Iraqi Army and the police forces are growing larger, better 
trained, more effective. These forces are also becoming increasingly 
professional. Today, Iraqi security forces are now strong enough to 
garrison and control cleared areas, as recently illustrated by the 
resoundingly successful joint U.S. and Iraqi offensive in Tel Afar.
  The Iraqi security forces are improving, but they cannot yet stand on 
their own. To abandon them now would be to leave them at the mercy of 
the brutal Islamic jihadists and would destroy the progress that we 
have achieved thus far.
  Again, this is not in our nature. As clause 5 of this resolution 
states: Our presence 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.''
  Are we not in agreement on this critical point? Is it the contention 
of those who oppose this resolution that we abandon the Iraqi people 
after they have displayed immeasurable courage in the face of attacks 
from Islamic jihadists and their state sponsors? We should not base our 
strategy on artificial timelines. The criteria governing our eventual 
withdrawal from Iraq must be performance based, not chronologically 
based. Victory defined is: ``Final and complete defeat of an enemy in a 
military encounter. Success in a struggle against . . . an opponent, or 
an obstacle.''
  Who is the enemy, the common enemy of Iraq and coalition forces, the 
enemy of the American and Iraqi people, of those who want freedom and 
democracy to flourish in Iraq? They are the Islamic jihadists and the 
militants who are seeking to destroy what we have helped the Iraqi 
people accomplish.
  And what is our strategy for victory? One developed by our military 
and policy planners in coordination with our coalition partners and our 
Iraqi partners. Our military and policy planners track numerous 
indicators to map our progress and adjust our tactics as necessary to 
meet our strategic goals.

  I would further add, Mr. Speaker, that despite some of the references 
made to the alleged lack of a clear path to victory, the President has, 
in fact, articulated our approach in the recent National Strategy for 
Victory in Iraq. Many of these reports with metrics on our efforts, our 
strategies, our goals, our accomplishments are readily available not 
just to us in this Chamber but to the American people. We are not just 
winning in Iraq, but we stand on the precipice of something far more 
profound: a decisive shift away from the world of brutal dictatorships 
which ruin their own societies through a combination of state-sponsored 
murder and incitement, and toward the emergence of a modern, democratic 
Middle East that takes its rightful place among free nations.
  However, if we leave prematurely, Mr. Speaker, before the Iraqi 
people are able to stand on their own, we risk endangering all that we 
have worked so hard for and that some of our brave men and women in our 
Armed Forces have also sacrificed for. Let us not diminish their 
sacrifice by leaving their mission incomplete. Let us stand behind them 
as they seek to bring home a definite victory for us in this war on 
terror.
  In closing, I would ask that we all recall the words of former 
President Ronald Reagan, who said: ``It is up to us . . . to work 
together for progress and humanity so that our grandchildren, when they 
look back at us, can truly say that we not only preserved the flame of 
freedom but cast its warmth and light further than those who came 
before us.''
  We have prevailed in the struggle against tyranny and fascism after 
40 years in a global conflict. We prevailed in the battle of ideas 
against communism. We will again prevail in defeating Islamic fascism 
if we fulfill our mission in Iraq and do not heed the nay-saying of 
defeatists. With freedom on our side, we cannot fail, Mr. Speaker.
  I am proud of the service of my stepson, Doug Lehtinen, and his 
fiancee, Lindsay Nelson, who are marine officers serving in Iraq flying 
F-18s. They will tell us that setting an artificial deadline for 
withdrawal would put them in harm's way. They are fully trained 
military officers who understand that war is difficult; but they 
believe in their mission, a mission for victory in Iraq, a mission 
without a surrender statement.
  As Joseph Lieberman, the Senator, said just a few days ago a 
withdrawal, a withdrawal on an artificial timeline would discourage our 
troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage 
the terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people.

                              {time}  1315

  I agree with Senator Lieberman, and I hope my colleagues do as well 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today could have been a day to rejoice and to celebrate 
in

[[Page H11909]]

unity. Yesterday, the people of Iraq asserted their newly won rights, 
won, it must be said, at a steep cost; and they inspired us all by 
flocking to the polls at great risk to their lives. This was a peaceful 
process, an affirmation of all that has been sacrificed in nearly 3 
years of valiant struggle. We should be rejoicing, Mr. Speaker.
  But it is a sad day, indeed, when the Iraqi people have to teach the 
United States Congress a lesson in democracy. The majority leadership 
in this body and in the Rules Committee that acts as its legislative 
gatekeeper have used authoritarian tactics to bring before us the 
resolution that we now debate. They have eliminated any real 
opportunity for nearly half the Members of the House of Representatives 
to effect the language of this measure, a measure deliberately 
calculated to be divisive.
  Mr. Speaker, look around at this people's House. It was not designed 
to be an echo chamber. We are not here merely to recycle the 
administration's rhetoric on Iraq. It is clear 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. Why should the 
majority try to force the issue, politicize the war effort and polarize 
this body further?
  This resolution came to us yesterday afternoon. We tried negotiating 
in good faith and that went nowhere, so last night I introduced an 
alternative resolution and asked the Rules Committee to make it in 
order.
  My resolution congratulates the Iraqi people on three democratic 
national elections this year; it encourages all Americans to support 
the Iraqi people; and commends and congratulates our troops and those 
of our allies and the Iraqi forces protecting their people at election 
time. The Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi, and the Democratic whip, Mr. 
Hoyer, joined me in advocating this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the resolution which should have come before us 
today. It is a measure that would have won the unanimous support of 
this body, or nearly so, and would have sent a message of support to 
the Iraqi people, to our troops, and to the whole world.
  But the leadership of this body has approached this entire important 
matter in a rigid, unbending, and authoritarian fashion. Theirs was a 
take-it-or-leave-it proposal, not a comma to be changed; and that 
approach is inappropriate in a democratic legislative body where some 
of us have been attempting so hard to operate in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, along with several of my Democratic colleagues, I was 
hosted by the President at the White House 2 days ago. The President 
said he wanted to explore a bipartisan approach on Iraq. Unfortunately, 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not gotten that 
message. Instead, they have made a mockery of it.
  The election in Iraq yesterday was truly inspiring. It fills me with 
hope that Iraq can indeed emerge as a stable, pluralistic, and 
democratic society. This resolution could have been considerably 
improved, had there been a process of bipartisan consultation. We could 
have sent a united and strong message to our troops, to the Iraqi 
people, and to the global audience.
  But whatever my thoughts on the substance of the measure, I 
profoundly reject the arrogant and undemocratic process that produced 
it, and for this reason I shall vote ``present'' on this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in congratulating the Iraqi 
people for their bravery, courage and their belief in freedom. Just 3 
years ago, none of us would have ever predicted or believed that Iraq 
would have a Constitution and a newly elected national council of 275 
representatives based on province and population.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkable transition. The Iraqi people have 
no prior experience in democracy, and they have lived under a brutal 
dictatorship for decades. Today, freedom, liberty, and democracy are 
within their grasp.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join in support of this 
resolution, in support of a free and democratic Iraq, and, as a result, 
a safer America and world. The road ahead will be long, hard and 
unpredictable, but the dream of freedom lights their way.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this resolution mentions the word victory 
six times, but victory is not defined. We are assured this 
administration will know victory when they see it, just like they knew 
WMDs when they did not see them.
  Supporters of this bill point to yesterday's election as victory, but 
many were drawn to the polls by their overwhelming dislike of U.S. 
occupation. They like us all right; they would like us to get out of 
their country.
  This fantasy victory resolution means more occupation, more war, more 
civil war, more deaths of our troops and innocent civilians, more waste 
of taxpayer money, while this House is reduced to a bunch of 
cheerleaders in a bloody ``Baghdad Bowl'' sponsored by Halliburton.
  Congressman Paul and I have a resolution which will let Iraqis, 
through their new representatives, decide whether the occupation ends 
or not. Do you want sovereignty, do you want self-determination, or do 
you just want occupation, deception, fake news, fake policy and next 
year's fakeout, partial troop withdrawals while a permanent U.S. 
presence is being built?
  These fake resolutions keep this Congress in a stupor, almost a 
trance-like denial of conditions in Iraq and how we got there. Wake up, 
Congress. Wake up America. Get out of Iraq.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we heard almost 
all the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus ask for a debate on the war, 
and one of the comments that was made throughout that series of 
unanimous consent requests was a statement affirming that they honor 
and support our troops, as do I believe all Members of this body seek 
to do that.
  However, the deeper question I would like to raise in this, if we 
honor and support our troops, I would suggest to this body that we also 
listen to our troops and what they are saying on the ground, especially 
those who have paid a tremendous price.
  I had the great honor and privilege yesterday to visit with several 
soldiers from Kentucky, one of whom was from my district, in Walter 
Reed Hospital. They included Specialist Jeremy Lowe, Sergeant Bill 
Winburn, and Sergeant Carlos Farler.
  All of them emphasized strong belief in the mission. All of them 
shared very clearly and articulated the successes, most unreported by 
the national media, that they are seeing on the ground. They expressed 
a tremendous amount of confidence in what the Iraqi people are doing.
  I think it is important that we stand with the troops in this 
resolution, that we stand with our country, that we stand with the 
Iraqi people, and that as we debate the war, and I believe there is an 
important need for debate, for discussion on policy, on the future, 
that one thing that we need to keep clear is that the messages that are 
sent communicate to several audiences: first and foremost to our troops 
in the field; second, to the Iraqi people; third, to our enemies, who 
will use our words against us; and, finally, to the entire world who is 
watching.
  We must keep our promises, we must keep our commitment to our troops 
and carry on this mission that they believe in, where they see success, 
until it is completed.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me time, and I want to associate myself with his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, at least this resolution provides us an opportunity to 
pose a serious question, an opportunity that, unfortunately, Democrats 
are usually denied in this people's House. I want to read some findings 
of a recent poll about the realities on the ground in Iraq.
  Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe that attacks against American 
and

[[Page H11910]]

British troops are justified; 72 percent do not have confidence in 
coalition forces; 82 percent are strongly opposed to the presence of 
coalition troops; and less than 1 percent of the population believes 
that coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security. 
That is the reality.
  Let me note too, by the way, that this poll was conducted by Iraqis 
and commissioned by the British ministry of defense.
  This data provokes a question for the proponents of this resolution: 
Now that we have a free, democratically elected Iraq, are we prepared 
to leave on their timetable? If the new Iraqi Government tells us, we 
want you to leave immediately, will we do so? Will we listen to them? 
For if we listen to the views of the Iraqi people as reflected in this 
poll, we can anticipate such a request in the very near future.
  Or will we insist on staying until we believe they are ready to stand 
up? Will this administration attempt to influence what the 
democratically elected Iraqi Government asks us to do in this regard, 
or will they be pressured to be quiet on this particular issue? Because 
the American people deserve to know the answer to this question now, 
and the Iraqi people deserve to know the answer to this question now, 
as well as the duly elected representatives of the Iraqi people from 
the elections that occurred this past week.
  I guess the real question is here, Will we really respect democracy 
in Iraq and the democratic process, or will we simply give it lip 
service?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leadership and 
Chairman Hyde of the International Relations Committee for drafting 
this important resolution.
  Yesterday's elections mark yet another milestone for Iraqis in the 
future of a democratic Iraq. It is estimated that over 70 percent of 
Iraqis voted in yesterday's election. That is 12 percent more than 
voted in the last election, and with remarkably low violence. There 
were reports of polling stations running out of ballots early in the 
day because of the large numbers who came out to vote, and the voting 
deadline was extended in many parts of the country because of high 
turnout.
  Many of those voting were Sunnis, who are now choosing to play an 
active part in their country's new democracy; and it was Iraqi Security 
Forces who took over responsibility of their country's security, with 
over 214,000 Iraqis now trained and equipped.
  Mr. Speaker, this is concrete progress. No matter how you cut it, 
this vote was a win. Not only are Iraqis making progress by coming out 
to vote in the millions; they sent a message to the world yesterday: 
they want democracy, and they are willing to defy terrorist threats to 
make it happen.

                              {time}  1330

  We are supportive as Americans.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership's 
resolution turns the Iraqi elections, a historic moment for the Iraqi 
people by any account, from a point of pride to a point of 
partisanship.
  As usual, the minority was prohibited from offering a constructive 
substitute. We could have offered a measure that congratulated the 
Iraqi people on this successful election. Or we might have put forward 
a substitute similar to the one that passed resoundingly in the Senate, 
that would have required the President at last to submit a detailed 
plan for phasing down the occupation. The leadership refused to let us 
do either, opting instead for a measure that divides and distracts.
  As a statement of policy, this resolution is deeply flawed. It 
rejects a plan for bringing our troops home. It fails to empower the 
Iraqis to take charge of their own future. And it blindly adopts the 
vague formula the President has repeatedly put forth, ``as they stand 
up, we stand down.''
  As we have come to know very well from this ``mission accomplished'' 
President, catchy slogans do not make effective foreign policy.
  Standing up Iraqi troops is a critical step in empowering the Iraqi 
state, but American national security demands additional priorities: 
That we maximize Iraq's chance of a successful transition to self-rule 
while minimizing the possibility of civil war; that we stabilize the 
region, preventing the terrorists from taking hold; and that we protect 
America's men and women in uniform.
  It is high time we took up a real measure to deal with the situation 
in Iraq such as H. Con. Res. 70, which I have introduced with Mr. 
Miller of North Carolina, now co-sponsored by 17 Members. That approach 
takes into account the Iraqis' recent steps toward sovereignty with two 
successful elections. It recognizes the valor of our troops. It 
requires a detailed exit strategy of the President. It calls for an 
immediate, initial draw down, and it sends a strong signal that we do 
not intend to occupy Iraq indefinitely.
  Why will the House Republican leadership not let us vote on such a 
measure? Because they fear it would pass, and they fear embarrassing 
the President by calling him to account.
  Mr. Speaker, let us start giving the American people what they are 
looking for: Honesty, accountability and a serious plan going forward; 
three things that have been sorely lacking since President Bush 
launched this war.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I marveled at Mr. Lantos's good comment 
that this could have been, as I understood the quote, could have been a 
day for celebration. And I would submit it is a day for celebration. It 
should be. It is.
  This is a great day. A great thing happened yesterday in the cradle 
of mankind. They elected permanent leaders. Now, there are those 
Americans who have said that it was quagmire in Iraq. We had to get 
out. It was a mistake to be there. Some made these statements out of 
personal heartache and tragedy, but some were made purely from partisan 
political motivation.
  So when the question is asked, why should the leadership politicize 
the Iraqi situation, that is exactly the question I have been asking. 
Why? Why? Why, leading up to this election for the last 6 weeks, the 
yabbers got more shrill, more hysterical that we have to withdraw? And 
surely there are some people that are smart enough to know that that 
risk, the election that people who saw the fliers that said, ``you 
vote, you die,'' might actually take it more seriously if they thought 
we were going to withdraw quickly before the ink went off their 
fingers.
  So I say to those who said the freedom, democracy and liberty we were 
fighting for and the evil that we fought against was not worth it, it 
is worth it. And the soldiers that have been there know it. That is why 
the retention among the soldiers that have been to Iraq is way up. I 
have talked to them.
  I have not heard people ask, why are we still in Bosnia where 
President Clinton said we had to go? One of my best friends from 
college, we served in the Army in Fort Benning together, he just got 
sent to Bosnia. Why is not anybody saying, let us get out of there? Why 
are the same people not saying, we should have gotten out of Germany to 
President Truman? We should have gotten out of Japan? Because our 
leadership made good decisions, and we are safer of it.
  Thank God for the heroes that have made America better by spreading 
liberty around the world.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, there have been many false dawns in Iraq 
over the past 2\1/2\ years, times when we hoped we might be seeing a 
new day, but yesterday was truly remarkable. More than 11 million 
Iraqis went to the polls, many dressed in their finest clothes, to cast 
their votes for a new parliament and a new future.
  Iraqi Sunnis, who boycotted the polling in January, turned out in 
droves to ensure their voices would be heard in the new legislature.
  Perhaps most remarkable was the absence of violence. Across the 
country, only 52 attacks were recorded, and there were no mass casualty 
incidents. For this, we have the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces 
to thank.

[[Page H11911]]

  For months, our troops have endured ever more numerous IED attacks 
and fierce urban combat in order to secure the country for yesterday's 
vote. They have done everything we have asked of them and more, and we 
are all, all deeply grateful for their sacrifice.
  I want to support this resolution. I have an enormous respect for the 
chairman of our committee and the chairman of the Mideast Subcommittee, 
but I am deeply troubled by what is a calculated and transparent 
attempt to use the unity of the Iraqi vote to cause further disunity 
here at home.
  Two days ago, I was invited to the White House along with Mr. Lantos 
and a number of our colleagues to meet with the President and senior 
administration officials on preparations for the elections and the next 
steps in Iraq. I appreciated the President's efforts to reach across 
the aisle for unity as we exchanged ideas on how to best move forward 
in Iraq. Unfortunately, this resolution is not in keeping with the 
spirit of that meeting.
  I hope to have the opportunity to return to Iraq in the near future 
and visit our troops along with several of our colleagues. We are 
going, as we have in the past, not as Republicans and Democrats but as 
Americans and as Members of the Congress of the United States.
  It is too early to know if the election will be a turning point that 
we have all hoped for, but one thing is plain, greater division at home 
does not further the war effort. This is not the way to honor 
yesterday's triumph and the sacrifice of so many young Americans.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate this resolution 
coming to the floor of this Congress.
  I would say that, Mr. Speaker, as we are holding this debate, our 
Armed Forces overseas are engaged in the active defense of our 
homeland. Their daily contributions and sacrifices are working to bring 
democratic stabilization to a country which has never known the freedom 
it has achieved today.
  After decades of tyrannical rule under Saddam Hussein, yesterday, the 
Iraqi people voted in their third national election this year. They 
selected a government that will now for the first time establish really 
true and pure sovereignty for this Nation. And as the Iraqis put 
together their formal parliament, as they elect themselves a prime 
minister and are seated at the United Nations, they will be the freest 
and most representative Arab country in the world.
  What a legacy for the United States of America to contribute to? What 
a noble cause that we are seeing come to fruition today? And I 
appreciate the tone that I am hearing from over here on the other side 
of the aisle. It sounds to me like we are coming together in a way we 
have not in the past, coming together in support and pulling for the 
Iraqi people and pulling for this common cause of freedom that we all 
struggled so long for.
  When we look back across the history of this country and think about 
some of the other conflicts this Nation has been involved in, we have 
always had disagreements about whether to go forward and how to go 
forward; but look at the legacy of a place that is left in a place 
like, for example, in 1898 the USS Maine was sunk to the bottom of 
Havana Harbor. Who said then that the Filipinos would be free today and 
grateful for a century because of that act of our war against the 
Spanish at that time?
  Who said at the beginning of the Civil War that it was about freeing 
the slaves? No, it was about saving the Union, but we know it now as 
the war that freed the slaves.
  This will be the war that freed the Iraqi people, the war that 
established Iraq as the lone star to create a free Arab world which 
means the elimination of the habitat that breeds terrorists.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot agree with the 
previous speaker. I think the tone of this debate is good, but the 
process is terrible. Mr. Lantos, the ranking member of the committee, 
attempted to participate in making this a truly bipartisan resolution.
  Now, I am one of those who has consistently supported the policies of 
our government and who supports success in our efforts in Iraq. I think 
that is in the best interests of America, certainly in the best 
interests of the Iraqi citizenry and the best interests of civility in 
the Middle East. However, I am saddened by the continued partisanship 
with which this issue is handled.
  Mr. Lantos and I and Ms. Pelosi offered a resolution which 
congratulated the Iraqi people, noted their courage, noted their 
determination to reach for democracy. That is what this effort is 
about. There was no attempt at bipartisanship. That was rejected out of 
hand, not even allowed as an amendment. That is not the way we bring 
our country together. That is not the way we strengthen our resolve. 
That is not the way we show the world that we are of, if not exactly 
one mind, of one objective.
  I thank my friend for yielding me time. I thank him for his efforts. 
I generally agree with the propositions set forth in the resolution, 
but I am not sure I am going to vote for it because I am deeply grieved 
by the continuing failure to try to bring this House together on this 
issue and to bring this country together on this issue and to ensure 
that together we go forward to achieve success.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of voices in the debate about our 
success in Iraq, but I think the two most relevant voices in this 
debate are the Iraqi people themselves and the troops that have served 
and are serving in Iraq.
  The Iraqi people spoke loud and clear yesterday when over 70 percent 
of them turned out at the polls to put in place the only constitutional 
democracy in the Arab world.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the voice and perspective of a 
young soldier that just returned home to Indiana. Staff Sergeant Ben 
Joy with the Gary, Indiana, based 113th Engineering Battalion returned 
just last Tuesday after a year in Iraq just in time for the holidays. 
Obviously, his family is overjoyed to have him home.
  Staff Sergeant Joy set up security for elections earlier this year, 
and he explains, ``Election time is very busy. It was probably working 
16 or 18 hours a day. The polls were peaceful then and now,'' he says, 
``and the U.S. effort is working.'' He went on to say that ``you can 
tell that the people, they want to be free. They didn't really know how 
in the beginning. They're starting to show it more and more now.'' He 
adds, ``The build-up that is going on there, the Iraqis taking over, 
they clearly want us there. And I mean, if we stay the course, I think 
everything will work out just fine.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should heed the actions of the Iraqi people 
and the words of Staff Sergeant Joy and support this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called victory in Iraq 
resolution, and I do so for two central reasons.
  Firstly and procedurally, it is unusual for a resolution which 
purports to set forth a congressional directive for our military in 
wartime to be so vague. Notable is the absence of any definition 
section in this bill. On its face, the resolution commits the Congress 
and the American people to ``victory in Iraq,'' but no where does it 
define or attempt to explain what that term means. No where does it set 
forth the conditions under which an objective observer could determine 
what number of Iraqi forces must be in place or what functions they 
must undertake before we begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops which 
leads me to my second reason for opposing the resolution.

                              {time}  1345

  This resolution is essentially a stay-the-course resolution that 
blindly supports an open-ended commitment to continue to send and keep 
our sons and daughters in uniform in Iraq and to write a blank check to 
continue pumping billions of dollars into that country

[[Page H11912]]

without requiring anything of the new Iraqi Government.
  Moreover, this resolution does not allow us to fulfill the 
constitutional oversight responsibilities of this Congress. It says we 
need to stay in until the Iraqis stand up. That is rhetoric. We owe the 
American people better than this.
  I am concerned that this resolution may have been offered to position 
people on either side of the aisle. I support our troops, as we all do, 
both sides of the aisle. We share that. We also share the heavy 
responsibility to ensure that our people do not stay in Iraq one minute 
longer than is required, and this bill does not allow an objective 
observer or any Member of this Congress to determine when that point is 
reached, when that point occurs.
  With the Iraqi elections yesterday, an enormous success did occur. We 
have entered that phase of this war that we must ask how much more can 
we do for the Iraqi people as an occupying force. We must ask whether 
our presence in Iraq is undermining the stability we hope to provide. 
At some point, we all have to stop the politics on this issue.
  I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, it is not good for America. It 
is not good for the best Americans, those men and women who are in 
uniform in Iraq and for their families who are carrying the heaviest 
burden for all of us.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my 
good friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time and 
really wanted to stand in support of the resolution and believe that 
the resolution is a good one and that yesterday in this week's election 
speaks volumes for all the work that we have accomplished.
  I want to speak more importantly in memory and honor of Sergeant 
Daniel Clay, who was killed when the marines were attacked in Fallujah 
on December 1. His dad, Mr. Bud Clay, wrote the President a letter and 
said that ``I am writing to tell you how proud and thankful we, his 
parents and family, are of you and what you are trying to do to protect 
us all. This was Dan's second tour in Iraq and he knew and said that 
his being there was to protect us.
  ``I want to encourage you. I hear in your speeches about `staying the 
course.' I also know that many'' of you are against this war and you 
must get weary of fighting to try to do what is right. ``We and many 
others are praying for you to see this through, as Lincoln said `that 
these might not have died in vain.'''
  I also have the actual letter that Daniel Clay wrote his family to be 
opened in the event of his death, and I think it would be in his honor 
to read it. This is of course by a very young man:
  ``Mom, Dad, Kristie, Jodie, Kimberly, Robert, Katy, Richard, and my 
Lisa.
  ``Boy do I love each and every one of you. This letter being read 
means that I have been deemed worthy of being with Christ. With Mama 
Jo, Mama Clay, Jennifer, all those we have been without for our time 
during the race. This is not a bad thing. It is what we hope for. The 
secret is out. He lives and His promises are real! It is not faith that 
supports this but fact and I now am part of the promise. Here is 
notice! Wake up! All that we hope for is real. Not a hope but real.
  ``But here is something tangible. What we have done in Iraq is worth 
my sacrifice. Why? Because it was our duty. That sounds simple. But all 
of us have a duty. Duty is defined as a God-given task. Without duty 
life is worthless. It holds no type of fulfillment. The simple fact 
that our bodies are built for work has to lead us to the conclusion 
that God, who made us, put us together to do His work. His work is 
different for each of us. Mom, yours was to be the glue of our family, 
to be a pillar for those women, all women around you. Dad, yours was to 
train us and build us, like a platoon sergeant, to better serve Him. 
Kristie, Kim, Katy, you are the fire team leaders who support your 
squad leaders, Jodie, Robert and Richard. Lisa, you too. You are my XO 
and you did a hell of a job. You all have your duties. Be thankful that 
God in His wisdom gives us work. Mine was to ensure that you did not 
have to experience what it takes to protect what we have as a family. 
This I am so thankful for. I know what honor is. It is not a word to be 
thrown around. It has been our honor to protect and serve all of you. I 
faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. This 
is as close to Christ-like I can be. That emulation is where all honor 
lies . . . I thank you for making it worthwhile.
  ``As a marine this is not the last chapter. I have the privilege of 
being one who has finished the race. I have been in the company of 
heroes. I now am counted among them. Never falter! Don't hesitate to 
honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that 
which is worth protecting.
  ``Now here are my final wishes. Do not cry! To do so is to not 
realize what we have placed all our hope and faith in. We should not 
fear. We should not be sad. Be thankful. Be so thankful. All we hoped 
for is true. Celebrate! My race is over. My time in the war zone is 
over. My trials are done. A short time separates all of us from His 
reality. So laugh. Enjoy the moments and your duty. God is wonderful.
  ``I love each and every one of you.
  ``Spread the word. Christ lives and He is real.
  ``Semper Fidelis.
  ``Sergeant Daniel Clay.''
  Daniel Clay is like so many others who have fought to make yesterday 
possible, and yesterday is certainly not a conclusion but let us hope a 
beginning of a new and significant chapter in Iraq where the military 
sacrifices become smaller and the political engagement becomes greater.
  One thing I have learned and loved about this House is the fact that 
we are using politics as a substitute for civil war. Let us hope that 
Iraq learns that lesson and that 200 years from now they will look back 
at yesterday as one of their first most significant days in democracy.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic 
leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking Democrat on the International 
Relations Committee, for his leadership to make our country safer, our 
military stronger, and to bring stability to the region. While we may 
not always agree on the approach to take, Mr. Lantos strove very hard 
for a bipartisan resolution, and I want to just read from the 
resolution that he would put forth in the spirit of congratulating the 
people of Iraq.
  He said: ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates 
the people of Iraq on the three national elections conducted in Iraq in 
2005.'' Imagine, in January, in October, and now in December, three 
times courageously they went to the polls, and his resolution spells 
that out.
  His resolution would encourage ``all Americans to express support for 
the people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve a free, open, and 
democratic society,'' and again, throughout his resolution he makes 
that point.
  And he expresses ``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.''
  That is the spirit of the resolution that we should be voting on 
today, one that brings us together, that is clear to the Iraqi people 
that their courage is an example to the world.
  But, sadly, this Congress is not an example of democracy to the world 
when instead of using an occasion to unify, once again, the Republican 
majority brings to the floor a resolution rejecting the good offers of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to come together in a 
bipartisan way and uses what should be a cause for celebration as 
instead a means to denounce those who disagree, not very democratic, 
and also to insist that if you want to congratulate the people of Iraq, 
you must support the status quo.
  More of the same in Iraq is not making the American people safer. 
More of the same in Iraq is not making our military stronger. More of 
the same in Iraq is not bringing stability to the region.
  So I think you will see Democrats united in congratulating the people 
of Iraq, commending our men and women in the armed services, and 
supporting

[[Page H11913]]

that in a democracy we will have different views and that we will 
respect them. I have said it before and I will say it again, Senator 
Taft, who would become the Republican leader of the Senate during World 
War II, he said disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing 
democracy, and this was during World War II. Why do the Republicans 
think that we cannot have disagreement in time of war?
  So as we go into this holiday season, I know that we can come 
together and say to our men and women in harm's way that we honor them 
for their service; we are grateful to them for their patriotism, their 
courage and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country; and 
in this holiday season, we strive for peace on Earth and goodwill 
toward man, which would not be possible without our men and women in 
the armed services.
  That should be the spirit in which we go forward, not in the divisive 
manner the Republicans have put forward. That is really quite sad, but 
I hope that in the vote that we have today that the Iraqi people will 
know that on both sides of the aisle we all see them as an example of 
democracy and hope that they will not be discouraged by this 
suppression of dissent in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, this marks the second time in a month that House 
Republicans have gone to extreme lengths to avoid a fair and open 
debate on the war in Iraq. Last month, after being stung by a 
resolution introduced by Mr. Murtha calling for the redeployment of 
U.S. forces in Iraq, Republicans brought to the floor a measure that 
was an act of deception and an attempt to mischaracterize the Murtha 
legislation.
  Today, under the guise of commending the people of Iraq for 
yesterday's election, the Republicans present a resolution that spends 
more time trying to justify the continued presence of U.S. troops in 
Iraq than congratulating the Iraqis.
  If the majority wants to debate the President's Iraq policy then let 
us do that. A war that is now more than 1,000 days old, has cost the 
lives of more than 2,150 Americans, and has not made the American 
people safer or the Middle East more secure, certainly merits debate in 
this House. But let us do so in a way that does not insult the 
intelligence of the American people or trivialize an issue of the 
utmost importance.
  We should debate the war in Iraq thoroughly, with full consideration 
of the points of view of all Members. Sadly, the Republican leadership 
did not permit that debate today.
  Millions of Iraqis voted in Iraq's three national elections this 
year, and all Americans should salute that fact. They should salute as 
well the courage of the 160,000 American troops and the courage of the 
thousands of soldiers from other nations and from Iraq itself, who made 
the safe conduct of these elections possible. It should appropriately 
be acknowledged that the elections are hopeful steps toward a more 
stable Iraq.
  Mr. Lantos brought a resolution to the Rules Committee, which would 
have done those things, but the majority refused to allow it to be 
considered. It can only be that the majority does not want to let 
commending the Iraqis get in the way of a tightly controlled tribute to 
the President's war policies. As we lecture the Iraqis about the need 
to accommodate differing points of view, let us hope that they do not 
devote too much attention to the example provided by this Republican 
House.
  The Lantos resolution provides well-deserved recognition to all of 
the Iraqis who have taken part in their country's political development 
this year. It recognizes the heroism of the soldiers who strive each 
day to bring security to Iraq.
  Commending them should be our focus today, but Mr. Lantos was not 
allowed to offer his resolution. It would be unfortunate if the message 
we sent to the Iraqi people and our troops was that scoring political 
points is more important in this House than acknowledging their 
achievements this year.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to my fellow Floridian (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Defense 
appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
resolution, especially to congratulate those millions of Iraqi citizens 
who in the face of adversity were willing to stand up and exercise 
their right to vote, to establish their own government; and I think 
that is something we should be very proud of. But as representatives of 
the American people for whose safety we here in this House are 
responsible, we had better recognize that there is a global war on 
terror being launched against us.
  While a major battlefield, Iraq is just one of the battlefields. 
Afghanistan is one of the battlefields. Another battlefield was in 1993 
when the World Trade Center was bombed with six lives being lost. 
Another of the battlefields was June 1996 when the Khobar Towers in 
Saudi Arabia were bombed when 19 of our airmen lost their lives. 
Another of the battlefields was in August of 1998 when our embassies in 
Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, 259 lives lost, 11 of those Americans. 
October of 2000, another of the battlefields against terror was the 
bombing of the USS Cole off the shore of Yemen. Seventeen American 
sailors died, many others injured.
  Then was September 11, at the Pentagon, when 189 lives were lost when 
the airplane flown by terrorists flew into the Pentagon. Another was 
September 11 and the World Trade Center was bombed. Airplanes crashed. 
Suicide bombers flew the airplanes, nearly 3,000 people lost their 
lives.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a global war on terror; and if we do not win the 
battle in Iraq, where else might we win it, or where else might we have 
to fight it? We had better be sure of what we are doing before we make 
a decision that will allow terrorists to regroup, to recover, to rearm, 
to retrain and become even a bigger enemy and a bigger threat than they 
are today to the security of the American people who we represent here 
in this Chamber today.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I truly wish democracy for the people of Iraq, and I commend the 
people of Iraq on yesterday's election. However, to claim success is 
really premature. Our soldiers are still at great risk. The insurgents 
are just as dangerous today as they were the day before the election.
  This resolution quotes the President saying, ``When the Iraqis stand 
up, we will stand down.'' Under those terms, our soldiers could be in 
Iraq indefinitely.
  This resolution is merely more rhetoric about how many Iraqi soldiers 
have been trained. In February 2004, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed there 
were more than 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces. Just 7 
months later, Secretary Rumsfeld said 95,000 trained Iraqi troops were 
taking part in security operations. According to the figures in the 
President's November 29 speech, there appears to be between 84,000 and 
96,000 Iraqis trained.
  However, independent experts in a November 30 Christian Science 
Monitor article said that they believed the President's numbers were 
much too high. Instead, they said 30,000 was a more accurate figure.
  Mr. Speaker, not only are the number of Iraqi soldiers uncertain, 
their readiness is also in doubt. In September, General George Casey 
told Congress that the number of Iraqi battalions rated at the highest 
level of readiness had dropped from three to one, which means the 
Iraqis have about 800 soldiers which are at the highest level of 
readiness.
  If the President's criteria for concluding our involvement in Iraq is 
the Iraqi army standing up, it appears we are nowhere near achieving 
this goal.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly everything this administration has said about the 
war has turned out to be false. There were no weapons of mass 
destruction. Iraq did not attempt to purchase uranium yellow cake from 
Niger. There was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin 
Ladin or other al Qaeda leaders. We were not greeted as liberators. 
Iraq's oil revenues have not paid for reconstruction costs. In fact, it 
has cost U.S. taxpayers $251 billion so far. The insurgency is not in 
its last throes. And the war has not made us safer. It has provided an 
opportunity for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to recruit 
new members, and it has also diverted hundreds of billions of dollars 
away from efforts to secure our Nation.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The Chair will remind Members 
that they should not wear communicative badges while under recognition.

[[Page H11914]]

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lantos for yielding me this time 
to express what I think just about every speaker has said; that part of 
this resolution I support, and every Member of this body supports 
congratulating the Iraqis on the election. It was a critical step in 
developing democratic institutions in that government in its capacity 
to deal with its own problems. And we certainly all express our 
appreciation to our soldiers and their families for the sacrifices that 
they have made.
  However, this resolution endorses the policy of this administration 
which got us into the war in Iraq and has prolonged our presence 
because of its current policy and unwillingness to change policy, and 
that I cannot support.
  So what should we be doing? I think Mr. Lantos is 100 percent right. 
We should be having an open debate on this issue. Our soldiers deserve 
that. The American people deserve that. We should be expressing that 
our objective in Iraq is to make sure that the Iraqis are capable of 
defending themselves.
  In order to accomplish that, we should be engaging international 
organizations that are better suited than we in helping to develop 
democratic institutions in Iraq and in training Iraqi soldiers and 
security forces so that 2006 can be a year for a substantial number of 
our troops coming home.
  It is our responsibility to ask our President to submit such a plan 
to Congress and to the American people so that we can accomplish these 
objectives. Unfortunately, this resolution does not do that, and I 
regret another missed opportunity.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, these cut-and-run Republicans cut off 
discussion of real security options and run up billion dollar bills 
every month.
  Thin paper resolutions like this have not deflected bullets from our 
troops, and another such gimmick will not deflect accountability from a 
failed policy.
  We are leaving Iraq. It is only a matter of when, of how many brave 
young Americans return home alive, how much we deplete our national 
treasury in the meantime, what chaos is left behind, and how many more 
terrorists are recruited while you dither and delay.
  This resolution is not leading. It is misleading. And the pull-out 
most needed is to pull your heads out of the sand and listen to sound 
military advice, like the sound military advice of decorated military 
heroes like Jack Murtha, like the sound military advice that should 
have been heeded before this mission ever got under way.
  Only yesterday, the President renounced torture, but Republicans 
still cannot renounce the notion of permanent military bases occupying 
Iraq. ``Support our troops'' is more than a slogan. ``Support our 
troops'' means giving them the armor and the number they need to 
succeed in their job. It means never exploiting their courage and 
sacrifice for political gain or to advance failed policies. It is time 
that our troops get the support they need and that people stop hiding 
behind their valor and give them a strategy that works.
  Abandonment and surrender, you say? For three years, you have 
abandoned reality and surrendered to fantasy. Stop repeating the same 
old mistakes. Step up to a new course that offers more hope for our 
future and for our security than the string of missteps in which you 
are currently mired.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this resolution 
because I want to salute the elections in Iraq and our U.S. troops 
there. And I oppose set time tables for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. 
However, in good conscience, I must say I am deeply offended that, for 
the second time in 1 month, the House Republican leadership has brought 
a resolution dealing with the vital issue of war and peace to the floor 
of this House on a partisan basis without a single committee hearing, 
without a single witness and less than 24 hours after this resolution 
was even introduced.
  Eight seconds. Eight seconds. That is how much the House leadership 
and Rules Committee has given each Member of Congress to speak on this 
vital issue today. How dare the leadership give itself the time to 
express their views of conscience but deny other Members of Congress 
the right to express their views of conscience on the issue of when to 
bring our troops home from harm's way.
  We have had time to rename dozens of post offices. Are our troops not 
worth more than 8 seconds per House Member for debate? I think so. I 
hope and pray the Iraqi parliament gives its members a greater voice in 
their democracy than U.S. Members of Congress are being given in ours 
today.
  The Republican leadership could have worked on a bipartisan basis to 
write a resolution saluting the Iraqi elections and our troops there. 
We could have had a unanimous vote to send to our troops during the 
Christmas and holiday season. Instead, the leadership cynically chose 
to push a partisan resolution that they knew would split the House, 
would split the American people, and send a mixed message, not a 
unified message, to our troops in harm's way.
  And as someone who has represented over 40,000 soldiers, Army 
soldiers who have fought in Iraq, I think it is shameful that the House 
Republican leadership would put its partisan ploys above the interests 
of supporting and sending a unified message of support to our troops in 
Iraq.
  Mr. LANTOS. I will use the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, to read 
the resolution which was disallowed by the Republican leadership, a 
resolution congratulating the people of Iraq on three national 
elections conducted in Iraq in 2005.
  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 Iraqi society 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, yesterday, for a new national parliament 
that will serve in accordance with the Iraqi constitution for a 4-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;
  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 
congratulates the people of Iraq on three national elections conducted 
in Iraq in 2005; encourages all Americans to express support for the 
people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve a free, open, and democratic 
society; and 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.
  This is the resolution that would have received unanimous approval by 
this body. Instead, we had an ugly, divisive, and unnecessary debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield the 
balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) for the purpose of closing the debate on the resolution before 
us.

[[Page H11915]]

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I greatly appreciate her leadership in bringing this 
resolution to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, blessed be the peacemakers, for they will be called 
children of God.
  Peacemakers, Mr. Speaker, not simply peaceful. You need not be a 
soldier or a sailor to know the difference. To know that peace, like 
all virtues, demands vigilance, courage and unrelenting moral exertion. 
Every man and woman today making peace in Iraq, whether so signified by 
a flag on their uniform or an ink stain on their finger, understands 
those responsibilities.
  The Iraqi people have hoped and prayed for a generation simply for 
the chance to take up peace's burden for themselves. Yesterday, they 
did, thanks to the bravery and the brilliance of the United States 
military. Because of their service and sacrifice, a war is being won 
and a peace is being made in Iraq, across the Middle East, here at home 
and around the world.
  Now, many in this room sought to avoid this war rather than to fight 
it; to ignore a gathering threat rather than confront it; and now seek 
to end this war rather than win it. They point to the war's cost, its 
difficulties and our setbacks, and, despite the catastrophic 
consequences of failure, call for an immediate retreat and surrender.

                              {time}  1415

  Well, not us, Mr. Speaker. This resolution reaffirms our commitment 
to victory, our commitment to the freedom and security of the Iraqi 
people, and our commitment to victory in Iraq and the broader war on 
terror. Every terrorist captured, every vote counted is another step 
the Iraqi people take towards freedom, victory, and peace. And another 
step our troops take toward home. Help win the war and help make the 
peace by supporting this resolution.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that Republican 
leadership is again attempting to score political points on the backs 
of our troops. I congratulate the Iraqi people for their brave actions 
during yesterday's election and hope for them that this is a turning 
point in their country's history. Had the Republican leadership allowed 
our ranking member on the House International Relations Committee, Mr. 
Lantos, to offer his resolution to this effect, we could have offered a 
unanimous statement of support from Congress and avoided this ugly and 
divisive debate.
  The basic flaw in the resolution that we are debating is that it 
assumes that victory in Iraq is a military outcome to be achieved by 
U.S. troops. Our men and women in uniform have done everything which 
we've asked of them. They have won every battle, but a successful 
future for Iraq requires a strategy to secure the peace that builds on 
what our troops have achieved.
  It makes no sense to remain in Iraq until victory is achieved if our 
continued military presence brings Iraq no closer to stability. 
Instead, we need a plan to change the course in Iraq and achieve the 
best possible outcome for Iraqis and Americans. I have laid out a plan, 
as have Mr. Murtha and others. Rather than a divisive debate over a 
politicized resolution, we should have an open and honest debate over 
how to best proceed in Iraq. The American people deserve no less.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support 
for H. Res. 612, which expresses the commitment of the House to 
achieving victory in Iraq.
  The situation in Iraq has been the subject of much debate recently, 
and on the occasion of the successful Iraqi election yesterday, I think 
this resolution is both timely and appropriate.
  We all agree that the U.S. faces a difficult task in the coming days 
and months ahead in Iraq. We must maintain enough of a presence to 
allow the newly elected government to survive, but not so much as to 
undermine its legitimacy. Thus, the plan is to turn over control on an 
aggressive schedule, as soon as Iraqi forces are able to handle the 
jobs themselves.
  The objective is to create a democratic government that is able to 
manage its own affairs and keep the civilian population safe. This 
entails a gradual turnover of responsibility to Iraqi troops and an 
incremental redeployment of American forces. The schedule of 
withdrawals must be based solely on the Iraqis' ability to handle the 
job, not an arbitrary timetable. Furthermore, the message from elected 
leaders must be that troop withdrawals are part of a plan, not due to 
the fact that we are tired of being there.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, there have been many successes in Iraq 
notwithstanding the violent insurgency that seeks to thwart democratic 
change. There has been economic progress in every sector of Iraq, and, 
as we have all witnessed there has been significant political progress 
as well. Yesterday, approximately eleven million of the fifteen million 
eligible Iraqi voters participated in their national elections. This 
represents over 70 percent voter turnout--even larger than the 10 
million who participated in the referendum on the new constitution in 
October, and the eight million who voted for their interim government 
last January. We can view this as yet another positive sign that the 
disparate ethnic and religious sects have opted to engage in the 
political process rather than civil war.
  In fact, 82 percent of Iraqis polled believe their lives will be 
better in a year, and there is reason to share their optimism. However, 
there is also the need to have realistic expectations. Although they 
are making progress, Iraqi troops are not yet self-sufficient.
  Iraqi forces do control and police more than one-third of Baghdad. In 
addition, Iraqi forces also secure Fallujah, Mosul, and Tal Afar, and 
most of the Syrian border.
  American military commanders estimate that approximately 100,000 
members of the Iraq military are able to work independently on 
operational matters with logistical support from U.S. troops. They 
expect this number to double in the next year. Thus, it is quite 
possible that a significant number of American forces will be able to 
leave the country in the coming year. However, it is also likely that 
we must maintain a sizeable American presence in the region for years 
to come.
  Our efforts in Iraq must also be viewed from a broader Middle Eastern 
perspective. Other countries in the area have taken steps toward 
openness and democracy. Lebanon recently elected a new Prime Minister 
and forced Syria to end its long occupation. Afghanistan elected a 
president; the Palestinians new leadership; and Kuwaiti women won 
suffrage. The politics of this region have been characterized by 
autocracy and repression for millennia; thus, even these steps can be 
viewed as revolutionary. These countries' experiences also provide a 
cautionary tale that change does not come easily. Witness the continued 
assassinations of political figures and members of the press in 
Lebanon. Also witness the Egyptian elections, which began with promise 
but have devolved into disgrace. There are many groups in that part of 
the world who have a profound interest in the status quo and will do 
anything to maintain it. In Iraq, these include Saddam loyalists and 
Islamic radicals, all of whom have different but universally 
unappealing visions for the region.
  The progress in Iraq to date would have been impossible without an 
American military presence. If our troops were to pull out immediately, 
violence would not decrease and the economy would not blossom. Rather, 
the government would collapse and Iraq would devolve into chaos. 
Instability would spread throughout the region, threatening our allies 
in the area, such as Jordan's King Abdullah. Iraq itself would become a 
haven for international terrorism, as Afghanistan once was, and Iran, 
whose government is hostile to our interests, would gain an exponential 
increase in regional influence. America's credibility would suffer a 
crippling blow, resulting in any number of unfavorable geopolitical 
consequences.
  The Soviet Union and communism in Europe ended largely due to the 
policy of glasnost, or increased openness. Openness and democracy could 
well be the demise of the current predominant global threat, radical 
Islam. Thus, we have a great deal at stake in Iraq, and we must 
persevere until we are successful. The alternative is unacceptable.
  I am extremely proud of our brave men and women in uniform and the 
sacrifices they and their families have made during Operation Iraqi 
Freedom. I understand the sentiments of those constituents who want 
American troops to leave Iraq because they want us to stop taking 
casualties. Words cannot describe the pain I feel when I see reports 
that more troops have been wounded or killed. However, if our troops 
leave Iraq prematurely, there will be no chance for stability in the 
Middle East; no way to check the advance of Iran or Syria; and a far 
greater likelihood that more Americans will suffer at the hands of 
emboldened terrorists.
  In closing, let me express my sincere congratulations to the Iraqi 
people on the occasion of their successful national elections. My 
thoughts and prayers remain with our men and women in uniform, as they 
continue to work to bring freedom to the Iraqi people and safety and 
security to all of us here at home.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I voted present on H. Res. 612.
  I vote present when a resolution appears well-meaning but its 
language is flawed.
  H. Res. 612 is referred to as the ``Iraq Victory Resolution.'' The 
term victory means many things to different people. This resolution 
does not define ``victory'' and is therefore unacceptably vague.
  The resolution concludes that the House has ``unshakable confidence'' 
that the United States will ``achieve victory.'' Some would define 
victory as attaining all of the results promised by the administration 
at the time U.S.

[[Page H11916]]

forces invaded. I am not absolutely certain that we will achieve all of 
the results promised by the administration in the winter of 2002-2003.
  Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in congratulating the Iraqi 
people for electing a new parliament that will govern Iraq for the next 
4 years, and for doing so in the face of great danger. I especially 
commend our troops for their heroism in Iraq and for their tremendous 
sacrifice for their service to our country.
  Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity to send a strong bipartisan 
message to the people of Iraq and to our troops. I am afraid that this 
resolution falls short.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, once again, the House Republican leadership 
refuses to allow an honest debate over the future of the U.S. military 
presence in Iraq. The American people, and in particularly our men and 
women in uniform serving honorably in difficult circumstances in Iraq, 
deserve more than cheerleading and sloganeering by Congress and the 
President. Unfortunately, empty gestures are all this Congress provides 
with this resolution.
  Like all of my colleagues in Congress, I was heartened when millions 
of Iraqis, even at risk of life and limb, voted in late January to 
establish an interim government and constitutional assembly and again 
in October in support of a new Constitution. And, the early reporting 
on yesterday's election for a new four-year parliament in Iraq has been 
positive. There has been progress in Iraq. I congratulate the Iraqis on 
the election, and I commend our troops for helping to provide security 
for the election.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support the resolution on the floor today 
because it contains the blatantly false assertion that negotiating a 
time line for withdrawal of U.S. forces with the Iraqi government is 
somehow inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq. To the contrary, I 
believe that negotiating a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces is a 
prerequisite for stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home with 
honor beginning early next year.
  Announcing the termination of the open-ended U.S. military commitment 
in Iraq and providing a concrete plan, including a timeline negotiated 
with the Iraqi government, for withdrawal could well undermine support 
for insurgents. The majority of insurgent fighters are Iraqi Sunnis who 
have stoked the wide variety of grievances of ordinary Iraqis arising 
from the U.S. military presence to generate popular support for their 
cause. Most importantly, establishing a withdrawal plan and timeline 
would remove one of the chief causes of instability in Iraq, the U.S. 
military presence itself, by separating nationalist Iraqi insurgents 
trying to end the U.S. military presence, both Sunni and Shia, from 
foreign elements in Iraq for their own reasons. As, the Commander of 
U.S. forces in Iraq, General George Casey, testified to Congress 
earlier this year that ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a 
major driving force behind the insurgency.'' A specific withdrawal 
plan, with benchmarks for measuring success in stabilizing Iraq, could 
turn Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, against the foreign terrorists 
operating in Iraq. This could be a key turning point in stabilizing the 
country.
  A time line and withdrawal plan negotiated with the Iraqi government 
would also boost the Iraqi government's legitimacy and claim to self-
rule, and force the Iraqi government to take responsibility for itself 
and its citizens. Negotiating a withdrawal timeline and strategy with 
the Iraqi government could, more than possibly anything else, improve 
the standing of the Iraqi government in the eyes of its own people, a 
significant achievement in a region in which the standing of rulers and 
governments is generally low.
  Similarly, establishing a firm timeline for withdrawal could 
accelerate the development of Iraqi security forces and deepen their 
commitment to defending their own country and their own government. It 
would eliminate the conflict they now feel by working with what many of 
them see as an occupying force. It would allow them to defend a 
sovereign Iraqi government, rather than fight alongside U.S. forces. As 
long as the U.S. military remains in Iraq, Iraqi politicians and 
security forces will use it as a crutch and will likely fail to take 
the necessary steps to settle their differences and establish an 
effective, inclusive and independent government.
  Negotiating a timeline for withdrawal with the newly elected Iraqi 
government would show that democracy ended the U.S. occupation of Iraq, 
not terrorist or insurgent violence, and would allow our troops to come 
home with honor.
  Just as importantly, a specific plan and timeline for withdrawal 
would provide much needed relief to over-burdened military personnel 
and their families and provide some certainty to U.S. taxpayers 
regarding the financial burden they'll be forced to bear.
  Finally, a plan for withdrawal could also help the United States in 
our broader fight against Islamic extremists with global ambitions, 
most notably al-Qaeda, by taking away a recruiting tool and training 
ground. Porter Goss, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 
testified to Congress that, ``Islamic extremists are exploiting the 
Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists. These jihadists who 
survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban 
terrorism.'' He went on to say, ``The Iraq conflict, while not a cause 
of extremism, has become a cause for extremists.''
  The House should be debating this important issue and strategies for 
moving forward in Iraq instead of politically motivated misleading 
resolutions.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, recent newspaper articles, television 
news reports, debates on the floor of the U.S. House and Senate, and 
even dinner time conversations this holiday season have been dominated 
by discussions about the war against terrorism in Iraq.
  Two and a half years removed from the beginning of this war, the 
stakes for victory remain high. It is important for all Americans, 
whether they support the war or not, to understand the implications of 
why we went there; what we are there to achieve; and what the 
consequences would be if we agreed to an artificial timetable to 
withdraw our troops. Because we continue to face both great 
difficulties and great opportunities in Iraq, it is even more important 
that all Americans absolutely recognize what the future of Iraq means 
to our security here at home and the future of the Middle East!
  My current reading of the Iraq debate is that some war critics, who 
originally supported the war, have lately been trying to revise or 
rewrite the history of how Iraq became the central front in the war on 
terrorism. Some of this is genuine, principled opposition to war. Some 
of it is personal animosity toward the President. Whatever the reason, 
we need to separate the two. As some have said, ``hate the war, love 
the warfighter.''
  To understand why we are there we do not have to look much further 
than what some critics said before the war and what they are saying 
now.
  In 1998, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said ``Saddam Hussein 
has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction 
technology.'' Seven years later, she says Saddam's weapons were ``not 
an imminent threat to the United States or a cause for war.''
  In 2002, Senator Hillary Clinton said Saddam ``has also given aid, 
comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists.'' Now she claims there were 
``false assurances, faulty evidence'' for war, but still hesitates to 
embrace calls for immediate withdrawal.
  Even former President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that Saddam's 
``ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a 
grave threat.'' Yet, now he says the war was ``a big mistake,'' but, 
like his spouse, warns of the danger of a premature withdrawal.
  Unlike what Iraqis endured under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, 
Americans are afforded the right to voice their concerns and state 
their opinions just as these elected officials and other citizens have 
done. However, it is important we understand the facts before more 
judgments and accusations are made.
  Saddam Hussein reigned through terror, sponsored terror, and 
massacred innocent Iraqis with chemical weapons. He invaded his Kuwaiti 
neighbors and violated more than a dozen U.N. resolutions. His armed 
forces shot at U.S. and British pilots for the ten years they patrolled 
the U.N.-imposed ``No Fly Zones'' as they protected the Iraqi people 
from his brutality. And in the words of weapons inspector Dr. David 
Kay: Saddam had the ``intent'' and ``capabilities'' to develop weapons 
of mass destruction.
  I have never regretted voting to give the President the authority to 
go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam from power. While I agree with 
Senator John McCain that mistakes have been made and some pre-war 
intelligence was unintentionally flawed, we cannot overlook positive 
developments in Iraq. I am convinced, however, that the progress we 
have made could be lost if we prematurely withdraw our troops before 
the Iraqi people are fully capable of governing and securing their own 
country.
  The War on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is the defining 
challenge of our generation, whether some ``war opponents'' like it or 
not. Osama Bin Laden's deputy Ayman Al-Zawahiri has declared Iraq to be 
``the place for the greatest battle,'' where he hopes to ``expel the 
Americans'' and then spread ``the jihad wave to the secular countries 
neighboring Iraq.'' Such statements reaffirm why withdrawing our troops 
according to an artificial political timetable would be detrimental to 
the future of Iraq, our own national security, and could actually 
embolden those who hate our way of life.
  Iraq continues to strengthen its security forces, but not all of 
their military battalions are ready to operate independent of coalition 
troops. Our troops, and those of our coalition allies, are still needed 
in Iraq and we need to stand firm in the face of the terrorists. If we

[[Page H11917]]

leave prematurely, jihadists and terrorists will interpret our 
withdrawal as total victory and use that opportunity to turn Iraq into 
a springboard for future attacks closer to our shores. We know what 
these terrorists are capable of. Here in New Jersey, we don't need to 
be reminded of 9/11, nor have we forgotten terrorist attacks in Bali, 
London, Madrid, Thailand, Bangladesh, Jordan, Israel, and the discovery 
of cells in Belgium and a host of countries around the world.
  We also have a responsibility to 28 million Iraqis who, after decades 
of abuse and torture by Saddam, yearn to be free and deserve a chance 
for prosperity and stability. We pledged to guide the Iraqi people 
through the difficult steps of constituting a new government, 
strengthening the Iraqi Army, and laying the ground work for free 
elections. But it would be incredibly dangerous if we allowed threats 
from Bin Laden, Zawahiri, or any of the insurgency to influence our 
foreign policy and ``break our promise'' to the Iraqi people. Drawing 
down our forces in Iraq should be based strictly on the progress being 
made by the Iraqi government to fully secure their own country and the 
judgment of our military generals on the ground over there.
  For our troops to come home safely, our strategy for victory depends 
significantly on more Iraqi Security Forces, ISF, being trained, 
equipped, and ready to ``lead the fight'' for securing their own 
country. American military leaders in Iraq estimate that 210,400 Iraqi 
forces are currently fighting to defend Iraq. More than 80 battalions 
are fighting alongside coalition troops while nearly 40 others, 
including four in Baghdad, are independently policing and controlling 
areas of Iraq. Despite that innocent Iraqis continue to be a target of 
suicide bombers, more than 50,000 Iraqi police have completed basic 
training courses and ISF recruitment remains high. With all due respect 
to media reports, most of the insurgency only exists in four of 18 
provinces in Iraq, a country the size of California.

  Despite continued terrorists attacks, car bombings, beheadings, and 
kidnappings, the terrorists have not achieved their goals. In fact, 
2005 has been a watershed year for democracy in Iraq. In January, the 
world watched as Iraqis defied terrorist threats by going to the polls 
and casting their votes for self-determination. Eight million Iraqis 
went to the voting booth and took a stand against terror by voting for 
an interim National Assembly. In October, almost 10 million 
participated in an Iraqi referendum to approve a national constitution 
that--for the first time ever--guarantees them basic freedoms, rights 
and protections under law, regardless of their gender, religion, or 
ethnic origin. And on December 15 even more Iraqis cast their votes for 
a permanent, full-time government.
  In addition to the political and security strategy in Iraq, we must 
also continue to focus on the economic and reconstruction effort. While 
at times slow, critical infrastructure in Iraq continues to be restored 
and rebuilt to meet the increasing demand and need of the country's 
growing economy. The Army Corps of Engineers and many of our soldiers 
and Marines, working alongside Iraqis, the USAID and other 
international agencies, are helping Iraq build schools, modernize water 
and sewage projects, and open new fire and police stations. 
Approximately 80,000 children are attending Iraq's 3,400 schools. After 
years of neglect, more than 15,000 Iraqi homes have been connected to 
the Baghdad water system. And more Iraqi women are receiving better 
health care thanks to the construction of a new 260-bed maternity 
hospital in Mosul.
  These are strong signs of progress in Iraq--none of which would have 
been possible without the service, sacrifice, and strong morale of U.S. 
and coalition forces. Unfortunately, such stories are not always being 
told by the media. Iraqis want to be free, and thanks to the support of 
our service men and women, they are taking steps each and every day to 
reach their goal.
  Mr. Speaker, victory will not be accomplished overnight. On the 
contrary, the Iraqis still need our help to meet their political and 
security objectives. Our work in Iraq remains dangerous and difficult 
but we must meet the challenges of this new kind of war. We must honor 
the service and sacrifice of our soldiers by doing whatever it takes to 
protect our nation and prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I will always support our troops, and I 
thank them and honor them for their bravery and valor during the 
difficult task of fighting the insurgents in Iraq. I also commend and 
admire the people of Iraq for their determination and bravery in the 
historic elections this week. The turnout was impressive--it was a 
testament to the spirit of the people and it will hopefully lead to a 
strong democracy.
  I hope and pray that we are successful in Iraq--that the violence 
ends, that the country is stabilized and that our soldiers come home 
safe, sound and soon. Unfortunately, more than 150,000 of our best and 
bravest remain in Iraq having been given no real plan to win the peace 
and no defined terms of victory. Indeed, they were sent to Iraq by an 
administration that was unaware of the circumstance in Iraq and 
unprepared to win the peace.
  I plan to vote ``present'' on this resolution because it calls for 
``complete victory'' without actually defining victory. The 
administration has set tangible dates for elections and for the 
creation of a government, but why is it always vague about the terms of 
``victory''? We have trained 100,000 Iraqi troops, will ``victory'' be 
achieved only after we train 100,000 more? Can victory only be won 
after our troops remain in Iraq in full force for another ten years? 
Longer than that?
  Our military is the best in history, and it can achieve victory in 
any situation, as long as it is told what victory entails.
  Elections are important milestones, but they are not magic pills. In 
1967, there was an historic vote in South Vietnam, similar to the 
elections Iraq is holding now. As we all know, hostilities in Vietnam 
would continue for 7 years after those elections, with 50,000 more 
Americans losing their lives.
  We continue to wait for the Iraqi forces to be capable of securing 
Iraq themselves, but the vagueness of our goals and the vagueness of 
``victory'' in this war gives them little incentive to take over from 
our military. We badly need a timetable, but, ``When they stand up, 
we'll stand down,'' is hardly adequate.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree with the parts of this 
resolution that congratulate the Iraqis for holding a democratic 
election and commend the sacrifices made by our United States Armed 
Forces and their families. Unfortunately, this resolution also endorses 
a failed policy that got us into this war, and has prolonged our 
presence in Iraq. Therefore, I cannot support H. Res. 612.
  It is our responsibility to speak out individually and collectively. 
I will continue to communicate with the President and urge him to 
change course in Iraq. In order to achieve the goal of the Iraqis 
taking charge of their own security needs without the presence of U.S. 
troops, we must engage international organizations to assume primary 
responsibility for building democratic institutions including the 
training of Iraqi security forces. We need a strategy that will permit 
a substantial number of our troops to return home in 2006. The 
President should submit a plan to Congress and the American people that 
carries out these objectives.
  As we pass yet another resolution that expresses support for our 
troops and our desire to achieve ``victory'' in Iraq, I must remind my 
colleagues that our soldiers have paid the heaviest price in Iraq. 
Thousands are dead, and tens of thousands are wounded. The American 
taxpayer has already invested hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. 
Speaker, our soldiers deserve better than the resolution we are 
considering today with 1 hour of debate. The American people deserve 
serious consideration of how we can safely bring our soldiers home.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution.
  The Republicans do not want any timetables to end the Iraq war 
because timetables would force the Bush administration to actually 
create a workable strategy to end the war. To cover for their lack of 
strategy and competence in Iraq, the Republicans are accusing others of 
creating artificial solutions to the quagmire they created. This is 
ironic since the Republicans have done nothing but provide artificial 
facts about the reasons to go to war, the progress of the war and the 
goals of the war.
  Just about everything President Bush and congressional Republicans 
have said about Iraq has been proven false. Initially, President Bush 
and congressional Republicans justified the Iraq War on artificial 
grounds. Here are just a few examples: Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction; Iraq bought enriched uranium from Niger; Saddam Hussein 
and Iraq were involved in 9/11; the intelligence about Iraq was 
accurate; and Congress had the same intelligence as the President about 
Iraq.
  Then, President Bush and congressional Republicans provided 
artificial reasons on the progress of the war. Here are just few 
examples: The cost of the Iraq war would be low; the United States 
could use Iraq oil to pay for most of Iraq's war costs; the United 
States would be welcomed as liberators; the United States has enough 
troops to keep the peace in Iraq; and the Iraqi insurgency is in its 
last throes.
  President Bush and congressional Republicans have consistently 
created equally artificial landmarks about what defines victory in 
Iraq. Here are the latest artificial landmarks: Over 2 years ago, 
President Bush declared ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq on the USS 
Abraham Lincoln after the defeat of the Iraqi army; the first Iraq 
election in January 2005; the passing of the Iraq constitution in 
October 2005; and the second Iraq election held yesterday.
  With the passing of these events and the insurgency still going 
strong, President Bush

[[Page H11918]]

and congressional Republicans are now creating another artificial 
definition of victory to justify the United States continued presence 
in Iraq. This resolution now defines victory as the United States 
staying in Iraq until Iraqis can provide their own security.
  After 2 years of training Iraqis, nobody can definitively tell the 
American people when this is going to happen. The GAO, think tanks and 
the military itself agree that Iraqi troop readiness is low, their 
loyalty and morale are questionable, there are sharp regional and 
ethnic divisions among the troop ranks, and their reported numbers 
overstate the real effectiveness of the troops. Such analysis does not 
exactly provide confidence that continuing U.S. training efforts will 
be successful or that our troops will be coming home anytime soon.
  I ask my colleagues how many young American men and women have to die 
for a war fought for artificial reasons and artificial goals? Our 
soldiers should not have to be killed while President George Bush 
fumbles around for a face-saving strategy to end the debacle of the 
Iraq war.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. It is time for 
America to end this mistake and bring our troops safely home.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Iraqi 
people on their participation in a successful election. The successful 
vote was a major stride for many Iraqis. Guns, bombs and violence were 
largely set aside for the day as a large majority of Iraqis went to the 
polls and exercised their right to vote. It is my sincere hope that 
with the new government in order, the bloodshed in Iraq will be 
replaced by an open, democratic debate.
  I cannot, however, support this flawed resolution. The resolution 
focuses more on affirming the President's strategy for a continued 
military presence in Iraq than actually congratulating the Iraqis. And, 
while I agree with this resolution that a timeline for a U.S. Armed 
Forces withdrawal is not the proper course of action at this time, I 
strongly believe our military effort needs to be exceeded by the 
diplomatic effort to come. Unfortunately though, this resolution does 
not express that sense. It is nothing more than another political 
tactic by the Republican leadership meant to squash a real debate on 
Iraq in favor of a one-sided avowal of faith in an administration that 
has proved unfaithful.
  We have never had a real debate on Iraq here in the House and this 
resolution does not offer real deliberation either. I call on my 
friends in the leadership to allow this House, the greatest legislative 
body in the world, to have a candid discussion, a full and fair debate, 
for at least 2 days, on this critical matter.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that the United States is not doing 
enough to ensure that diplomacy will win out over violence. Certainly 
that is our objective, I do not deny that, but without a clear plan 
from the administration to achieve this aim I fear that our presence in 
Iraq could be protracted for much longer than it could or should be. 
This war will not turn to peace by military means alone. Diplomacy, 
democracy, and dialogue are the only true ways that Iraq can be a 
success. After four major speeches on Iraq from the President, I still 
have not seen an honest appraisal from this administration on the 
progress that has been made, and more importantly, what we are doing to 
ensure future progress. This is the type of discussion that we should 
be having here in the House, not a bogus debate on a hollow political 
resolution veiled as a congratulatory message to the Iraqi people.
  We need a change of course in Iraq. We should hasten the shift of 
control to the Iraqis and move away from military conflict. Peace in 
Iraq can only be achieved by the Iraqis themselves. Therefore, there 
must be more emphasis on finding diplomatic solutions to Iraqi 
problems; to bringing in more nations to work with the Iraqis to 
rebuild and restructure their country; and there must be support for 
Iraqi democracy in all its forms. The Iraqi constitution clearly needs 
to be revisited and the administration must put pressure on the ruling 
parties, no matter who emerges victorious from the election, to engage 
in an honest, open deliberation on the amendment process to ensure that 
all Iraqis feel that they have a legitimate stake in the future of 
their country.
  We have lost more than 2,000 brave men and women in Iraq. In excess 
of 100,000 active and reserve soldiers continue to serve in Iraq. We 
must honor the sacrifices and achievements of our troops, the pain 
borne by their families, and we must celebrate what they have been able 
to accomplish in spite of the incompetence and arrogance of this 
administration. Yesterday's elections give hope to the success of a 
free Iraq. Let us build on this momentum and show Iraqis and the world 
that the U.S. is truly committed to a stable and free Iraq achieved 
through diplomacy, not through military might.
  Again, I congratulate the Iraqi people on a successful election 
yesterday. They showed the world that freedom knows no bounds. And I 
believe we must give our brave men and women all the support they need 
to achieve victory. However, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
cynical, and frankly, disgracefully political, resolution, and ask that 
my colleagues seek a debate beyond platitudes in this House and demand 
more honesty and action from this administration.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, like millions of other Americans, I am pleased 
that Iraq held a democratic election for permanent representation and 
commend the bravery of the Iraqi people who risked their lives to vote 
for their vision of an Iraq ``by and for Iraqis.'' And I remain a 
stalwart supporter of our sailors, soldiers and marines who are serving 
in Iraq. What I do not support is the Republican leadership's political 
manipulation of the Iraq war and their attempts to stymie debate about 
how to get U.S. troops home as quickly and safely as possible.
  I could not vote for H. Res. 612 because it does not call for 
immediately bringing U.S. troops home. U.S. troop presence fuels the 
insurgency. If the administration acknowledged this fact and started 
bring our troops home, we would remove the dangerous veneer of 
``occupiers'' and put pressure on the Iraqis to step up to the plate 
and take over their own security, particularly now that the Iraqis have 
a representative government. The administration's bogus statement of 
``they stand up we stand down'' is a hollow promise to our troops: It's 
just a slogan that provides no concrete answers on how we're getting 
out of Iraq. I urge my colleagues in Congress and the administration to 
stop wasting our troops time with slogans and politically driven 
resolutions like H. Res. 612 and instead focus on what's really 
important: bringing our troops home.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today the leadership of this House has 
failed both the American people and the people of Iraq.
  Today our country had a tremendous opportunity to stand united and 
join together in congratulating the Iraqi people on their elections for 
the first full-term National Assembly. We had a chance to send a shared 
message of gratitude to our troops and the families who have sacrificed 
so much. Instead, the Republican leadership chose the politics of 
division over unity of purpose. In a reprehensible act of blatant 
partisanship, they squandered a special opportunity to send a strong 
message and cynically exploited our troops for political gain.
  Today, Congressman Lantos offered us an opportunity to stand together 
by introducing a resolution that congratulates the people of Iraq on 
the recent election and expresses our thanks to the men and women of 
our Armed Forces who are serving there. That resolution would have 
received a unanimous vote in this House. But the Republican leadership 
did not want a unanimous vote in support of our troops and the people 
of Iraq. They denied us the opportunity to cast a vote on the Lantos 
resolution. The hypocrisy of their action should not be lost on the 
American people. At a time when we all want to celebrate the right of 
the Iraqi people to vote in Iraq, the Republican leadership denied this 
House the right to vote on the unifying resolution offered by Mr. 
Lantos. And the very people who tell us each day that our Nation should 
speak with one voice on Iraq crafted a resolution that was deliberately 
designed to splinter the Members of this House.
  The American people can respect genuine differences of opinion on the 
best way to move forward in Iraq. We should have a healthy debate about 
the best way to bring our troops home. Questions of war and peace are 
matters of conscience. When so many American and Iraqi lives hang in 
the balance, each of us has a responsibility to exercise our best 
judgment. What is so disappointing about the actions of the Republican 
leadership today is that it chose to turn an opportunity for 
bipartisanship into a political ploy. It demonstrated a smallness of 
mind that placed politics over the national interest.
  I have never before voted ``present'' on a resolution in the House. I 
hope I do not feel compelled to do so again in the future. But there 
are times we have an obligation to send a message that we reject the 
politics of cynicism. The Republican resolution is less about achieving 
victory in Iraq than victory at the polls in 2006. We must refuse to 
participate in a political charade. There are few things in politics as 
despicable as using our troops and the democratic aspirations of the 
people of Iraq as pawns in a political game. Today's action by the 
Republican leadership has brought shame upon this House. It is time to 
put the national interest above political posturing.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled and disappointed that this 
particular resolution concerning Iraq is before the House today. It is 
intentionally divisive, and unnecessarily so.
  Yesterday, the Iraqi people engaged in the most basic civic activity 
of a true democracy; they voted. I congratulate the millions of Iraqi 
citizens who bravely went to the polls to elect their parliament. I am 
greatly encouraged by this significant accomplishment, and I am proud 
to strongly support the Iraqi people as they struggle to build their 
own democracy.

[[Page H11919]]

  I also strongly support our troops on the ground in Iraq. I recognize 
and honor their service and tremendous sacrifice. I also honor the 
sacrifices that have been made by their family members over the past 4 
years. They have served bravely and skillfully, even when they have not 
been given the equipment and strategic support they require. As they 
come home, their Government must live up to its promise and provide the 
long term support they will need.
  Every member of the House would support a resolution celebrating and 
honoring the Iraqi people and successful elections that occurred 
yesterday.
  Every member of the House would also support a resolution honoring 
the sacrifice and commitment of our service members who are serving in 
Iraq.
  The ranking minority member of the International Relations Committee 
introduced a resolution that would have done those things.
  Unfortunately, the majority has chosen to play politics with our 
troops and to use the historic Iraqi elections as an opportunity to try 
to split us apart.
  The resolution before us today fails on two fronts. First it fails 
for what it is not: Not a strategy for success, no change of course, 
and nothing to communicate to the American People or our troops that we 
recognize the facts on the ground and have learned from our past 
mistakes.
  It also fails for what it is: an empty, self-congratulatory statement 
that the current policy is working, without regard for the facts. There 
is enough good to recognize--the Iraqi elections, the service of our 
soldiers--that we should not be waving around our own statements of 
self-appreciation and manufactured on imaginary good news.
  Let us discuss real, solid evidence and real, substantive plans. How 
do we move towards a more stable, functional Iraq?
  It is worth discussing, for a moment, the meaning of victory. I would 
have hoped that the President and Majority would have learned 3 years 
ago that saying ``Mission Accomplished'' does not make it so. Giving 
wishful speeches in front of signs that says ``Victory'' does not make 
it so. And using the word ``victory'' in the titles of 
counterproductive resolutions like this brings us no closer to a stable 
and functional Iraq.
  Now that the Iraqi people have a framework for a constitution and 
have elected a parliament, it is time for the United States to bring 
our troops home. This will do more to erode support for the insurgency 
than a continued U.S. military occupation can ever hope to accomplish.
  As my colleges know, Congressman John Murtha, a respected defense 
expert and a decorated Marine veteran, recently introduced H.J. Res. 
73, which would bring our troops home from Iraq and bring an end to an 
occupation that does not serve the interests of the Iraqis or America. 
This resolution recognizes the ground truth in Iraq and will help to 
end the insurgency, I am proud to support it, and not this one.
  Also, publicly stating that we will not seek to build permanent bases 
in the country would help to reassure the population of Iraq that we 
mean what we say when we tell them we have no designs of occupation. 
That is why I have cosponsored the Iraq Sovereignty Promotion Act, H.R. 
3142, which calls for America to make such a public pledge.
  Unfortunately, today we are not discussing either of these bills, or 
any of the many other pieces of legislation that have been introduced 
by my colleagues on what to do in Iraq. Instead, we have wasted an 
opportunity to have a substantive debate in favor of yet another 
divisive hollow resolution.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the majority brings to the House floor 
today a resolution wrapped in a process that is offensive to the very 
essence of democracy. This resolution provides a dictated take-it-or-
leave-it vote without the opportunity for our side to offer amendments 
expressing differing views of the elections in Iraq and the U.S. 
presence there. The substance of this resolution has all the appearance 
and wording of a campaign slogan.
  While applauding the beginnings of democracy in Iraq, the majority 
has stifled democracy at home by denying Democrats the opportunity to 
offer our own resolution for consideration and an up-or-down vote on 
it.
  Certainly, Democrats and Republicans congratulate the Iraqi people 
who drafted and by vote ratified their own constitution, and who voted 
this week in defiance of radical elements who sought to deter the Iraqi 
people from voting.
  It is appropriate for the House to congratulate the Iraqi people on 
this step toward democratic governance, and we share the view that this 
election and the continued training of Iraq's security forces will make 
it possible for the United States to redeploy our troops and leave 
Iraqis in charge of their own destiny.
  That is as far as this House should go in expressing support for the 
Iraqi democratic process. However, this resolution goes further. It 
raises the strawman of ``achieving victory in Iraq'' and it is critical 
of ``setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. Armed 
Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in 
Iraq,'' policies that House Democrats have not proposed. Nor does this 
resolution define what is meant by ``victory in Iraq.''
  I want to express my support for the Iraqi people and this further 
step toward democracy, but I will oppose this resolution because I find 
it offensive that the majority has advanced a resolution that pretends 
to celebrate democracy by adding divisive and partisan language that is 
clearly designed for use in a domestic political campaign.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, millions of Iraqis went out and 
voted for a new, national parliament, and I applaud them for doing so. 
I also commend the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, who helped 
the Iraqi people vote in safety. Our troops are doing a difficult job 
in Iraq.
  I do not favor immediate withdrawal. Opposition to immediate 
withdrawal is not a substitute for a clear and detailed American 
strategy in Iraq, nor is blindly staying the course. What is needed is 
coming to terms with what the course should be--a plan regarding 
completion of our presence in Iraq.
  Last month, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Defense bill that 
requires the President to submit such a plan to Congress, an amendment 
I strongly support. Indeed, I favor the more rigorous version of the 
amendment that was offered in the other body. In addition to requiring 
the Administration to provide Congress with a detailed strategy in Iraq 
with measurable benchmarks, the Administration would also provide 
Congress with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of U.S. 
forces from Iraq as each condition is met.
  Unfortunately, the resolution before the House is transparently 
political. The House should reject it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the 
procedures under which this resolution is being debated. I voted 
against those procedures because the House should have been able to 
have a full and free debate and to consider possible changes in the 
resolution.
  For example, Representative Lantos proposed that we congratulate the 
Iraqi people on three national elections conducted in Iraq this year, 
encourage all Americans to express support for the people of Iraq, and 
express thanks to the members of the U.S. armed forces whose heroism 
permitted the Iraqi people to vote safely in yesterday's elections. 
That would have been something all Members of the House could support, 
if the Republican leadership had permitted that to be considered.
  Still, I will vote for the resolution that is now before us, for 
several reasons.
  First, the resolution calls yesterday's parliamentary elections a 
``crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy.'' I 
couldn't agree more.
  Reports are still coming in and we won't know the results for some 
time, but it's clear that the day was a success in terms of high 
turnout and low levels of violence. To the extent that increased Sunni 
participation means a greater political role for Sunnis in the new 
parliament, we could see weakened support for the insurgency. And the 
Iraqi people should be commended for their courage in coming out to 
vote--not once, but three times this year.
  The resolution then goes on to call for a commitment to victory in 
Iraq, although it doesn't define ``victory.'' I strongly suspect this 
language was added, not so much to send a positive message to our 
soldiers or the Iraqi people so much as it was designed to bolster 
President Bush's recent speeches in Iraq where the word ``victory'' 
looms large.
  Unlike American success in World War II, ``victory'' in Iraq cannot 
be measured by military success alone. This was achieved when our 
troops toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. What we can hope for in 
Iraq is that a responsible withdrawal of American forces can be linked 
to measurable benchmarks of political stability. This means that Iraqi 
security forces must be capable of providing for the safety of Iraqis. 
It means that Iraq's cities and infrastructure are rebuilt and its 
citizens have access to electricity and clean water. A successful 
withdrawal strategy means that America will no longer bear the brunt of 
the burden--that the U.N., other international organizations, our 
allies, and countries in the region will step up to assist with the 
nation-building mission in Iraq.
  A successful outcome in Iraq is essential because failure in this 
part of the world could lead to wider war, greater terrorism and a 
disaster for our national security. To be frank, it is not so much 
``victory'' that ought to concern us so much as a need to avoid 
``failure.''
  Unfortunately, whether we can avoid a failure in Iraq is a question 
that is not completely in our hands because only the Iraqis themselves 
can find the will necessary to live

[[Page H11920]]

alongside each other and to make the compromises necessary to build a 
functioning government based on an inclusive constitution.
  For the record, I opposed the Iraq war resolution, but I have 
resisted supporting an artificial deadline for withdrawing troops. I 
believe we need a plan that is designed to bring our troops home and 
make clear to the Islamic world that we harbor no ambitions for 
permanent bases, Iraqi oil revenues or any military occupation. But how 
we withdraw is as important as when we withdraw. This means giving the 
Iraqis time to form a permanent government and establish the means for 
international support. We must exercise deep care in the way our 
country withdraws because leaving a failed state in Iraq will deeply 
endanger our country.
  We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more 
divided. That's why I led a letter last month to Defense Authorization 
conferees with my colleagues Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE), Rep. Ellen 
Tauscher (D-CA), and Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI) urging conferees to 
include language passed overwhelmingly in the Senate urging President 
Bush to outline his strategy for withdrawal from Iraq and to provide 
Members of Congress with quarterly reports on the progress of American 
operations in Iraq. We wrote this letter because we believe that a 
successful withdrawal from Iraq can only be helped if Congress and the 
Bush Administration work to bring unity at home.
  It is in our national interest to show the greatest amount of unity 
possible to the American people, to the international community, and to 
the Iraqi people, who so bravely made their way to polling stations all 
over Iraq yesterday.
  Sending a message of encouragement to the Iraqi people to build 
stable institutions based on democratic principles is important at this 
critical time. it is for this fundamental reason that I vote today in 
support of this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 
619, the resolution is considered read and the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. 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, this 15-
minute vote on House Resolution 612 will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on motions to suspend the rules with respect to H. Res. 409; H. Res. 
575; and H. Res. 534.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279, 
nays 109, answered ``present'' 34, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 648]

                               YEAS--279

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--109

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--34

     Andrews
     Baird
     Bishop (NY)
     Boyd
     Butterfield
     Carson
     DeFazio
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Harman
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Matsui
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Owens
     Paul
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schiff
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Van Hollen

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Hyde
     Istook
     LaHood
     McCarthy
     Napolitano
     Payne
     Sweeney


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1442

  Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  Mr. BOEHLERT and Mr. FORD changed their votes from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. MEEK of Florida changed 
their votes from ``nay'' to ``present.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________