[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 78 (Friday, June 16, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4139-H4174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DECLARING THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL PREVAIL IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON 
                                 TERROR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 868, 
proceedings will now resume on the resolution (H. Res. 861) declaring 
that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the 
struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on Thursday, 
June 15, 2006, 61 minutes of debate remained on the resolution.
  The Committee on International Relations has 2 minutes remaining, the 
Committee on Armed Services has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, the Committee 
on the Judiciary has 23 minutes remaining, and the minority leader's 
designee has 30\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remainder of 
our time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) with whom I 
had the honor of visiting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, the front 
line of the war on terror.
  Mr. GERLACH. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I think most of us understand we must succeed in Iraq if 
we are to win this global war on terror. Like any war, we may not want 
to be there, but now we must successfully complete the task before us.
  It is not and will not be easy. But as one said, there is no 
substitute for victory. We must prevail. But at the same time, we also 
need to make it undeniably clear to the Iraqi Government that our 
patience and support are not blank checks that can be cashed with 
American lives and tax dollars ad infinitum.
  To do that properly and effectively, it is imperative that the 
Congress do its job to proactively and comprehensively evaluate the 
current level of progress of the Iraqi Government and clearly report 
its findings on an ongoing basis to the American people.
  By doing so, we would be firmly pushing the Iraqis themselves to 
continue their efforts to stand up and take charge of their destiny. 
The American people are looking to us to answer their questions on how 
much progress is being made, what are the Iraqis themselves willing to 
do to fight for their freedom, and when will the men and women come 
home.
  For this very reason, I recently introduced a resolution calling on 
certain House and Senate committees to evaluate and issue specific 
findings and conclusions on the progress of the Iraqi Government to 
take over operational control to maintain proper civil order, to foster 
economic growth and self-sufficiency and preserve the Iraqi people's 
freedoms as set forth in their Constitution.
  It is my firm belief that if this fact-finding and reporting process 
is undertaken, it will set the stage for further evaluation and 
consensus-building both inside and outside of Congress on our role in 
Iraq and will go a long way to ensure that our future involvement there 
continues to be the right policy, both for Iraq and America.
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, through the years I have had the opportunity to visit and 
watch those in uniform as they trained, as they sailed aboard ship. I 
have visited with them in difficult places through the years, most 
recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. I must tell you how immensely proud I 
am of those young men and young women who wear the uniform of the 
United States.
  We asked for a debate on the issue of Iraq. We were led to believe 
that we would be debating and discussing at length the issue of Iraq. 
Then the resolution was put forward for us, which we are discussing 
today, which is a shotgun blast all across the Middle East and its 
problems and terrorism, and a footnote is Iran.
  So we should be discussing the future of our young people as they 
proceed in Iraq, not everywhere else, because the issue we thought was 
before us was that. I must tell you that I take a back seat to no one 
in providing for the troops, the young people in uniform and their 
families, because their families are so very, very important. Having 
members of my family in uniform, I understand the importance thereof.
  Sadly, this is not about Iraq. Last year this Congress drafted, and 
the President signed into law, words that said calendar year 2006 
should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, 
with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free 
and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased 
redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.
  That is what we should be discussing. It should be narrow, 
intellectual discussion, a serious discussion about that country and 
its future, full sovereignty transition to their government and how it 
is being stood up, how their security forces and Iraqi police forces 
are being stood up, and how we are training them and also creating 
conditions for the phased redeployment of American forces from that 
country.
  That is the law of the land, signed by the President, passed by this 
Congress. That is in conflict with the resolution before us. As we say 
back home, they have done gee and haw together very well. But the law 
of the land is what we should be discussing today and all the parts 
thereof.
  But what concerns me most of all is at the end of the day, what about 
the future of our military? Our forces will come out of this effort 
seriously strained, both in personnel and in equipment. The equipment 
in Iraq is wearing out two to nine times the peace time rate. Some 
equipment has added as much as 27 years' worth of wear and tear in the 
last 3 years in Iraq. We must continue to fund defense requirements to 
meet unpredictable future security needs.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, after I recognize the distinguished gentleman 
from Virginia, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who sits on the Judiciary 
Committee, be allowed to control the remaining time on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize for 3 minutes 
the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who chairs 
the House Agriculture Committee and who sits on the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, just over 3 years ago the world watched 
as a treacherous tyrant disregarded United Nations resolutions and 
burrowed into the bunkers of Baghdad. Within a short period of time, 
coalition forces dismantled Saddam Hussein's regime, which was built on 
fear, murders, assassinations, torture and lies. And today this 
despotic dictator stands on trial before the Iraqi people in a 
courtroom that is a stone's throw from his prison cell.
  While insurgents and terrorists continue their attempts to dismantle 
the progress that the Iraqi people have made, our resolution to see a 
free Iraq

[[Page H4140]]

must remain as strong as ever. Iraqis have also demonstrated their 
commitment to rebuilding their nation from the ashes of tyranny by 
their overwhelming participation in three democratic elections.
  On the eve of completion of Iraq's democratically elected government, 
coalition forces and Iraqi police tracked down and killed the man Osama 
bin Laden referred to as the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al 
Zarqawi. Zarqawi led one of the bloodiest insurgent groups in Iraq in a 
bloody campaign of shootings, bombings beheadings and kidnappings aimed 
at derailing democracy in Iraq.
  America is the world's leader in laying the foundations for freedom 
and future peace. We have stood for the spread of democracy around the 
world. We believe in it and have stood for it, not only for ourselves, 
for Europeans, Latin Americans, Asians and Africans. We have stood for 
it in the Middle East for the Israelis and now for Arabs in the wider 
Muslim world, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
  With our leadership ideals that have inspired our history, freedom, 
democracy and human dignity are increasingly inspiring individuals in 
nations throughout the world, because free nations tend toward peace. 
The advance of liberty will make America more secure.
  Americans have felt the sting of the terrorist threat on our own 
soil, and we must make clear that we are dedicated to preventing any 
future attacks by tracking and eliminating terrorist threats. America 
is more secure today, thanks to the brave men and women of our Armed 
Forces whose dedication, patriotism and bravery are helping advance 
freedom and democracy in Iraq and around the world.
  President Bush said it best while speaking to our troops during his 
recent visit to Iraq: this is a moment, this is a time where the world 
can turn one way or the other, where the world can be a better place or 
a more dangerous place. The United States of America and citizens such 
as yourselves are dedicated to making sure that the world we leave 
behind is a better place for all. Support freedom, support peace, 
support our troops, support this resolution.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Etheridge) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the debate on this 
resolution on Iraq. I will vote for House Resolution 861 because I 
strongly support our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq, which was my second trip 
to that war zone. I am tremendously proud of all the men and women 
serving there, especially all the North Carolinians who have served and 
continue to serve there. I am pleased that we have made progress in 
training the Iraqi military to begin to provide for that country's 
security needs. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of work to be done 
to train Iraqi police, government and other civil institutions that are 
critical to a stable and functioning society. There is a long way to go 
to make Iraq a sustainable, peaceful country, and the administration 
must change course to build coalitions with our allies and all peaceful 
nations of the world to cooperate in rebuilding Iraq.
  Although I strongly support our troops, I have serious concerns about 
the administration's current policies regarding Iraq. I believe the 
ultimate goal must be victory in Iraq. We need more burden-sharing 
support from other countries because the whole world has a tremendous 
stake in a stable Iraq and a peaceful Middle East. The administration 
must do a better job of providing for our soldiers in the field and our 
veterans and military families here at home. Specifically, the 
communities surrounding Fort Bragg in my district need more Federal 
funds to build new schools to meet the needs of the children of our 
servicemembers. I have voted every time to approve the funds to rebuild 
Iraq, but if we can spend billions of American tax dollars on building 
new roads, water treatment plants and schools in Iraq, we can invest 
some public resources in our urgent infrastructure needs here at home.
  Congress has played a critical role in issues like providing armor 
for our troops and their vehicles, improving pay and incentives for 
better recruitment and retention of our troops and care for their 
families and creating the Homeland Security Department to protect our 
people from the threat of terrorist attack. I call on Congress to 
reject the administration's proposed cuts to our vital National Guard, 
and I will continue to work on the U.S. House Committee on Homeland 
Security to support our first responders who keep our people safe.
  I will vote for this resolution because I support our troops, but I 
have serious concerns both with certain provisions in the resolution 
and the administration's approach to Iraq. Specifically, the resolution 
states support for the goal of a ``unified Iraq.'' I do not believe 
that the Congress should dictate the contours of the map of the Middle 
East. As long as they do so in a peaceful manner, the Iraqi people 
should be free to decide whether or not unity, confederation or 
independence is the best form of government to meet their needs. And 
the administration's failed approach of going it alone and refusing to 
hold high level officials accountable for clear mistakes must end. 
Stubbornness is not a strategy and slogans will not win this conflict.
  Let me state clearly that last week's elimination of terrorist leader 
Abu Musab Al Zarqawi by American special forces is an important 
accomplishment. I commend our military personnel who carried out the 
operation. This success points out the importance of human intelligence 
methods and demonstrates the usefulness of offering awards of large 
sums of money for information on America's enemies. This success stands 
in sharp contrast to the administration's continued failure to find 
Osama bin Laden. We should immediately double the bounty on bin Laden 
and continue to increase it at regular intervals until the terrorist 
mastermind is defeated.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I regret the partisan manner in which this 
resolution has been brought to this floor, which my North Carolina 
colleague Republican Congressman Walter Jones has rightly termed ``a 
charade.'' From the very beginning, the Bush White House and Republican 
congressional leadership have exploited the Iraq war for partisan gain. 
I believe the blood of our soldiers should be off limits for political 
gamesmanship, and with more than 20,000 American soldiers killed or 
wounded in Iraq, the American people deserve better than petty politics 
on this issue.
  I will vote for this resolution because I support our troops, but we 
can do so much better.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I want to go over a couple of things here that some of it was talked 
about yesterday and I said we need a plan. We also need a change of 
direction.
  Now, why do I say we need a change of direction? A number of people 
brought up Beirut. I remember being on the floor, and the Speaker of 
the House asked me to go to Beirut after the President had deployed 
1,400 troops to Beirut. Go over to Beirut, see what is going on. I did.
  A friend of mine who had been in Vietnam with me was there, the 
commanding officer, and the rules we engaged in were very loose. Only 
had 1,400 people, did not even have people on the high ground to 
protect themselves. They were shooting down at the Marines down in the 
valley.
  I came back and I told the President, I told Weinberger, I told Tip 
O'Neill, you have got to get them out of there. They did not, 241 
Marines were killed.
  The President saw it was a mistake; he changed direction. One thing 
about President Reagan, he understood when to change. He understood 
when you change direction. He had one of the biggest tax cuts in the 
history of Congress, and then he had one of the biggest tax increases. 
People forget he had a tax increase because he wanted to change 
direction.
  He changed directions in Central America. I supported him. They 
burned me in effigy back at home because I supported Reagan all through 
the Central American thing, but we came to compromise in the end, and 
he saw we had to change direction and he did.
  What I am saying today, Somalia, I told President Bush I, do not go 
into Somalia because if you go into Somalia you will not be able to get 
out. He said to me, I will have them out by inauguration day. He had 
lost the election by that time. He went in after the election was over, 
and he said, I will have them out by inauguration day. Well, he did not 
get them all out by inauguration day, and we changed direction there. 
We changed direction in the wrong direction. We went after Adide, who 
was a tribal leader. We sent in special forces. They bungled the thing. 
They fired the Secretary of Defense. They had accountability, and 
President Clinton changed direction. We redeployed.

[[Page H4141]]

  So these are not times to criticize Presidents. This is something 
that needed to be done.
  Now, we are in the same position here. Iraqi civilian deaths, 2003, 
250; Iraqi civilian deaths in 2006, 1,500 a month. Went from we are 
there, we are not someplace else, we are there, and that is how many 
deaths. Iraqi kidnappings per day, 2003, two; today, there is 35 a day, 
35 a day. U.S. troop fatalities, there were 37 in May of 2003; in May 
of 2006, 68. We are there. We are there as occupiers in Iraq. Iraqi 
Army police fatalities were 10 in 2003; 149 in May of this year.
  Now, this is not progress. We are on the ground with 138,000 troops. 
The number of estimated insurgents, and I do not know how they find out 
who they are, but he said there is 3,000, Mr. Speaker, in May of 2003. 
There is now 20,000 insurgents. Now why did that come about? Because 
they look at us as occupiers.
  Only the Iraqis can solve this problem. The United States cannot 
solve the problem as a foreign occupier, and our troops are caught in 
between a civil war.
  Daily attacks by insurgents, 2003, there were five per day; today, 
there is 90. Monthly incidents of sectarian violence, you want to know 
what sectarian violence is? Sectarian violence is civil war. May 2003, 
5; May of 2006, 250. We are there. We are there in the country, and it 
has increased from 5 to 250.
  So do not tell me stay the course is the answer. We need a change in 
direction. We need to assess this situation and change. All of us want 
the same solution. We want a stable Middle East. It is important not 
only to the United States; it is important to the international 
community.
  Bush I worked with the international community, and he got a 
coalition together, and it was successful, and he knew the limitations 
of what he could do. He did not go into Iraq, even though there were 
some zealots who wanted to go into Iraq. He knew, and he said in his 
book, If I go into Iraq, I will have to occupy it, I will have to 
reconstruct it, and I will lose the coalition. So he did not go into 
Iraq, and he was absolutely right. I supported him at the time, even 
though a lot of people had said they did not support what he was doing.
  Somebody yesterday said, oh, you cannot measure the amount of water 
they have per day, that does not mean anything, the amount of 
electricity. Let me tell you something. I was without electricity for 8 
hours last winter. It is not pleasant. I was cold. Now, it does not get 
that cold in Iraq, but I was without it for 8 hours and the house got 
cold. I thought to myself, in Iraq, they only have sometimes 8 to 10 
hours of electricity a day. Water, they have 1 hour of water.
  There is less oil production than before. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz 
said we are going to pay for this with the oil production. Well, it has 
fallen far short of that. I think the OMB chairman, I think he at the 
time predicted this war would cost maybe $50 billion, and Wolfowitz 
said it would cost nothing because they would pay for it. Well, right 
now we have spent $450 billion. The longer we stay, the more we pay, in 
lives, in hurt to the families, the more we pay in financial resources.
  It took us 15 years to get over the Vietnam War. We had 18 percent 
interest rates. We had 13 percent unemployment. Through the Reagan 
administration the Federal Reserve had to increase rates to 21 percent. 
I remember because at the time I was trying to buy a house. I remember 
trying to buy it at first, and I said 7 percent, I am not going to pay 
7 percent. It went up to 21 percent. So we suffered because it was guns 
and butter. Here it is the tax cuts and troops in the field paying for 
the war.
  So stay and pay is not a solution. I say redeploy and be ready. Get 
our troops out of harm's way and put them on the periphery and let the 
Iraqis settle this themselves. Only the Iraqis can settle this, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 
seconds just to say I do not dispute the figure given by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania. I dispute his logic.
  I question the cause-and-effect relationship. Our presence has not 
created terrorists. Terrorists were around much before that. In the 
instance he cited with previous Presidents, yes, they did react, but 
obviously the totality of their reaction did not stop terrorism. We 
have a different plan, a different approach. That is what this 
President is following.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend 
the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives for 
facilitating this extraordinary debate over the war on terror and our 
military efforts in Iraq.
  I have made three trips to Iraq over the last 3 years. I have led 
delegations to Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi, Balad and Mosul, and I have two 
messages to contribute to this discussion.
  In the course of those trips, I have met with our soldiers in mess 
halls. I have flown in the belly of C-130s. I have talked with soldiers 
far away from anyone with any brass on their shoulders, and I have 
never met a soldier that did not believe in the effort in Iraq. Let me 
say again, Mr. Speaker, in all of my three different travels throughout 
the lengths and bounds of Iraq, I have never met a U.S. soldier in 
uniform who did not believe in the mission. Each and every one I met 
believed in the nobility of the cause.
  Each of them expressed the view of an Indiana soldier by the name of 
Jim Newland from Washington, Indiana, in Baghdad. I will never forget 
the day I said to Jim, what do you think, Jim; are we doing the right 
thing here? He looked me in the eye and he said, Congressman, we are 
out on patrol every day on the streets of Baghdad. We look this enemy 
in the eye every day, and he said to me very solemnly, we have got to 
stop these people right here. They kill Americans because they like it. 
That is the sentiment I heard from our soldiers.
  My other message is very simply and plainly and humbly, while it will 
be hard for some around this country to hear, we are winning the war in 
Iraq. We are defeating the enemy in every engagement. The enemy has 
never taken down so much as a full platoon in any military engagement. 
It is an extraordinary credit to our soldiers.
  We have had three national elections. We have stood up a quarter of a 
million Iraqis in uniform, and there is now a freestanding elected 
government in Iraq. We are winning the war in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. It is 
a message that I would deliver and from the hearts of the soldiers that 
I met. I would also say I believe in this mission.
  Support the resolution.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Vietnam is the same thing. I believed in my mission in Vietnam. All 
of us believed in it, but in 1967 when I came back from Vietnam, they 
had an election. President Lyndon Johnson said everything's all right. 
Matter of fact, I have a bullet that they gave me, that the first 
Marines gave to us when we left there that said everything's all right. 
We all believed in our mission. That did not mean we were going to win 
the war. That is the problem.
  At times we have to change direction. When we look at the Vietnam 
War, there was an election right after I came back in 1967, and 
President Lyndon Johnson said, now it is all over, they will be able to 
do this themselves. 37,000 Americans killed after that, and you know 
the results. It was not because of the public. It was because the enemy 
kept forcing us into the type of war they were fighting. It was the 
kind of war we cannot fight. We could have gone all out and obviously 
destroyed Hanoi, but we had to worry about the Russians and the 
Chinese.
  This is a real problem. It is guerrilla-type war, and when we fight, 
we have to use overwhelming force. When we use overwhelming force, you 
make enemies, and when you make enemies, you lose the hearts and minds.
  I am saying the same thing you are. We want to win some kind of, I do 
not say victory. We want to win stability in the Middle East. That is 
the key because it is important to the free world. That is what is so 
important.

[[Page H4142]]

  So we all are saying the same thing. One of the top generals said to 
me, that part cannot be won militarily all the time they will say. 
General Pace said it cannot be won militarily. So how do we do it? 
Diplomatically, politically and when the Iraqis say we are going to 
give amnesty to people that kill Americans, I mean, they fired the guy, 
okay, but that is a signal to them. We have 47 percent of the Iraqis 
say that they want to kill Americans. They think that is patriotic for 
them to kill Americans. That is disturbing to me.
  The reason I started speaking out, one of the reasons, I remember I 
was in the hospital. One young woman said to me, with her husband lying 
there on the bed, wounded after a second trip, she said, you know, he 
did not enlist, this woman said, to fight for the Iraqis. He enlisted 
to fight for America.
  It has got to be in the national security interest of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a member 
of the Homeland Security Committee and the Government Reform Committee.
  (Mr. DENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  Today, the global war on terror is being waged on two primary fronts, 
as we know: Afghanistan and Iraq.
  In Afghanistan, a resurgent Taliban is attempting to undermine the 
efforts of the United States and our NATO allies. The threat from these 
murderous extremist terrorists remains real, and if one does not 
believe us, then I suggest reviewing the events of recent days in 
Canada, where the terrorists, motivated by Canada's participation in 
Afghanistan, unsuccessfully attempted to decapitate the Canadian 
government. Mr. Speaker, the United States and our NATO allies must 
remain resolute in Afghanistan.
  In Iraq, which I visited last year, I believe it is important and 
imperative that this Congress must have a serious, sober discussion 
about the consequences of failure in Iraq and what that means for the 
future. Failure in Iraq means a more destabilized Middle East that will 
be manifested by increasing sectarian strife and a political vacuum 
that will be filled by murderers and anarchists who most assuredly are 
not committed to the rule of law.
  What is worse, the war will continue, not only in a destabilized 
Middle East, but elsewhere and in places we would rather not fight. Our 
friends and allies will be at greatest risk and more exposed than is 
currently the case.
  To be sure, mistakes have been made in Iraq, from pre-war 
intelligence to de-Ba'athification to the destructive events of Abu 
Ghraib, but these mistakes should not stop us from our goal: the 
establishment of a stable, representative, national unity government 
that can manage the security situation much better itself and that 
lives in peace with its neighbors.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to submit additional remarks for the 
Record detailing the efforts of the House Homeland Security Committee's 
contributions in fighting this global war on terror.
  The Global War on Terror is, by virtue of its title, a war with 
world-wide scope. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am 
particularly concerned about the way in which this war can impact our 
way of life here, in these United States. And I believe that we have 
been doing a fine job of trying to make sure that terrorists or agents 
of foreign powers Do Not harm us on our shores.
  Since September 11, the Homeland Security Committee has enacted or 
sponsored legislation designed to insure the safety of the people 
living in this country. In H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter First 
Responders Act, we tried to make sure that homeland security grant 
dollars are spent according to risk, and not with regard to political 
concerns. In H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006, we authorized the recruitment and training of 2,000 
new border patrol agents to insure that terrorists are not able to 
penetrate our land borders.
  As part of the Global War on Terror we have likewise worked hard to 
make sure that goods moving into this country are secure. In H.R. 4954, 
the SAFE Port Act of 2006, the Committee authorizes $821 million 
annually for port security programs. This bill further requires the 
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to deploy nuclear and 
radiological detection systems at 22 U.S. seaports by the end of FY07, 
an action that will cover 98 percent of incoming maritime containers. 
Further, it makes sure that the people working at our port facilities 
are properly cleared and identified by forcing DHS to set deadlines for 
the implementation of the Transportation Worker Information Credential, 
TWIC, program, a biometrically-enhanced identification card system 
designed to make sure that those who would seek to commit acts of 
terrorism against us are Not allowed to work within the U.S. port 
system.
  We have also worked hard to make sure that our transportation 
modalities are also protected in this Global War on Terror. In H.R. 
5441, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which the House passed 
on May 25, 2006, we appropriated $2.05 billion for Coast Guard port and 
waterway security operations, $2.6 billion to screen airline passenger 
baggage, $13.2 million for rail security inspectors and explosive 
detection canines, and $458 million for biological, chemical, and 
explosives countermeasures to protect the Nation's critical 
infrastructure.
  Of course, in addition to securing our transportation modalities, we 
have also taken steps to make sure that terrorists in the Global War on 
Terror are not able to access what they clearly would most like to get 
their hands on--nuclear materials. The SAFE Port Act codifies in law 
the establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, DNDO. 
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit the DNDO facility in 
Nevada, and I am firmly convinced of the importance of maintaining the 
vitality of this organization. The DNDO has one of the most important 
missions within the DHS--the detection and identification of nuclear 
materials. During my visit, I observed first-hand the testing of 
nuclear and radiological countermeasures, including detection devices 
designed to identify vehicles transporting nuclear explosive devices, 
fissile material, and radiological material intended for illicit use. 
The SAFE Port Act further requires the DNDO to conduct testing of next-
generation nuclear and radiological detection equipment and to put 
forth a timeline for completing installation of such equipment at all 
U.S. seaports.
  Members of the Homeland Security Committee have worked hard to insure 
the safety of Americans, our commerce, and our infrastructure. Since 
September 11, we have not had a major terrorist incident in this 
country. And I believe that it is appropriate to attribute this 
positive development at least in part to the efforts of the leadership 
of this Committee, which is determined to make sure that the homeland 
is indeed a safe place.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to 
yield time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), 
who sits on the Government Reform Committee, 2 minutes.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the new freedoms 
women have recently discovered in the Middle East, freedoms that the 
hardworking heroes in uniform have given them, freedoms they now not 
only cherish but themselves will fight for.
  There are 50 million new lovers of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Their liberation from oppression should compel every freedom-loving 
citizen on Earth to rejoice. I too am so proud of the freedom we as a 
Nation have brought to the oppressed.
  However, some were more oppressed than others. Women had no voice, no 
opportunity, no hope, no dreams. All of that is changing, changing 
because we have championed the cause of freedom. Millions of young 
girls this very day are getting something they dared not dream about a 
few short years ago: an education. Today, women are voting. They are 
also serving as legislators in town councils and places where, before 
our commitment to liberation, they dared not even look a man in the 
face. They have been liberated. We are their liberators. We can and 
should be proud.
  Yes, more needs to be done, but in lands where women were treated 
worse than cattle, a revolution is occurring, a revolution of respect, 
a liberation of lives. Our actions have made the lives of millions of 
women not just better on the margins but have actually giving them 
hope, endowed them with freedom, and dared them to dream.
  We have much to be proud of. I am proud of our men and women in 
uniform who stand in harm's way. I am proud that this great country 
stands for good and opposes evil. I am proud that this Congress and 
this President

[[Page H4143]]

understand that freedom is God's gift to all mankind and that evil 
tolerated is evil assisted.
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who, on her first trip 
overseas went with me to Iraq to talk to the troops and tell them how 
much she supported the troops.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, at the opening of the debate, Mr. Skelton 
asked the House to observe a moment of silence for the 2,500 troops 
that we have lost in the war in Iraq. The number is a staggering one, 
but we warned them one person at a time. I hope their families live 
with great pride. I know they will live with great sorrow.
  My uncle was killed at the Battle of the Bulge, and for my father's 
entire life it was as if it had happened yesterday. As if it had 
happened yesterday. We know that experience has been repeated over and 
over again across our country.
  In remembering those who died, and their families who mourn them, let 
us also salute all of our men and women in uniform who are doing their 
jobs with great courage, with great patriotism and dedication, and 
their families who are making enormous sacrifices; 2,500 killed, 18,000 
wounded, more than half of them permanently, straining our military 
readiness and eroding our reputation in the world.
  The President of the United States says, stay the course. Stay the 
course? I don't think so, Mr. President. It is time to face the facts.
  On every important aspect in the Iraq war, President Bush and his 
advisors have been wrong: wrong on the reason to go to war, wrong on 
the reception our troops would receive, wrong on the rapidity with 
which the Iraqi economy would be able to pay for the war and 
reconstruction, and wrong on the willingness of the international 
community to join in efforts to stabilize Iraq.
  But don't take my word for it. This gross incompetence has driven 
some of our fighting generals to level devastating public criticism. MG 
John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, has said: ``My 
own decision to speak out goes back to watching firsthand the arrogant 
and contemptuous attitude of Rumsfeld as he ignored the advice of 
military experts during preparations for war, and then living with the 
impact of those strategic blunders as a division commander in Iraq. 
Secretary Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a 
deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.''
  That is why over 2 years ago I asked for the resignation of Secretary 
Rumsfeld, and I do so again today. No one has been held accountable for 
all of these mistakes in Iraq.
  The incompetence comes at a great cost. The Bush administration is so 
obsessed with the effort to paint an optimistic picture of the 
situation in Iraq that it refuses to face the facts. The facts are 
these: more than 2,500 American troops have been killed. Again, more 
than 18,000 have been injured, half of them permanently. And as the war 
costs have grown to over $400 billion, key construction projects remain 
unfinished.
  As defense and intelligence expert Anthony Cordesman recently wrote: 
``The U.S. aid process has failed. It has wasted at least half of the 
$22 billion in U.S. funds and much of the $34.6 billion in Iraq funds 
it attempted to use to secure and develop Iraq's economy.''
  I repeat: defense and intelligence expert Anthony Cordesman recently 
wrote: ``The U.S. aid process has failed. It has wasted at least half 
of the $22 billion in U.S. funds and much of the $34.6 billion in Iraq 
funds in an attempt to secure and develop Iraq's economy.''
  This is outrageous. Where is the accountability?
  In fact, Mr. Cordesman concludes that the U.S.-managed Iraq 
reconstruction efforts have been as failed as the U.S. response to 
Hurricane Katrina.
  The Bush Iraq policy has diverted resources and attention from what 
should be the focus of our effort against terrorism in places like 
Afghanistan. The lack of stability and the deteriorating security 
situation in Afghanistan is a casualty of the war in Iraq. The war has 
not made our country safer. It has not made our military stronger. It 
has caused great damage to our reputation in the world, and it has 
hindered the fight against terrorism.
  In face of all of this incompetence and the cost of the war, I 
repeat, the President urges us to ``stay the course.'' Stay the course, 
Mr. President, is not a strategy. It is a slogan.
  I will vote against this resolution because it is an affirmation of 
the President's failed policy in Iraq, and in doing so I will be 
pleased to join Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton. And I would like to at this 
moment salute them for their patriotism and their dedication to our 
country. They are second to none, as Mr. Skelton said in his remarks. 
They are second to none in this Congress and in this country in looking 
out for the troops and being concerned and knowledgeable about troop 
readiness, about the strains on our military this war is putting on 
them and in deterring our ability to respond to other threats.
  I salute them for their leadership and, in fact, their courage. 
Because here we have the Republicans putting on the floor a vacuous 
resolution, a challenge that if you say that you support the troops, 
you have to vote for this. That day is over. That day is over. The 
credentials on real security for our country, be it homeland security, 
be it willing to project military might to protect America's interests 
at home and abroad, we all share a that. So don't put something on the 
table that says you either vote for this if you support the troops or 
you don't.
  This resolution is one thing and one thing only: it is an affirmation 
of President Bush's failed Iraq policy. The American people know the 
policy has failed. The American people know that. Hopefully, it will 
dawn on the President, and he, instead of stay the course, will change 
the course. He will stop digging the hole he is digging in Iraq and 
come out and see the light of day as to what is the right direction.
  Across the country, Americans have had free and open debate about 
this war. But when the time came to debate Iraq in this Congress, 
Republicans shut down debate with a closed rule. This is not only an 
affront to the Democrats; it is an affront to the American people. 
Closed rule. Limited debate. Twice as many people on our side of the 
aisle would like to have spoken, but there wasn't enough time. There 
wasn't enough time to give Members of Congress the opportunity to give 
voice to the concerns of their constituents about a matter as important 
as sending and keeping our troops at war.
  What a sad commentary on our democracy. We supposedly are going to 
Iraq to promote democracy, yet we don't even have it on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. What is sad about that is that we owe so 
much better, so much more to the American people, particularly to the 
brave men and women we have sent to fight in Iraq.
  Democrats are calling for a new direction in Iraq. Our new direction 
would say to the Iraqi people that we will not be in your country 
indefinitely, we will not construct permanent bases, and we will not 
control the flow of your oil. We will work with you and your neighbors 
diplomatically to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq is successful. 
We will do as Mr. Murtha advocates. We will redeploy and be ready.
  Republicans in Congress continue to try to mislead the American 
people by suggesting a link between the war in Iraq and the war on 
terror. They are distinct, as Mr. Skelton has repeatedly and eloquently 
stated. They are distinct. And efforts to portray one as part of the 
other are a disservice to the truth and to the men and women sent to 
fight in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Ramadi. The huge cost of the Iraq war in 
lost lives, life-altering wounds sustained, and billions of dollars 
spent demand better of us.
  The defense authorization bill, as was quoted again by Mr. Skelton, 
enacted last year, declares 2006 to be a year of significant transition 
to full Iraqi sovereignty, creating the conditions of the phased 
redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is in the 2006 DOD 
authorization bill: the phased redeployment of United States forces 
from Iraq. That is the law of the land. You all voted to support it.
  We are halfway through 2006, significant transition has not occurred, 
and the only redeployment has been of U.S. forces into Iraq, not out. 
The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say a grotesque mistake. It must 
be our resolve

[[Page H4144]]

to end the war as soon as possible and to resolve to not make similar 
mistakes in the future. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to 
the young men and women that we send in to fight the fight.
  Again, Democrats take our responsibility to provide for the common 
defense very seriously. We are proud to have leaders like Mr. Murtha 
and Mr. Skelton to lead that charge for us.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield a real 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Government Reform Committee.
  (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
resolution before us today. I would like to first offer my gratitude to 
those brave men and women who are fighting or have fought in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We owe you a debt which we can never repay.
  Since the United States invaded Iraq, I have seen this as a high-
stakes gambit. If we were successful in not only defeating the Iraqi 
Army, but in the more difficult task of establishing a democratic 
government, we would be far down the road to affecting a paradigm shift 
in the Middle East, one which would replace potentates, dictators, and 
repression with representative governments, transparency, and 
opportunities for both men and women.
  If we were to fail, the cost would be incalculable. It would be a 
reaffirmation for many in the world that the United States lacked the 
fortitude to see a mission through to its completion. It would embolden 
terrorists the world over; threaten those states in the Middle East, 
such as Jordan and Israel, that are friends of the United States.

                              {time}  1000

  Regardless, the situation in Iraq is what it is. There is no question 
Iraq is a petri dish for terrorists now. Our main nemesis in Iraq is 
called ``al Qaeda in Iraq.'' Thus, our activities in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan are now clearly linked to a global war on terror. There is 
no other way to view the situation.
  I am eager to build on the recent successes in Iraq. I truly hope 
that we have turned a corner with the death of Zarqawi and the forming 
of the government. If voter turnout is any indication, the Iraqi people 
are eager for democracy. They had a higher voter turnout in Iraq than 
we did in Virginia for our gubernatorial race. But make no mistake, 
what we are trying to do in Iraq has been and will continue to be 
extraordinarily difficult. Even with Zarqawi gone, there are many 
dangerous people who will stop at nothing to stop us.
  I don't support a public date of certain withdrawal from Iraq. Doing 
so creates an untenable situation for our forces and our Iraqi allies 
and presents a real gift of predictability to the enemy. But there has 
to be a sense of urgency. We are in a war that we have to win, but we 
cannot plod along indefinitely.
  Our Founding Fathers had 13 years between the beginning of the 
American Revolution, the ratification of the Constitution, and the 
inauguration of George Washington. We don't have that luxury in Iraq. 
Our troops are giving their lives in Iraq. Our country is spending 
hundreds of billions of dollars. We can't pull the rug out from the 
under the Iraqis, but we can't babysit the situation either. We don't 
have time to waste on activities that are ineffective. We don't have 
money to waste on bad equipment and services.
  Some have charged that this Congress has been asleep at the wheel and 
has done no oversight. That's not true. I have. Our committee has held 
four hearings on contracting practices in Iraq, including a day for 
whistleblowers at Halliburton, and I intend to hold more.
  Our subcommittees, particularly the one chaired by Mr. Shays, have 
held dozens of others. What we have found is a lot of mistakes in 
management and oversight. But remember, this is the first time we have 
contracted this extensively in a combat situation. Everything about 
doing business, everything in a war zone is difficult and costly, and 
it is disingenuous to deny this.
  If we are going to see this mission through successfully, there must 
continue to be vigorous, comprehensive, constant oversight to ensure we 
stay on the right path. We should do everything we can to hasten the 
day when Iraq is able to handle its own affairs. Our role in Congress 
is to conduct the oversight that the people expect of us.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fattah) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise again today in opposition to the war in Iraq, a 
position I have consistently held since the President first undertook 
this misguided policy at the expense of our nation's men and women in 
uniform and our domestic priorities. While I found myself in a relative 
minority at the time I first voted in opposition, I find myself now 
situated amongst a majority of the American people in addition to some 
of the most knowledgeable and committed patriots this country has ever 
known.
  I am today opposed to H. Res. 861 and remain committed to a better 
course, one that is in the interest of American foreign policy, 
America's fighting men and women, America's future security and 
American victory. The Resolution, which has been discussed, is flawed, 
not only in substance, but in process. The decision to enter into and 
remain involved in foreign conflict is one of the most serious 
responsibilities the Framers of the Constitution granted to the 
Congress at the drafting in Philadelphia. The Republican leaders in 
this Congress have shirked their oversight responsibilities and have 
denied a democratic process even in the debate over a nonbinding 
resolution.
  Throughout this conflict we have heard of shortages of supplies from 
armor to protect the lives of our soldiers to reliable intelligence to 
guide their mission. Surely the most devastating shortage has been the 
lack of leadership in this conflict. The President has failed, since 
the beginning, to chart a course for victory, to correct mistakes as 
they have arisen and to secure that the ideals for which the American 
forces are fighting are never compromised.
  I rise in honor of the sacrifice that far too many men and women have 
been called to make and in the hope that this conflict will find a new 
direction, one which will support American victory, security and 
justice. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to chart a better course and plan a better future for the 
people of America and the people of Iraq.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on the points we can agree.
  Every Member of this House was horrified by the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001.
  Every Member of this House believes we must do what is necessary to 
defend our country and our people from future attacks and to eliminate 
the threat of terrorism.
  And every Member of this House supports our troops and their 
families, and we commend them for their honorable service under very 
difficult and stressful circumstances.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, this House debates the ongoing war in Iraq, 
not the struggle against terrorism.
  I voted no when the House considered the Congressional Resolution 
authorizing the President to Invade Iraq.
  At that time, I had several crucial questions that needed clear 
answers:
  1. What is the nature and the urgency of the Iraqi threat to the 
United States?
  2. What is the mission of our troops?
  3. How much international support will we have?
  4. Will this military operation in Iraq increase terrorism or 
decrease terrorism?
  5. What is the exit strategy to withdraw our troops from Iraq?
  Despite my questions on the rationale for the war, I have 
consistently supported the funding for our troops.
  They deserve our full support, and they deserve to have everything 
necessary for their mission.
  And as the father of two sons who have served in the military, I 
would want no less.
  Mr. Speaker, we now know that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of 
mass destruction.
  President Bush has publicly acknowledged that there was no link or 
connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

[[Page H4145]]

  The mission of our troops seems to change and expand daily.
  As for international support, the American taxpayer has foot the vast 
majority of the costs to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
  And American fighting men and women, and their families, have borne 
the vast majority of the deaths and injuries to coalition troops, over 
2,500 killed and 18,000 wounded.
  Moreover, many of the original members of our coalition have 
withdrawn or are withdrawing their troops from Iraq, leaving the U.S. 
to shoulder the burden almost alone.
  Are we safer today than we were before the invasion of Iraq?
  According to U.S. State Department data, there were 175 international 
terrorist attacks in 2003, and that was a 20-year high.
  In 2004, the number jumped three-fold to 650 attacks.
  In 2005, 11,111 terror attacks were reported by the state department.
  Finally, the Bush Administration does not now nor ever has had a 
viable exit strategy for our troops in Iraq.
  Saying, ``we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up'' puts the fate 
and future of American troops completely at the mercy of the competence 
of the Iraqi government and its security forces.
  I agree with the resolution before us, we should not set an 
``arbitrary'' date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
  But we should set intelligent, well-thought out benchmarks that make 
the most sense for American national interests.
  Setting reasonable benchmarks for the departure of our troops would 
send several important messages.
  To the Iraqi national government--get your house in order now!
  To the Iraqi Sunnis opposing our occupation now is the time to cut 
your best deal with the Shiite and Kurdish factions while the U.S. is 
still able to act as an honest broker.
  To our American military leaders--here is a date to which you can 
plan, knowing when the rebuilding of our military capabilities can 
begin.
  To the American people we have done what we could.
  From this point on, it is now up to the Iraqi people to find their 
way, with the support of the international community.
  And finally, to the terrorists the Iraqi people will deal with you 
now if you remain in Iraq.
  For all the other terrorists outside of Iraq, the United States can 
now shift the full force of its military, diplomatic, law enforcement, 
and economic resources to the single task of hunting you down and 
bringing you to justice.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution before 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 861 is a whitewash justification of every 
erroneous action of the Bush-Cheney administration in their war of 
choice on Iraq.
  It's no surprise that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld seek this late 
coating of whitewash that this resolution attempts to provide. The war 
on Iraq was unjustified, has been egregiously mismanaged, and has made 
all Americans less safe.
  Americans were told repeatedly by President Bush and Vice President 
Cheney that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found.
  President Bush and Vice President Cheney repeatedly implied that Iraq 
was involved in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The preponderance of intelligence 
before the attack on Iraq contradicted that and no such evidence has 
been found.
  The conduct of President Bush's war of choice has been plagued with 
incompetent civilian leadership decisions that have cost many lives and 
rendered the war on and occupation of Iraq a strategic policy disaster 
for the United States. The incompetence and corruption involved in the 
reconstruction have rendered that expensive effort largely ineffective.
  The most critical, much-cited incompetent decision on the part of the 
Bush administration was to commit far too small a force for the huge, 
dangerous and multifaceted tasks at hand. Because of that egregious 
blunder in judgment and planning by the Bush administration, our 
severely overextended troops took many more casualties than necessary, 
and they could not:
  Stop the looting of the treasures of Iraq's ancient culture and the 
public institutions of present day Iraq--its schools, universities and 
hospitals;
  Seize control of Saddam's huge conventional weapons depots which have 
been used to kill our service men and women throughout the insurgency;
  Control the borders against the influx into Iraq of senior terrorists 
from Bin Laden's international network who wanted to be part of killing 
Americans;
  Provide the Iraqi civilian population security from the Sunni-
Baathist insurgency as it grew in strength; and
  Hold the ground fought over with insurgents in search and destroy 
missions which left whole cities in ruins and whatever remained of the 
civilian population a fertile recruiting ground for more insurgents.
  The incompetence regarding body and vehicle armor rises almost to a 
level of criminal negligence.
  The military's own report says that one-third of deaths and 
casualties could have been avoided if proper body armor and vehicle 
armor had been provided from the start of the war. Our 
soldiers' civilian leaders did not follow a first maxim of war: protect 
your troops. American service men and women deserved better, and the 
civilian leaders who failed them should be held accountable.

  But instead of honoring our soldiers now with an honest debate about 
the war, its conduct and its prospects, we are presented today with a 
thick coating of whitewash. This resolution is dishonest on its very 
face.
  Even though there was no connection between Afghanistan and Iraq, H. 
Res. 861 seeks desperately to make that false connection. It seeks to 
transform the bad decision to wage war on Iraq as a valid component of 
the global war on terror. It seeks to cast the missteps and 
incompetence in Iraq as progress in the global war on terror. Even 
though there was never any philosophical or operational connection 
between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the President and his Republican 
allies in Congress seek by this resolution to re-write history and re-
cast the war on Iraq as having positive implications in the war on 
terrorism.
  Exactly the opposite is true.
  After 9/11, in part because so many nations lost citizens in the 
World Trade Center, America enjoyed virtually total global support and 
willingness to collaboratively destroy the Bin Laden Al Qaeda network. 
The opportunity was there to work carefully with the entire world, 
including almost all Muslim nations, to make Americans and the whole 
world safer by isolating and shutting down Al Qaeda.
  Did we complete that mission? No; Bin Laden is still at large and the 
conditions in Afghanistan are deteriorating. Instead, President Bush 
started a second war unrelated to 9/11 and the hunt for Bin Laden's 
networks and his followers.
  We've now spent well over $350 billion on an effort that has not 
achieved its own goals and, due to its astronomical cost and resource 
drain, has severely undercut our ability to pursue and destroy Bin 
Laden's international terrorist network with its many cells that 
existed in 2002, continue to exist today and certainly will exist into 
the future.
  Twenty-five hundred fine young American men and women have lost their 
lives, 95 percent of whom have been killed since President Bush 
declared ``Mission Accomplished'' more than 3 years ago.
  America has also forever lost the service of thousands of good 
soldiers who are now disabled as a result of battle wounds in Iraq. 
Many others will need mental and emotional rehabilitation before they 
can return to normal life. The multiple re-deployments of Guard and 
Reserve troops have severely undercut the retention and recruitment 
prospects for the fighting force we depend upon to protect us.
  President Bush and his administration have defended torture and 
rendition and ignored the Geneva Conventions. America has lost the 
moral high ground with the rest of the world, and we have fewer allies 
as a result. President Bush and his administration have undermined the 
war on terror by using tactics outlawed by international treaty and 
condemned by even our closest friends.
  And, finally, President Bush's war on Iraq has provided Al Qaeda a 
training and recruitdlent ground that it could not have hoped for in 
its wildest dreams, as well as a golden opportunity to target Americans 
right in the unprotected center of the Middle East. President Bush's 
war on Iraq is viewed broadly in Islamic communities as an attack on 
Islam, and thus the President has alienated a large part of one fifth 
of the world's population. The most extreme individuals and factions in 
Islamic countries are now more motivated than ever to kill Americans, 
and the number of potential terrorists has greatly expanded.
  So a truthful assessment of how America is doing in the war on terror 
as a result of President Bush's war on Iraq is that we have been set 
back by decades. Bad decisions and incompetence have achieved a vast 
determination in countless desperate, impoverished, disaffected and 
oppressed young Muslim men and women to take out their anger and 
express their fundamentalism and radicalism by attacking Americans and 
American interests. We are far less safe as a nation and will remain so 
throughout our lifetimes and our children's lifetimes.

[[Page H4146]]

  Clearly, a stable, unified and democratic Iraq cannot be achieved 
militarily by the U.S. Our servicemen and women have done the best job 
that can be done in the situation into which their civilian leaders 
have placed them, and they deserve the highest level of gratitude from 
all Americans. They have already taken too many casualties--too many 
dead, too many wounded--because they were too few and too poorly 
provided with the armor they needed to succeed safely.
  If a unified and stable Iraq is to emerge out of the ethnic and 
sectarian violence that is so perilously close to civil war, the Iraqi 
people and their government must make the political compromises 
necessary to secure a successful democracy. They must find in 
themselves a new nation. We cannot do that for them; we can only give 
them the opportunity to do it.
  Nor should we accept the President's mantra, ``When the Iraqis stand 
up, we will stand down.'' A nice slogan, but that is simply a recipe 
for an unlimited occupation.
  We need to make it clear that we will withdraw from Iraq within 6 to 
9 months--so that the Iraqis will know that they must stand up and 
defend the opportunity given to them.
  We should immediately state that we will seek no permanent military 
bases in Iraq. In the remaining months, we should focus on achieving 
more robust international involvement in training of Iraqi soldiers, 
police officers, judges, teachers, and doctors--all key elements needed 
to end the sectarian and civil conflict and build Iraq's future. And we 
should prepare for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops.
  The Bush administration has made many grievous and costly errors in 
Iraq over the past 3\1/2\ years and made little, if any, progress in 
the war on terrorism thereby. It is time to bring our young people 
home.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
make a couple of the comments, and then I will reserve my time.
  The gentleman just before I spoke talked about how long it took 
America to get its independence. Actually, it is more than just 6 or 7 
years, it went on through the Civil War, but they were all Americans. 
It was not an occupying force that was trying to force democracy on the 
United States. Can you imagine what we would have done if we had an 
occupying force here trying to force democracy on the United States? It 
would not have worked. But of course they were not democracies in most 
cases anyway.
  So I just want to point out that in Iraq we have become the 
occupiers, and 47 percent of the people in Iraq, and this is a poll 
only 3 months old, says it is okay to kill Americans. One of the 
officials in the Iraqi government offered amnesty.
  Since I spoke out on November 17, things have gotten worse. We have 
130,000 troops in Iraq. Every day it gets worse. From May to May, it 
gets worse and worse. It is not a matter of stay the course. It is a 
matter of change direction.
  I said a little earlier, Ronald Reagan understood when it was time to 
change direction. He did one of the biggest tax cuts in history. He 
turned around a little bit later and adjusted that. This didn't call it 
a tax increase, it was an adjustment.
  In Beirut he decided we have to make a change, it won't work. In 
Somalia, President Clinton did the same thing. And over that mistake, 
and it was a substantial mistake, the Secretary of Defense resigned 
because he had lost the confidence of the military in the way he 
handled the situation in Somalia. We changed direction there. We went 
in the wrong direction. We went after a tribal leader named Aideed.
  In Iraq, unfortunately, the way we operate as a military, and there 
is no one who understands better than the gentleman with the 173rd in 
California, understands what the military does when it goes into a 
place. You have to use overwhelming force. I promote that. I am in 
favor of that. I do everything I can to make sure that the military has 
what they need to prevail and protect American lives.
  But when you do that, you inadvertently kill people and you make 
enemies. Abu Ghraib was another example of the enemies that we made, 
and the public relations battle has been lost worldwide. People have 
discredited the United States and have little confidence in our 
ability.
  Somebody brought up Spain yesterday. They said ask Spain about 
terrorism. Well, 56 percent of the people in Spain think the United 
States is more of a threat in Iraq than Iran is in the world. So we 
have got a lot of things we can talk about as rhetoric. The facts are 
the situation is not getting better. We have 130,000 troops on the 
ground and only Iraqis can handle this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, after 9/11, our nation united against terrorism and 
those who want to kill innocent civilians and destroy our American way 
of life. New York was impacted deeply by these tragic events and we 
understand first-hand the kind of unthinkable damage that can be 
inflicted by hate-filled violent extremists.
  I voted to support the use of force in Iraq for many reasons. Decades 
of deception and violation of United Nations resolutions; invading 
neighboring countries; and a litany of ruthless atrocities by Saddam 
Hussein involving murdering his own people.
  I believe that the best way to safeguard freedom in our nation 
increasingly depends on supporting a democratic global strategy in 
areas beyond our borders. That is why supporting the creation of a 
self-governing Iraq is so critical to the future of both our countries.
  Having said that, I am deeply disappointed in this resolution because 
I believe we owe Americans more than a simple declaration of our 
resolve in Iraq. We owe them an account of our progress in the Global 
War on Terror; an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the 
strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq; and an affirmation we will 
defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle 
for survival.
  There are several points in this resolution that I am concerned 
about. It also strikes me as merely a reiteration of the resolution we 
passed last December.
  First, I am disappointed in the choice of the word adversary in this 
resolution. History and reality illustrate that within Iraq and the 
broader Global War on Terror we do not face an adversary--we face a 
very real and dangerous enemy. We should not be afraid to clearly state 
what we as a nation are up against.
  Secondly, philosophically, any state-sponsor of terror is a threat to 
the United States, because terrorism is an attack upon the self-
evident, inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. This point should be clearly expressed in a resolution of 
this nature.
  Additionally, the second clause states ``. . . for the past two 
decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to 
intimidate the United States.'' This clause is too sanitized. The hard 
truth is the enemy has not tried to intimidate us. The enemy has tried 
to kill us and often succeeded. The enemy does so because our very 
existence as sovereign citizens of a free Republic constitutes a beacon 
of hope for all who are--and all who yearn to be--free; thus, we are 
our enemy's paramount obstacle to world dominion.
  I know first hand the difficulties we face in Iraq. I have heard it 
directly from the men and women that are fighting so hard in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I do hope that despite my concerns that this debate provides a 
clearer understanding of the threats we really face and the opportunity 
to develop a strategy that protects our troops and enables our military 
to develop a comprehensive strategy to win this war, transfer the power 
to the Iraqi people and bring them home. It should also demonstrate 
that the ``cut and run'' agenda of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle is the wrong approach to this problem and encourages the 
terrorists to wait us out and undo all that our soldiers have worked 
through blood, sweat, tears and their lives to establish--a victory for 
our nation and a stable and secure democracy in the Middle East.
  Lastly, and most importantly, I will continue to stand by and support 
U.S. troops. I must take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to 
the brave lives that have been claimed from my district: Nathan Brown, 
Stephen Madison, Kevin Kimberly, Isaac Nieves, and Joseph Robsky. Their 
sacrifice, and the sacrifice of their families and loved ones embody 
the spirit of our great nation and principles of democracy we hold 
dear.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for a unanimous consent.
  (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for the efforts of our 
brave men and women in uniform fighting to protect our Nation in the 
global war on terror. Today, some people are

[[Page H4147]]

trying to make this debate about politics or another opportunity to 
convince some of our national media that our efforts in Iraq have not 
been successful, these people are wrong in their facts and their 
intent.
  I recently led a delegation of members to Vietnam, India, Singapore 
and Thailand. After meeting with three prime ministers and their 
parliamentary leaders, I am ever more convinced of the need to stay the 
course in Iraq and Afghanistan. One common theme came from each of my 
meetings--the United States must win. It is a simple theme and a 
powerful one. We cannot leave Iraq before the job is done. If the 
terrorists who have invaded Iraq can prove to the world that they are 
able to overcome the will of the American people and force our early 
withdrawal, they can do that to any nation.
  Mr. Speaker, we are the world's last remaining superpower. We are the 
leader of democracy and the pinnacle of freedom. If bands of murderous 
terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan can convince this body to abandon 
our mission, they will have won. And they will not stop at simply 
expelling America from Iraq. They will work to destroy the western 
world, our values and our freedoms.
  Our mission in Iraq has changed. Our forces easily defeated and 
captured Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. Now, our mission is to finish 
the job by building up Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi Government 
so that they can defend and govern themselves. I believe President Bush 
when he says, ``as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.''
  Today the Iraqi forces have gained great strength. There are now more 
than twice as many members of the Iraqi Security Forces as there are 
U.S. forces serving in Iraq. Iraqi forces are now a part of more than 
90 percent of all operations in Iraq. With the complete formation of 
the presidential cabinet, three free elections and the elimination of 
al-Qa'ida leaders in Iraq, the global war on terror is indeed 
progressing and advancing freedom and democracy across the world.
  Mr. Speaker, our debate today is a useful one. It is an opportunity 
to say to the world that we stand behind our troops 100 percent. This 
debate shows that we support the mission of our American patriots. 
Today, the United States Congress should pass this resolution and 
demonstrate to the world, once again, our commitment to freedom and 
democracy.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) for a unanimous consent 
request.
  (Mr. RADANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to discuss the Global 
War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the events of the past few 
weeks, including the completion of a democratically elected government 
and the elimination of al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, we have 
seen the development of democracies and another strong blow against 
terrorism. The importance of staying the course in Iraq and standing 
strong is evident with every success.
  Steadfast determination in Iraq is key to the security of the United 
States and the global community. I strongly support the United States' 
continued military involvement in the Global War on Terror. The 
importance of keeping our country safe by standing up for democracy and 
freedom is our number one priority.
  I had the opportunity to visit with our troops in Iraq and felt so 
proud. Their determination to bring peace and hope to the Middle East 
and end the terrorist threat to the U.S. was humbling and inspiring. 
Nothing demonstrates our military families' commitment more than the 
family of Corporal Michael Anderson Jr. who lost his life in Iraq. They 
came to Washington, from Modesto, California, recently to honor is 
life. It was a privilege to meet such an inspiring family, who, in the 
face of tragedy, demonstrated unwavering patriotism.
  Our courageous soldiers, who are fighting for freedom and our way of 
life, deserve the full support of the American people. We owe it to 
those who have given their lives, to stay and complete this mission.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution declaring 
the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 861, 
declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on 
Terror.
  We have made great strides in the War on Terror. The men and women of 
our Armed Forces along with coalition partners deserve our continued 
support. They have displayed nothing short of true dedication and 
continued professionalism in carrying out their mission.
  It is with high esteem that I rise to say we are winning the Global 
War on Terrorism. This is highlighted by the capture of Osama bin 
Laden's Prince of Iraq, al-Zarqawi. This is truly a milestone and has 
resulted in hundreds of raids which continue to provide an enormous 
amount of new intelligence to our commanders in the field. As political 
polls show, a majority of Iraqis wants the violence to end, and that 
Sunnis, Shiites, and other tribes were coming together to help make 
that happen. As an example of progress on the ground, he said that the 
number of intelligence ``tips'' had increased from 400 per month to 
4,000 which makes the capture of terrorists like al-Zarqawi possible.
  The newly elected prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, the first 
constitutional prime minister of Iraq since the revolutionaries toppled 
the Iraqi monarchy and murdered the royal family in 1958, has been 
successful in establishing a diverse government; one that has 
demonstrated a willingness to work together. This cooperation has 
transcended to the general population. A new Iraqi society, one that 
seeks to live in harmony with each other and believe the government can 
improve the situation in Iraq, is a society that is much safer because 
the Iraqi Security Forces now conducted over 32,000 patrols during the 
month of April.
  There are 263,400 forces assigned to the Ministry of Defense and they 
are capable of conducting over 86 percent of the planned operations. It 
is projected by the end of this year, the Iraqi Security Forces will 
have responsibility and capability to fulfill a 100 percent of such 
operations.
  Mr. Speaker, our goal of defeating terrorists, establishing a free 
and independent Iraq is obtainable if we continue to pursue our current 
course.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who sits on the Budget 
Committee and the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate very 
carefully for the last day. There are clearly those who want to debate 
whether we should have gone into Iraq. That point is moot.
  There are some who want to debate immediate withdrawal regardless of 
the consequences. That is dangerous.
  Some just want to criticize the administration yet offer no plan of 
their own. That is political posturing.
  Finally, there are some who want to debate that victory is not only 
possible in Iraq, it is essential to our security. Count me among their 
numbers.
  Like many Members of this body, I have been to Iraq to visit with our 
troops. Those whom I have spoken to, they believe we are winning. And 
they also believe it is essential, like one soldier told me, 
Congressman, I hate being here, but I know how important it is to my 
family and how important it is to my country that we succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that the American people are anxious, and I know 
that many days progress comes three steps forward and two steps 
backwards. And unfortunately, the national media tends to only portray 
the two steps backwards.
  Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein has been captured. He has been defeated. 
Last week al Zarqawi, the number one terrorist in the region, has been 
eliminated. A quarter million of the Iraqi troops have been trained, 
equipped, and on patrol. After years of halting progress, we now have a 
fully functioning, democratically elected government in Iraq. This is 
important because we are not threatened by democracies. We are 
threatened by despotic regimes and terrorist ideologies.
  But the news stories that are most important about why we are there 
are never written. I come from Dallas, Texas. I have never read the 
story that today no suicide bomber exploded in North Park Mall. I have 
never read the story that today no car bomb went off in Poteet High 
School, and I know I have never read the story that today Jeb and 
Melissa Hensarling put their 4-year old and 2-year old to bed in a 
safer, more secure Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
  Victory is costly. Defeat is even more costly.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for standing up for the last 10

[[Page H4148]]

hours in defense of our country and the troops that serve us and, most 
importantly, throughout his entire life, and I thank him for demanding 
that the Iraqi people stand up for their own country and responding to 
the American people who are demanding that this Congress stand up for 
our Nation's interest. Staying the course in Iraq is not in our 
Nation's interest.
  Several times the proponents of this resolution have cited Winston 
Churchill. Wonderful, lofty rhetoric, but there's a disconnect. Saddam 
Hussein did not drop any bombs on the United States. He was not 
involved in 9/11, didn't harbor any terrorists who were.
  It has been argued if we redeployed it might hurt our credibility 
around the world. As has been said, our approval ratings around the 
world are the lowest they have ever been. People rank us down with 
Russia in terms of trust and respect.
  It has been argued if we redeploy it might encourage terrorists. Our 
continued presence is the rallying cry in the recruitment tool for 
terrorists around the world. It has been argued that it might hurt 
American troops' morale. Mr. Speaker, 2,500 brave men and women dead, 
18,000 seriously wounded and you want to stay the course?
  It has been argued that there might be a civil war if we redeploy. 
There is a civil war today. The fact is the Iraqis are going to have to 
seize control of their own country. We have to redeploy. We won't leave 
the region, but we will be there to fight off foreign terrorists. But 
the Iraqis are going to have to determine their own future.
  That's why this resolution is not in America's interest. Defeat this 
resolution. Changing the course, having a definable objective in Iraq 
is in America's interest.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure 
to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry).
  (Mr. McHENRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, resolve, untested, is only an idea.
  Today we are fighting a war against Islamic extremists. Make no 
mistake about it, this is a generational challenge. It was my 
grandparents' generation that fought the Nazis. It was my parents' 
generation that fought the communists. It is our generation that is 
fighting Islamic extremists wherever they are.
  The left in this country have a policy that they are advocating here 
today, and they are advocating a policy called cut and run. They are 
advocating a policy of waving the white flag to our enemies. It is a 
policy, make no mistake about it, that the left in this country are 
advocating.
  But we are fighting a war. We are fighting a war against Islamic 
extremists that hate the very fiber of our being as Americans. They 
hate our freedoms and they hate the fact that we embrace equality here 
in this country, although imperfect. They hate the fact that we have 
religious freedom and freedom of speech in this country. Make no 
mistake about it, these are important things to Americans, and our 
enemy hates those important things.
  We are having a great debate here, 10 hours of debate here in this 
Congress on this war policy, and I am proud that the majority in this 
House will stand to fight and win this war. It is not about status quo, 
it is about victory.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me, we stand here and fight in the 
air-conditioned Chambers of the United States Congress where these 
fellows are walking around in Iraq, men and women, with 70 pounds every 
day facing IEDs, never knowing when they may go off with tremendous 
stress. They are being deployed three and four times. It is easy to 
stay in an air-conditioned office and say I'm going to stay the course.
  But let me tell you something, those troops, I hope they believe in 
what they are doing. That's what America is all about. But standing 
here and talking about policy and criticizing people just because they 
disagree with a policy is absolutely absurd. All of us support the 
troops and want them to come home as soon as they can.
  What we need is a change in direction so we will be able to work this 
out. All of us want stability in the Middle East. That is what this 
whole thing is all about. We just disagree on how you do it. We 
disagree. Ever since the troops have been there, everything has gotten 
worse.

                              {time}  1015

  Electricity production is below pre-war levels; water only 1 hour a 
day in some parts. In Anbar Province no water. 90 percent unemployment. 
Not one project in Anbar Province. So it is not a matter of whether it 
is good or not. It is a matter only that the Iraqi's should solve this 
thing.
  And when I hear somebody standing here sanctimoniously saying we are 
going to fight this out, we are not fighting at all. It is the troops 
that are doing the fighting, the families that are doing the 
sacrificing, a very small proportion of families in this country are 
doing the sacrificing. And that is why I get so upset when they stand 
here sanctimoniously saying we are fighting this thing. It is the 
troops that are doing the fighting, not the Members of Congress that 
are doing the fighting.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H. Res. 861.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, H. 
Res. 861, and to emphatically declare that we will prevail in the War 
on Terror across the globe, and in Iraq.
  We've already amassed a long list of accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, 
since being liberated from the oppressive Taliban regime, native 
Afghans have returned to their homeland in droves, many of whom are 
highly educated teachers, healthcare providers, and community leaders 
that were thrown out of the country by the Taliban.
  The Afghan economy continues to power ahead and previously unheard-of 
opportunities are opening up, particularly for Afghani women.
  Regrettably, these accomplishments don't seem to generate much 
enthusiasm with the mainstream media or our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. If you did nothing but listen to their negativity, 
you would not know that more than 3,600 schools in Iraq have been 
rehabilitated, or that 240 hospitals and 1,200 medical clinics have 
been reopened, nor that 13 power plants have been built, providing 
about 60 percent of Iraq's power generation, or that over 250,000 Iraqi 
security forces have been trained, equipped, and are fighting on the 
front line against the insurgency!
  Further, Mr. Speaker, without our policies and efforts in carrying 
out the War on Terror, Libya would not have given up their WMD 
programs, free elections would not have taken place in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, a national unity government would not be in place in Iraq, and 
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be carrying out terrorist operations.
  Instead of heralding the unparalleled successes of our troops and our 
policies in prosecuting this war, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle would have the American people believe we are losing.

  Perhaps Mr. Speaker, the hope of political gains has some of my 
colleagues seeking to exploit the few missteps we have incurred while 
ignoring a much greater number of victories.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to the anti-war rhetoric, which only 
serves to embolden our enemies while offering little hope and little 
vision. It is always easier to pull back the reigns and watch from the 
sidelines, but we in America choose to be active in determining the 
course of history. Make no mistake, we are in a tough fight for the 
future of peace, freedom, and democracy in the Middle East and around 
the globe, but winning should be our only option.
  As we debate this resolution today, let us not forget that nearly 
everyone of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when presented 
with the same pre-war intelligence that President Bush had concluded 
with high confidence that Iraq was continuing its' WMD programs 
contrary to U.N. resolutions. For those who now want to claim the pre-
war intelligence was in some way fabricated, both the bipartisan Senate 
Intelligence Committee in 2004 and bipartisan Robb-Silberman Committee 
in 2005 did not find any evidence to support that claim. It is shameful 
that ``Monday Morning'' critics who hate Secretary Rumsfeld and 
President Bush are now resorting to false claims about pre-war 
intelligence
  Given that Sadaam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction on 
neighboring

[[Page H4149]]

countries in the past, along with his desire to bring us harm, 
Republicans and Democrats alike reached consensus that the potential 
for him to either harm us directly with these weapons, or indirectly by 
passing them on to terrorists, was too great a risk to take. 
The terrible human rights atrocities committed by Sadaam and his 
blatant disregard for repeated U.N. resolutions were further compelling 
grounds for our bi-partisan actions.

  Mr. Speaker, none of these facts have changed. What has changed is 
the resolve of many on the other side of the aisle who in the process 
of changing their footing on the war, have become more interested in 
playing politics than in defeating terrorism and defending freedom. 
When these Members of Congress who are advocating a defeatist strategy, 
sometimes referred to as ``cut and run'', were presented with the 
opportunity in November 2005 to vote on withdrawing our forces from 
Iraq immediately, only 3 of those behind these calls stood by their 
words.
  Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq made the 
following statements this past Friday: ``We believe we will soon reach 
a tipping point in our battle against the terrorists as Iraqi security 
services increase in size and capacity, taking more and more 
responsibility away from the multinational forces. With our allies, we 
will also persevere to make Iraq a prosperous democracy in the heart of 
the Middle East.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see great hope and potential in the Iraqi 
government and the Iraqi people. However, ill conceived and short 
sighted strategies threaten any chance of Iraq becoming a bastion for 
democracy in the Middle East. I sincerely hope the defeatist rhetoric 
of the minority party will not dishearten the brave men and women who 
are defending and advancing freedom around the globe.
  Therefore Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support this resolution. 
Let our brave men and women in uniform know that we will never break 
faith with them. Let the Iraqi people know that their patriots have not 
died in vain.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. When I returned to this House after an absence of 16 
years, he was one of the first people to greet me. I have enormous 
respect for the work we did together with others here 25 years ago in 
fighting common battles.
  I have a general disagreement with him on this approach. I don't 
question your patriotism. I certainly am attempting not to be 
sanctimonious about this. But I think there are some real questions 
that we must pose. One of them would be this: I have heard it said from 
your side of the aisle that we are attempting to force democracy on 
this country, and it will never work.
  Look at the three elections they had, the increasing participation. 
And, frankly, contrast that with what occurred just this last Tuesday 
in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where, for a primary to determine who 
the Democratic nominee is going to be for the Senate, 3 percent of the 
people showed up, 3 percent of the registered voters.
  I would suggest if we were on this floor talking about Iraq where 
only 3 percent supported, people would say democracy is a failure. I am 
not willing to give up on the Commonwealth of Virginia. I hope we are 
not willing to give up on Iraq.
  Secondly, the question about Vietnam. And I have the greatest respect 
for the gentleman; he served there with distinction, just as my father 
served in World War II with distinction. But I would suggest there are 
a number of differences between Vietnam and this experience. And one of 
the chief ones is this: when we left Vietnam they did not follow us. If 
we leave Iraq, the terrorists would follow us.
  Some would suggest that it is a shame that we are fighting them 
there. I say it is wonderful that we are fighting them there rather 
than here.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may use.
  I didn't mean to imply that the gentleman from California is 
sanctimonious. It is just some of the speakers have been sanctimonious. 
But that is not the point. We want the same thing. We want stability in 
the Middle East. It is important. We use more oil than any other 
country in the world, 20.6 million barrels of oil a day. The closest to 
us is China with 6 million barrels of oil a day. The whole free world 
wants stability in the Middle East. It is how we get it.
  What I am saying is there is more instability in Iraq because of us, 
because of our troops. They have become occupiers. This is the thing 
that worries me. That is why I think we have to change direction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater obligation we have to 
the people of this Nation than to protect their freedom and their 
safety. We owe it to the public to pursue those who seek to destroy our 
way of life.
  Democrat wartime President Franklin Roosevelt understood this when he 
said, ``When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait 
until he has struck before you crush him.''
  Policies of appeasement did not work against Nazi Germany. They did 
not work against the Soviet Union, and they will most certainly not 
work against terrorists right now plotting violence and bloodshed 
against our citizens.
  Our actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan are aimed unequivocally at 
crushing global terrorism. We must complete our mission.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just point out to the Speaker that Franklin Roosevelt might 
have said that, but he waited till they attacked us at Pearl Harbor 
before he took any action. He tried to build up the forces, but 
certainly didn't take any military action until we were attacked at 
Pearl Harbor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Almost, in fact a little bit more than 61 years ago, the 101st 
Airborne parachuted into Normandy. And a few miles away the Fourth 
Infantry Division was wading through bloody waters onto Utah Beach. And 
thousands of miles away, the First Marine Division was culminating a 
series of island operations, including Guadalcanal, Pelalieu and many 
others, very dangerous, very bloody. We call them the Greatest 
Generation. And you know, today, the 101st Airborne anchors the Sunni 
Triangle. The Fourth Infantry Division, including many of the 
grandchildren of those great members of the Greatest Generation, are in 
Baghdad. And the First Marine Division is out in that very dangerous al 
Anbar Province in towns called Ramadi and Fallujah. I call them the New 
Greatest Generation.
  But there is a difference between them and their forefathers of the 
101st and the Fourth Infantry Division and the First Marine Division, 
and that is that the Greatest Generation of World War II had a Congress 
that was united behind their mission. I think we owe it to this New 
Greatest Generation to unite behind their mission, and not just because 
it is their mission and we are Congress and we oversee national 
security, but because we gave them the mission. We voted overwhelmingly 
in the House of Representatives to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We, 
not somebody else, we gave them the mission. They have carried out that 
mission. They have carried it out in thousands of firefights at 10,000-
foot elevations in Afghanistan, taking down safehouses in Mosul and 
Tikrit and Fallujah and many other areas in Iraq, winning 45,000 bronze 
stars for valor and meritorious service, among many other medals; and 
you know, all the while taking on the enemy, they inoculated over 5 
million children against diseases, re-stood up over 3,000 schools, 
built hundreds of hospitals, and they carried the free elections of the 
Afghan and Iraqi people on their shoulders. That is why we had free 
elections in those two countries.
  Now, you know, when we started this thing, and if you look at the 
literature of al Qaeda and the terrorist organizations, they question 
the capability of the American troops. They no longer question that 
capability. Mr. Zarqawi does not question that capability. Saddam 
Hussein does not question that capability. They have been convinced of 
it in thousands of firefights. They don't question the troops' 
commitment to this mission. And the troops' commitment to this mission 
is manifested in reenlistments rates. For the Fourth ID, the Third ID, 
the 101st, the 10th Mountain Division, the First Marines, 
reenlistments, after multiple tours of more than 130 percent of the 
requirement.

[[Page H4150]]

  They don't question the continued commitment of the President. They 
have seen this President go through highs and lows in the polls and 
continue his commitment to the mission that we launched together. The 
only question they have now is us. They question our commitment to this 
mission. And this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a chance to unite this 
House of Representatives by restating our commitment to this mission. 
Let's do it so that tonight, when those troops come home from their 
patrols and their recons and their convoys and they look at the news, 
they are going to say the United States House of Representatives, they 
stand with us.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  The problem is, 42 percent of the people don't know what the mission 
is. When I talk to the young folks in the hospitals, they tell me their 
mission is to go out and find IEDs. That is explosive devices. Their 
mission is to be a target.
  Hey, we all agree with everything that the gentleman from California 
said, Mr. Speaker. We agree. We support the troops. We have done 
everything we can do. It is the policy we disagree with. It is a change 
in direction we want. We are staying and we are paying and we are 
paying with troops' lives. We are paying with financial resources.
  The first gulf war the United States paid $5 billion. We had 500,000 
American troops. We had 160,000 coalition troops. President Bush I did 
a marvelous job, one of the finest international coalitions in the 
history of the United States. They paid and they produced and they 
supported. But he knew how far he could go. He understood the enemy and 
he understood what could be done. And he was willing to change 
direction. When they thought they had enough troops, General 
Schwartzkopf said he needed more troops, he put more troops on the 
ground.
  So I am convinced all of us agree we want a solution. But the 
American troops, unfortunately, have become occupiers. And 80 percent 
of the Iraqis want us out of there. And I have a piece of paper here 
that the Vice President of Iraq, here, Tuesday night on the way home on 
Air Force One, President Bush said there are concerns about commitment 
in keeping our troops there. They are worried about it to a person. 
They said they will leave before capable.
  Then the Associated Press reports, yesterday morning Iraqi's Vice 
President has asked President Bush for a timetable for withdrawal of 
foreign forces from Iraq. And Iraq's Vice President's office said Vice 
President of Iraq made the request during his meeting with Bush on 
Tuesday when the U.S. President made a surprise visit. I supported him, 
the President said. Eighty percent of the Iraqi people want us out. 
They want to solve these problems themselves. The Americans cannot 
force democracy on Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Daniel E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the 
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, having returned from my fourth 
trip to Iraq over the Memorial Day break, I rise in support of H. Res. 
861.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of America. I rise in support of our 
active troops and those who have given their lives and those who will 
give their lives so that we will prevail in this global war on 
terrorism. These troops are part of an all-volunteer force that is the 
envy of the world.
  I rise to reassure the American and Iraqi people that we reject any 
timetable for the withdrawal or redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq 
before victory.
  AI Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have attacked our family, 
neighbors and friend numerous times over the last three decades. What 
has been the response? For the most part, there has not been an 
adequate response.
  And Mr. Speaker--that is hard to admit. Some would tell you we didn't 
respond due to lack of political will, others would say America just 
didn't have the stomach.
  From the killing of 241 U.S. service members in Beirut in 1983 to the 
attack on the USS Cole in 2001, America responded in a cautious manner.
  This is no longer the case. Due to the events of September 11, 2001 
our country was forced to reevaluate our defensive and offensive 
strategies.
  Led by our Commander-in-Chief and with the support of the Congress, 
our government decided to take the fight to every cave the enemy hides 
in--sending an unmistakable message. We will fight the enemy overseas 
and prevent him from reaching our shores.
  Having been to Iraq during the recent Memorial Day holiday, I am 
pleased to report the message is getting across. Our enemies are 
starting to realize that America and its allies are not leaving and are 
not intimidated.
  I say to the Iraqi people--we will not abandon you. We are committed 
to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure 
and united Iraq.
  During my 4 trips to Iraq in the last 3 years I have been heartened 
by the continued resolve of our forces. After receiving briefings from 
the Generals, I always make sure to spend an equal amount of time with 
the senior enlisted men and junior officers who are leading at the tip 
of the spear. The casualty count among this group is rising--and that 
is hard to grapple with--but it is for a purpose.
  A man who was responsible for so many of these casualties--Zarqawi--
is now dead. He was killed by a 500 pound bomb dropped from an F-16. 
This weapon and this method of employment were thoroughly developed and 
tested at Eglin Air Force Base in Okaloosa County, Florida.
  The dedicated air force active duty, civilian personnel and 
contractors from the Test and Evaluation Community and the Air Force 
Research Laboratory can be equally proud.
  I would like to remind my colleagues and the American people of the 
courage it must take to vote in a country that has never known 
democracy while under the threat of death--simply for making one's 
voice heard. This courage is commendable and is a cause worth fighting 
for.
  Mr. Speaker, America and her citizens are strong. We will continue to 
lead the way in showing the Iraqi people how to establish a free and 
democratic nation and we and they will never forget the sacrifice of 
those who made their democracy possible.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the 
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
resolution.
  International Terrorism--when we discuss this very important issue--
an issue of life and death--not just for each of us individually, but 
for our nation and way of life--it is imperative that we begin our 
discussion--at the beginning. And that beginning wasn't on 9-11! We've 
been under attack for at least 30 years.
  We did not want this fight--we did not invite this fight--we did not 
wish to engage in this battle. However, once our enemy crossed over the 
line--confirmed for us and the world--that they were unwilling to 
respect international law, respect individual liberty, respect 
sovereignty of nations--and that they were willing and desirous of 
engaging in mortal battle--no other option was left to us or the 
civilized world.
  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on January 23, 2005, said: ``We have declared a 
fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow 
this wrong ideology.''
  So, this discussion today comes down to a fundamental question--what 
is the appropriate strategy and tactic to adopt to win the War on 
Terror?
  Will we withdraw and simply defend--a policy of isolation and 
containment--or will we aggressively combat terrorism--and take the 
battle to our enemy?
  This war is unlike any other in history--without a doubt.
  Our enemy has no single home. It recruits and trains its army from 
nations around the world. The only unifying element is hate--hate for 
the West--hate for democracy--hate for freedom of religion--hate for 
liberty.
  The only message our enemy understands is force. Period. Terrorists 
don't negotiate--terrorists don't compromise--terrorists are not 
interested in peace. To them, that's weakness.
  Thankfully we've stayed the course. Thankfully we've persevered in 
both Iraq and Afghanistan. The greatest threat to terrorism is freedom, 
liberty and democracy--in the Middle East and beyond.
  Today the terrorists are truly on the run.
  Last week U.S. and Iraqi forces eliminated Al Qaeda in Iraq's top 
terrorist--Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. This was accomplished with excellent 
intelligence--knowing where the bad guys were and when. And this 
information came from Iraqi civilians--that is a very positive sign.

[[Page H4151]]

  This important step demonstrates many things: we will hunt down 
terrorists and eliminate them wherever they are hiding, the shackles of 
decades long terrorism are being removed from the Middle East, Iraqi 
security forces are stepping up to the challenge; Iraqi citizens want 
to be free of terrorists and they are not going to sit idly by.
  Success breeds success.
  Never has that been more evident than this past week.
  While Zarqawi was eliminated--finding him brought a treasure trove of 
information allowing U.S. and Iraqi forces to dismantle many more 
pieces of Al Qaeda's puzzle.
  Success breeds success.
  Iraq just this past week selected 3 more officials--cabinet 
ministers--to serve in its standing government.
  Success breeds success.
  It is also important for us to recall and reiterate why we are 
engaged in this war.
  It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the conditions 
that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan 
and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
  Just a short look at recent history--just the last 27 years--vividly 
demonstrates the death, destruction and terror brought to Americans by 
our enemy.
  November 4, 1979--Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 
and held 53 hostages for 444 days.
  April 18, 1983--Sixty-three people, including the CIA's Middle East 
directory, were killed when our U. S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed.
  October 23, 1983--simultaneous suicide bomb attacks on American and 
French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon; killing 242 Americans and 58 
French troops.
  March 16, 1984--Islamic Jihad kidnapped and later murdered Political 
Officer William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon.
  October 7, 1985--Achille Lauro Hijacking--terrorists seized the 
Italian cruise liner and murdered one American invalid in a wheelchair.
  April 5, 1986--Berlin Discotheque Bombing--Two U.S. soldiers were 
killed and 79 American servicemen were injured in a Libyan bomb attack 
in West Berlin, West Germany.
  December 21, 1988--Pan Am 103 Bombing--Pan Am 103 blown up over 
Lockerbie, Scotland by bomb placed by Libyan terrorists--all 259 people 
on board were killed.
  February 26, 1993--First World Trade Center Bombing--car bomb 
exploded in an underground garage killing 6 people and injuring over 
1000.
  November 13, 1995--car bomb explodes at U.S. military complex in 
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing one U.S. citizen, several foreign 
national employees of the U.S. government and over 40 others.
  June 25, 1996--Khobar Towers Bombing--a truck bomb in Dhahran 
destroys Khobar Towers, a U.S. Air Force barracks, killing 19 U.S. 
military personnel and wounding 515 people, including 240 U.S. 
personnel.
  August 7, 1998--U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa--two coordinated 
attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania--killing over 300.
  October 12, 2000--Attack on U.S.S. Cole--a small dingy carrying 
explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and 
injuring 39.
  September 11, 2001--Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland--Two hijacked 
airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon 
thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth 
hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in 
Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. The attacks 
killed 3,025 U.S. citizens and other nationals.
  Treating these incidents as crimes--not acts of war--and providing 
reactionary measures rather than moving pro actively--will not work. 
How do we know? Because that is precisely what we did for decades--and 
the consequence was 9-11.
  The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers 
we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can no longer expect 
oceans between us and our enemies to keep us safe.
  Policy of containment has been proven to be a dismal failure.
  Just as the battle in Afghanistan was not simply to remove the 
Taliban. The battle in Iraq was not simply to remove Saddam Hussein and 
his murderous regime.
  One has to look no further than the action of our enemy to see that 
we are fighting those who want to bring their brand of terror and fear 
to our shores.
  We must not forget those threats that have been disrupted here at 
home and on our allies: the West Coast Airliner Plot; The Heathrow 
Airport Plot; and The Jose Padilla Plot.
  The campaign against the United States and its allies is ambitious, 
simple and clear.
  Terrorists will stop at nothing to achieve their distorted sense of 
reality.
  Now, we could have easily stayed out of this conflict . . .
  However, giving terrorists free reign would not make us any safer--
history has proven that.
  The price would be more innocent lives lost--more bombings--and not 
an ounce of peace.
  We must not be held hostage by terrorism--that is not living in 
liberty and freedom!
  There are defining moments every generation must face. For this 
generation that defining moment is how we engage in this War on 
Terror--highlighted by a very different post 9-11 world. When we came 
to that defining moment--that tragic day--we, as a nation with our 
allies around the world, decided we would not allow terrorists to win.
  The choice is clear, our resolve is clear. We will and must prevail.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we have just two 
more speakers, the whip and then our majority leader.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lungren 
control the remaining 30 seconds of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished majority whip, Mr. Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank you for presiding over this important debate and for the 
opportunity to address the House as this debate nears its conclusion.
  Let's be clear about what is at stake today as we debate this issue. 
Whether or not we are successful in winning the global war on terror 
will define the future, and it will define this generation in the eyes 
of future historians. Our resolve is being tested by clever enemies 
with primitive philosophies of religion and government. When my 
colleagues cast their vote today, they are sending a message about what 
they believe America's capable of doing and about whether the global 
war on totalitarianism is worth fighting.
  Our actions here on the House floor are being watched not only by our 
enemies, but by our friends and allies as well. The message we send 
will be received by the coalition partners fighting with us, the people 
and leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Americans fighting for 
peace and freedom who believe in their mission. This vote, I know, is 
not being taken lightly, and believe me, it should not be taken 
lightly. The resolution we are considering is clear and unambiguous. We 
are declaring that the United States will prevail in the global war on 
terror.

                              {time}  1030

  This war is not a war of choice, but one initiated and sustained by 
the action of terrorists. It is being fought in many parts of the world 
with all the diplomatic, cultural, financial and, when absolutely 
necessary, military resources available to us. In places like Iraq and 
Afghanistan, terrorists have chosen to make a stand. They understand 
the only way they can defeat the United States is not in battle with 
our soldiers, who are the best in the world, but in the battle of 
public opinion. Information is the key weapon in that battle.
  Over the week of Memorial Day, I was able to travel to both 
Afghanistan and Iraq to see again firsthand our Nation's efforts to 
combat terrorists and assist in the establishment of modern 
democracies. Universally in both countries, the people we talked to, 
including the leaders that we met with, told our delegation that 
withdrawing American troops before democracy has had a chance to take 
root would lead to disaster.
  In Afghanistan, President Karzai believes that the southern part of 
the country is keeping a lid on the Taliban precisely because of the 
presence of our troops. He believes his countrymen uniquely understand 
how important it is that our soldiers, American soldiers, maintain a 
visible role, even as the day-to-day operations are often turned over 
to our NATO allies. And while we were there, our ambassador was able to 
report to President Karzai that both the Canadians and the Dutch had 
been vigorously and successfully engaged the day before. But President 
Karzai was equally vigorous in his sense that the commitment of America 
was the

[[Page H4152]]

commitment that the Afghan people were worried about.
  Today we will tell our friend, President Karzai, that America will 
not abandon our Afghan friends, that we will not close that embassy 
again and lock the door and walk away for 10 years.
  In Iraq, which al Qaeda has call the central front, and that is their 
quote, not mine, the central front in their war against the West, the 
sentiment for America to stay is even more pronounced. In Baghdad I 
spoke with Speaker Mashhadani, a Sunni politician, a leader who had 
been very opposed to the United States coming to Iraq, but now believes 
that the presence of the United States, again, until democracy takes 
root, is essential to the establishment of democracy in that country.
  And while visiting the newly formed Kurdish regional government in 
Erbil, I spoke with those leaders who have recently put aside 
generations of differences in favor of a unified Iraq. Officials from 
the new Iraqi Government I met with gave me additional reasons to be 
hopeful for the future. These elected leaders are committed to 
governing. Their predecessors had been committed to a political goal in 
each case, to write a Constitution, to conduct a temporary election, to 
conduct a permanent election.
  This government is the first democratically elected government in the 
history of not just the country of Iraq that has only been in existence 
since World War I, but the history of the people who live in this area 
have never before had a permanent democratically elected government. 
This government also happens to be a broad-based government that is 
committed to serve.
  I have said many times before, as many have said on this floor in the 
last 2 days, that only the Iraqis are ultimately capable of solving 
their problems. The only way to solve them is through increased 
transparency, economic reform, and democratic participation in 
government. None of this will be easy, and I have nothing but 
admiration for Iraqi leaders who are undertaking these tasks in the 
face of enormous personal risk.
  It is in the context of this personal risk that I appeal to my 
colleagues, who live peacefully and safely in the world's oldest 
constitutional democracy, the United States of America, not to turn 
their backs on the leaders of the world's newest democracy.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I have three unanimous consent requests.
  I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
put my statement in the Record on House Resolution 861.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker today we mourn the death of 
the 2,500th American soldier in Iraq and are disgusted by the headline 
in yesterday's Washington Post stating, ``Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover 
Attacks on U.S. Military.'' With another American soldier killed and 
the news of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki seeking amnesty for 
insurgents who have killed and maimed U.S. troops, this House debates 
H. Res. 861, a meaningless, nonbinding Republican resolution that is a 
political document designed as a partisan campaign ploy, not a serious 
attempt to address the failings and mismanagement of this disastrous 
Iraq policy. Our troops in Iraq are in harm's way, they are sacrificing 
tremendously for all Americans and the Iraqi people, and this 
Republican Congress honors their sacrifice with a farcical debate--it 
is shameful.
  A majority of Americans know that the Bush administration's Iraq 
policy is strategically bankrupt and it has put U.S. troops in the 
untenable position of refereeing an Iraqi civil war. It is a policy 
that has made America less safe and more at risk in a dangerous world.
  Earlier this week President Bush returned from a 5-hour visit to 
Baghdad and said, ``I sense something different happening in Iraq.'' 
This profoundly unenlightened observation after 5 hours inside the 
safety of the ``green zone'' contrasts with U.S. troops who are on 
their third tour of duty in the midst of a chaotic, deadly and 
deteriorating civil war. This White House has made ``victory'' the 
basis for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the only exit 
strategy this president has thus far developed was his own--for his 
departure from Baghdad after only 5 hours.
  Outside of the safety and security of Baghdad's ``green zone,'' there 
is ``something different happening'' and U.S. troops are surrounded by 
it--the depravity and brutality of an Iraqi civil war. Murderous 
militias, government sponsored death squads, paramilitary brigades, 
insurgents and organized criminals who kidnap and kill children--these 
are the forces that control neighborhoods, rule the streets and are on 
the payroll of Iraq's Ministry of the Interior.
  Let me cite a May 7, 2006 article from the Los Angeles Times to 
underscore how different Iraq is today, ``More Iraqi civilians were 
killed in Baghdad during the first 3 months of this year than in any 
time since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime--at least 3,800, 
many of them found hogtied and shot execution-style. Others were 
strangled, electrocuted, stabbed, garroted or hanged. Some died in 
bombings. Many bore signs of torture such as bruises, drill holes, burn 
marks, gouged eyes or severed limbs.''
  This horrific depravity does not reflect a global war on terror, it 
is a civil war and American troops have no business separating 
religious groups determined to kill each other in order to settle old 
scores or accumulate political power. ``Now the killings are 
systematic, personal. Masked gunman storm into houses, and the 
victims--the majority of them Sunnis--are never seen alive. Such 
killings now claim nine times more lives than car bombings, according 
to figures provided by a high-ranking U.S. military official, who 
released them only on the condition of anonymity,'' the same Los 
Angeles Times article states.
  Is this the vital American interest for which 2,500 Americans have 
given their lives? If we don't stop these barbarous murders in Iraq 
does it really mean they will then bring their torture and executions 
to America's towns and neighborhoods as the Republican scare tactics 
purport? Of course not; this simple-minded ``fight them over there so 
we don't have to fight them here'' Republican rhetoric reflects their 
blindness to the real situation on the ground in Iraq. Iraq's endless 
domestic atrocities and brutality is their domestic tragedy, not a 
global phenomenon, but the Republicans are more interested in using 
this argument in their political campaigns than they are in bringing 
our troops home from this civil war safely.
  We know that President Bush's stated premise for the war in Iraq, 
weapons of mass destruction, was a fabrication and a deceptive 
exaggeration. But is it now the duty of U.S. soldiers to police the 
death-squads that are operating within the Iraqi police and committing 
gross human rights violations? Is it the duty of our brave troops to 
disarm Shiite militias that are extensions of the Iraqi Government and 
responsible for imposing religious law and hunting down violators of 
their sect of faith? Absolutely not.
  The mantra from President Bush and the Republican Congress is ``stay 
the course.'' It is an outrageous and irrational strategy that reflects 
the bankruptcy and myopic nature of this administration's assessment of 
the situation inside Iraq. An occupied Iraq will keep U.S. troops as 
targets of Iraq's nationalist insurgents and never allow that country 
to escape the current security crisis, political crisis and financial 
crisis. Only if this occupation ends is Iraq capable of truly being a 
sovereign nation that is responsible for its own problems and future.
  Instead of allowing Iraq to determine its own destiny, President Bush 
has made an indefinite U.S. military commitment to Iraq, almost, 
assuring tens of thousands of additional U.S. soldiers will be sent to 
confront Iraq's problems. Since U.S. forces are in the fourth year of a 
war that was intended to last only months and the concept of a 
U.S. victory over all the various factions of murderers, criminals and 
armed insurgents is delusional, one can only surmise that U.S. troops 
will be in Iraq when the Bush administration leaves office in January 
2009. For this reason, Congress needs to dictate a clear position that 
will allow for the redeployment of U.S. troops within the region to 
defend U.S. interests and refocus our attention to the war on 
terrorism. This will allow for a restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and 
the opportunity for Iraqis to determine their own future.

  The Bush administration's mismanagement of its Iraq policy from a 
military and geopolitical perspective is only exacerbated by the 
tremendous investment of U.S. tax dollars that have yielded such 
unremarkable results. To date, more than $320 billion has been borrowed 
and spent in Iraq. Every single dollar has been added to our Nation's 
national debt with the burden for the financial cost of this war on the 
backs of all of our children and the grandchildren, including those of 
the very soldiers who are now fighting and sacrificing in Iraq. Image, 
this Congress and White House have looked the other way as almost $9 
billion has simply disappeared into a system in which corruption is 
endemic and financial mismanagement the norm. Every American should 
feel betrayed by this Congress and its

[[Page H4153]]

disregard for oversight and accountability with regard to the hard-
earned tax dollars of U.S. citizens.
  As Americans fight and die in Iraq and Americans pay hundreds of 
billions of dollars for this war, it is remarkable to hear the words of 
Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki. President Bush earlier this week, in a 
moment of poetry, looked into the prime minister's eyes. It was unclear 
what the president saw, but we do know the words the prime minister has 
used on June 1, 2006 to describe U.S. troops when he said, ``They 
(troops in the American led coalition) crush them (Iraqi civilians) 
with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely 
unacceptable.'' The Prime Minister called the U.S. violence against 
Iraqis a ``daily phenomenon.'' Now, President Bush's soul-mate wants to 
provide amnesty for those who murdered and maimed as many as 20,000 
U.S. troops. Is this why the Republicans in Congress want to stay the 
course in Iraq?
  Mr. Speaker, there is a civil war--a 21st Century civil war--raging 
in Iraq. It is based on religion and historical events that can never 
be remedied by 130,000 U.S. troops whether they remain as an occupying 
force for 1 more year or 50 years. What we have achieved in Iraq is 
certain. The end of Saddam's regime, three elections, an Iraqi 
constitution, a new permanent government and the training of more than 
250,000 Iraq security forces are the frequently stated highlights of 
this war. These achievements are the sole result of U.S. troops and 
their sacrifice and bravery. Yet, this mission is confronting a reality 
that is darker and much more ominous in large part because this ill-
conceived pre-emptive war has unleashed forces that are beyond the 
control of U.S. troops that are antithetical to U.S. interests.
  On May 26, 2006, Tom Lasseter reported for Knight Ridder that 
``Southern Iraq, long touted as a peaceful region that's likely to be 
among the first areas returned to Iraqi control, is now dominated by 
Shiite Muslim warlords and militiamen who are laying the groundwork for 
an Islamic fundamentalist government, say senior British and Iraqi 
officials in the area.''
  Even with 130,000 U.S. troops and thousands more from coalition 
partners, Iraq is not on a path that will yield a free, democratic 
state in the Middle East. The occupation has cleared the way for the 
establishment of a theocratic order that will ensure clerics and 
militiamen dictate obedience to religious law--Sharia law--with 
absolutely zero tolerance for any form of pluralism. The current 
situation in Basra only highlights the incomprehensible ignorance of 
the designers of U.S. Iraq policy to consider the powerful cultural and 
religious forces the U.S. invasion of Iraq unleashed. Tragically, the 
2,500 U.S. troops who have been killed, the almost 20,000 who have been 
wounded and the tens of thousands of Iraqi women, children and men who 
have been killed--often times brutally--have suffered the consequences 
of President Bush's Iraq policy.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 861 purposely avoids the dangerous reality and 
dismisses the tremendous challenges confronting U.S. troops in Iraq and 
America's real challenges with regard to terrorism and extremist 
threats. This resolution is a dishonest attempt to inject raw politics 
into a congressional debate that will do nothing to keep America secure 
or bring U.S. troops home safe and soon. As we look to the future, my 
intention is to continue to support a comprehensive strategy to combat 
terrorism, keep America secure from real strategic threats and to 
redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq's civil war. All Americans support our 
troops, but it is time for Congress to support a policy that ensures 
U.S. troops have an exit strategy from Iraq. This resolution should be 
defeated and I will vote against it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been my honor to serve as a member of the Defense 
Appropriations Committee for 28 years here in the House of 
Representatives and to often engage in debates over important issues of 
national defense and national security here on the floor of this 
Chamber. It has always been my view that partisanship should end at the 
water's edge, and that all of us here in this body have a solemn 
obligation to consider the best interests of the Nation as we debate 
military involvement, especially at times when U.S. troops are involved 
in ongoing military actions.
  With that said, let me make two points about this debate today over 
H. Res. 861. First, the House Leadership has brought this Resolution 
before the full membership of the House with the assertion that it will 
launch a full and open debate on U.S. policy in Iraq. It is 
unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the process of drafting the Resolution 
we are to consider today was totally closed to members of the 
Democratic party, and that the expressed intent of the Republican 
Leadership, as betrayed by the memorandum that was sent to Republican 
members by the Majority Leader, was to demonstrate that the Democrats 
are interested in ``conceding defeat on the battlefield'' and that we 
as a party ``sheepishly dismiss the challenges that America faces in a 
post 9/11 world.'' Mr. Speaker, no political party has a monopoly on 
patriotism, and I can state with certainty that no member of either 
political party has any interest in conceding defeat or in ignoring 
real threats to our national security. This type of partisanship is 
unnecessary at any time, but especially in this debate today.
  Secondly, if we are to have a full and open debate over U.S. policy 
in Iraq, it should be an ongoing activity here in the House, where we 
legitimately share the constitutional responsibility to ``provide for 
the common defense'' and to provide the funds necessary to adequately 
defend our Nation against aggression and any threats to the security of 
our people. As any observer of the House of Representatives knows, 
since the start of the war in Iraq we have rarely debated the merits of 
our policy in Iraq, and we have conducted very little oversight as we 
have spent $318 billion, as 2,500 American soldiers have been killed, 
and more than 18,000 troops have been wounded in battle. On the eve of 
the 2002 elections we were pushed into a premature debate and vote 
authorizing the use of force, based on what we now know was inaccurate 
or overstated information about the capability and intentions of the 
Iraqi government. Since the start of the military action in Iraq three 
years ago, we have been called together in this Chamber to debate 
resolutions commending the abilities and the bravery of our troops, 
which all of us in this Chamber were united in approving. But we have 
not, Mr. Speaker, conducted what I believe is the proper level of 
oversight of the decisions that took us to war, the decisions about 
troop levels at the outset of the conflict, the post conflict mistakes 
that were made, the handling of the insurgency and the overall plan for 
victory and redeployment of our troops. It is not sufficient to bring 
these occasional resolutions to the floor, drafted by the Republican 
caucus, intended to express political talking points rather than 
stimulate genuine discussion about our policy in Iraq.
  So as we debate this particular Resolution today it must be said that 
all Members of this House support the troops who have been engaged in 
the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that we are all encouraged 
when terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are brought to justice. To 
imply any different in today's debate would be an injustice.
  But that is not all that this Resolution states. Nor is it all that 
it implies by the words that are printed in it or, even more 
revealingly, by the things that are omitted from it. Again, this is why 
it is inappropriate to draft a Resolution of this importance without 
any input or consultation with Members of the Democratic Party, and why 
this exercise today is not, in my judgment, worthy of the trust that 
the American people put in their Representatives here in the House.
  The Resolution we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, misstates the 
mission of the United States actions in Iraq--implying very directly 
that there was a direct relationship between the 9/11 attacks and our 
invasion of Iraq, in addition to ignoring the use of the WMD threat in 
justifying the invasion to our coalition partners and to the American 
people. Beyond that, the only actions it says that we, as the House of 
Representatives, resolve to promote are actions that support the status 
quo, inferring that the Members of this Chamber are clearly satisfied 
with the status quo and believe the Administration's policy is headed 
in the right direction. I would contend, Mr. Speaker, that very few of 
the Members of this Chamber actually are satisfied with the status quo, 
and certainly it is clear that the American people, whom we represent 
individually and collectively in this House, believe we need to change 
course and adopt a new strategy in Iraq.

  That is precisely what I believe the House should be doing today, 
instead of debating the merits of a partisan measure that effectively 
congratulates Secretary Rumsfeld for pursuing a responsible course of 
action. We need to change direction. Our strategy in Iraq is not 
working. It will not produce the victory we all say we believe in. Nor 
will it allow us to see far enough ahead to the time when we can 
legitimately redeploy our troops and bring them home. What has been 
needed, and what is still required, is accountability, and we can only 
accomplish that, Mr. Speaker, by greater oversight, more thoughtful 
questioning of the decisions that are made at the Pentagon and in the 
field, and more openness in considering new directions and new 
strategies, even if it risks conceding that some of the actions this 
Administration has taken have been wrong. The Resolution we are 
addressing today, Mr.

[[Page H4154]]

Chairman, allows for no such questioning and it only assumes that we 
are all committed to a strategy that has put us in a position from 
which no one can say how long it will be . . . a year, two years, five 
years . . . before our mission is accomplished and our troops can 
return home.
  It is not irresponsible for us to suggest that other members of our 
coalition in Iraq should be assuming a greater share of the burden. It 
is not irresponsible for us to suggest that we should be scaling back 
our role, accelerating the training of the Iraqi forces and encouraging 
the new Iraqi leaders to understand that they need to take charge of 
their own government, their own security and their own economy. We are 
helping, and should continue to help, restore the power grids, the 
water supplies and the oil production facilities so the Iraqi people 
will see signs of progress that thus far have disappointed them. We 
must continue to encourage the new Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and 
his government in its campaign for national reconciliation and in its 
effort to disarm the militias, reduce the sectarian violence and bring 
social and economic stability to the nation. I remain hopeful about the 
future of a Democratic Iraq, but as we work with the new government to 
accomplish these objectives, Mr. Speaker, I believe it may be time to 
take the training wheels off, and to communicate directly to the Iraqis 
that they are running their own nation, as unsteady as it may seem in 
the near future.
  But above all, what we should be doing today in the House of 
Representatives is sending a clear signal to the American people and to 
the international community that we are in favor of changing course . . 
. of moving beyond the status quo and adopting a new and more 
successful strategy to achieve a peaceful and stable Iraq.
  This Resolution, Mr. Speaker, unquestioningly endorses the status 
quo, and for that reason I cannot and will not support it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding service provided 
by our men and women in the armed forces for the terrific job they do 
for us across the globe each and every day, often in very difficult and 
dangerous circumstances. This is especially true today in places such 
as Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Active military, guard, and reserves forces from western Wisconsin 
have answered the call to service in the most recent conflict with 
global terrorism. I have been to numerous deployment ceremonies and 
witnessed the anguish in the hearts and faces of family and friends as 
they say goodbye to their loved ones being deployed abroad for lengthy 
stays. I have also been to numerous welcome home ceremonies to honor 
their service and to thank them for their sacrifice.
  During my three visits to Iraq, I met with our military command and 
troops in the field, as well as numerous Iraqi leaders and civilians. I 
can honestly say that nothing made me prouder to be an American than 
seeing the performance of our troops in the field. They are well-
trained, well-motivated and an inspiration to us all. They are, in 
short, the best America has to offer. I am sure everyone here today 
wishes them godspeed and safe travels as they carry out their missions.
  Specifically, I would like to take a moment to recognize the soldiers 
from the Third Congressional District of Wisconsin who have lost their 
lives in the Iraq war: First Lieutenant Jeremy Wolfe of Menomonie, 
Major Christopher Splinter of Platteville, Private First Class Bert 
Hoyer of Ellsworth, Private First Class Andrew Halverson of Muscoda, 
Staff Sergeant Todd Olson of Loyal, Staff Sergeant Andrew Bossert of 
Fountain City, Specialist Charles Kaufman of Fairchild, Sergeant First 
Class Trevor Diesing of Plum City, Benjamin Smith of Hudson, Private 
First Class Anthony Gaunky of Sparta, Sergeant Andy Allen Stevens of 
Tomah, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jaime S. Jaenke of Bay City. I would 
also like to recognize Christopher Lem of Lyndon Station who lost his 
life while working in Iraq as an independent contractor.
  Furthermore, I would like to highlight the good work of the 128th 
infantry division out of western Wisconsin; the 1158th transportation 
company out of Tomah, Black River Falls, and Beliot; the Wisconsin Army 
National Guards' 229th Engineer Company out of Prairie du Chien and 
Platteville; the 829th Engineer Detachment out of Richland Center; the 
Army Reserve's 652nd Engineer Company out of Ellsworth; and the 32nd 
Engineer Company out of Onalaska. These units have served or are 
serving in Iraq, and I am extraordinarily proud of their service to our 
country.
  But as good and capable as our troops are, it is incumbent upon us 
policy-makers to do everything in our power to get the policies right. 
We must ensure that they are fighting on our behalf for the right 
reasons and with the support and resources they need to do their job as 
safely and effectively as possible.
  That's why this discussion we're having today is a disappointment. 
This resolution is a political document timed just before the fall 
elections rather than a serious substantive debate about our 
involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe. Why else would 
the majority republican party prevent amendments from being offered or 
even the right of the others to offer an alternative resolution. Such 
an alternative resolution would more honestly focus on the shortcomings 
of this administration's policies, which has been highlighted by 
numerous retired military officers in recent months. Only through an 
honest assessment of those shortcomings will we have the ability to 
find the solutions and make adjustments to the goals being pursued.
  As someone who supported the Iraq resolution in the fall of 2002, I 
believed it was important that we get weapons inspection teams back in 
Iraq to check on the status of Saddam Hussein's WMD capability. I also 
believed at the time that Hussein would not allow inspection teams back 
in unless there was a credible threat of force hanging over his head.
  To this day, those who opposed the resolution have not been able to 
explain how they would have accomplished getting inspection teams back 
in Iraq or whether they viewed that as an important objective.
  After we were successful in getting inspection teams back in, 
however, I led the effort in congress, with representative Sherrod 
Brown, to send the president a letter signed by 150 of our colleagues 
to give the inspection teams more time to do their job. At that time, 
we were informed in intelligence briefings that we were cooperating 
with those inspection teams by directing them to suspected sites of 
WMD. They, however, were not finding what the president suspected 
Hussein was hiding.
  I felt increasingly uncomfortable with what I perceived to be faulty 
intelligence information given to us members of congress and the 
manipulation of intelligence to fit a preconceived ideological outcome.
  Rather than have the intelligence facts shape our policy, I believe 
today that it was preconceived notions or ideology that distorted the 
intelligence to make the case for war. Even former Secretary of State 
Colin Powell has acknowledged his disappointment with the intelligence 
information he used to make the case before the United Nations. 
Numerous intelligence officers and State Department Officials have 
expressed similar reservations.
  I also felt increasingly concerned about the President's haste to go 
to war, the lack of real effort to build international support, the 
lack of a plan for the day after or even a clear exit strategy once we 
got there. We now know by many retired generals, the president ignored 
the advice of our military leaders. My big regret is in believing the 
president when he said that the decision to go to war would be a matter 
of last resort. That is what the resolution required but instead the 
president ordered the inspection teams out of Iraq, even though they 
wanted to stay and finish their work, and then he ordered our military 
in. Today, our troops and our country are paying a very high price in 
loss of lives and resources due to this rush to war.
  I was concerned that the main threat against the United States, Al 
Qaeda, was still a global threat with global reach, and that the person 
who was directly responsible for 9-11, Osama Bin Laden, was still at 
large and safe. I believed the President was taking his eye off the 
ball in Afghanistan and not doing everything in our power to bring 
those responsible for 9-11 to justice. It sends a terrible message to 
would-be terrorists who may be interested in striking us that all they 
have to do is go in hiding and lie low until we get distracted on 
another adventure.
  Instead, the President should have, with the support of the American 
people and international community which we enjoyed at the time, made 
it our mission to never rest, never sleep until those responsible for 
9-11 were brought to justice. Instead he diverted precious resources 
and personnel from Afghanistan and redirected them into Iraq. As a 
consequence, Osama Bin Laden is still at large, the Taliban are 
reconstituting themselves and Al Qaeda remains a global threat.
  But we are where we are today. The question now is how do we move 
forward and what is at stake. Now that we have gone into Iraq, I 
believe the outcome in Iraq is important, not only for the Iraqi 
people, to whom we owe a duty to be responsible, but also for the 
region and for our Nation's long-term security interest. If the Iraqi 
people are successful in establishing a representative government, a 
government that respects human rights, religious tolerance, minority 
rights and the empowerment of women in their society, then Iraq could 
become a powerful model for change and reform in a region of the world 
that's in desperate need of reform.

[[Page H4155]]

  I believe that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq today will leave 
chaos, bloodshed and civil war in our wake. I believe that setting an 
artificial time for withdrawal will force our policy to merely revolve 
around that date rather than on the mission to be accomplished. And 
I've been informed by our military command in Iraq as well as our 
troops, that they do not desire a date certain because we could be 
setting them up for failure. They fear that conditions could change on 
the ground that they have no control over which might make adhering to 
that date difficult or ill-advised. They do not want artificial dates 
for the sake of political expediency.
  I also believe, however, that this must be a crucial year of 
transition for us. Now that the Iraqis have established a coalition 
government and now that we have helped train over 250,000 Iraqi 
security forces, now is the time to put pressure on the Iraqi people to 
take control of their own future, through self-government and security 
responsibilities. We cannot do this for them; we cannot stay there 
indefinitely as the President proposes; we cannot want a free, stable 
and secure Iraq more than the Iraqi people want it. Such a change in 
tactics will enable us to begin the redeployment of our troops first 
within Iraq, off the front lines, then within the region and eventually 
back home to their families. It's time for a responsible and successful 
exit strategy to be implemented. In short, it's time to take the 
training wheels off.
  There have been recent successes in Iraq that we all can applaud. 
Thanks should be given to our troops in their successful campaign 
against Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the notorious and ruthless terrorist 
whose goal was to create chaos and destruction and fan the flames of 
civil war.

  The Iraqis should be commended for finally, 5 months after national 
elections, forming a coalition government in which to govern, as well 
as making the important appointments to the interior and defense 
ministries.
  Yet, even though our forces have proven they can kill the likes of 
Zarqawi, the question remains whether we can defeat Zarqawism? That is 
a question that should be discussed and debated.
  Purple fingers alone do not make a democracy. Democratic institution 
building is vital, yet this administration is slashing funding for 
these programs dedicated to creating viable, long-lasting democratic 
institutions in Iraq. Getting support for the new Iraqi government from 
the United Arab League and the international community is also crucial 
to Iraq's ultimate success or failure. But again, it is difficult to 
work together and leave together when you didn't go in together.
  Clearly, current conditions do not lend for much optimism. Over three 
years into this conflict, electricity generation is still below prewar 
conditions. Oil production is still below prewar conditions. Access to 
safe, clean drinking water is still below prewar conditions. The level 
of violence against coalition forces and the Iraqi people are at an all 
time high. Sectarian militias within the country and police forces and 
growing in numbers and strength. Unemployment, at 45 percent, is at an 
all time high which creates abject poverty and provides fertile ground 
for militia recruitment and more sectarian violence throughout the 
country.
  Crime and corruption is rampant and increasing. Iraqi reconstruction 
is way behind schedule and infected with corruption and fraud. In my 
last visit to Iraq in October of 2005, I specifically sought 
explanations for the administration's failure to account for 9 billion 
dollars of missing reconstruction funds. No explanation could be given.
  We're losing approximately 600 military personnel every month due to 
death or injuries. The administration is literally breaking our 
military with no plan to save it. We are spending 9 billion a month in 
Iraq with no plan on how to pay for it other than more borrowing and 
spending and legacy of debt for our children to inherit.
  If there is a big winner in Iraq, it is Iran. The record high oil 
prices that Iraq helped bring is directly benefiting Iran. Iran 
continues down the path of developing nuclear cap ability because we 
have no leverage over them. Iran's influence grows in the region with 
the majority Shiite population in southern Iraq and their support of 
Hamas who recently won Palestinian elections.
  What our involvement in the Middle East clearly demonstrates is the 
need for a new energy policy for a new century so we can break our 
dependence on foreign oil. Today we are financing both sides of global 
terror, the huge costs of our military excursions but also, through the 
petro-dollars flowing to many regimes in the Middle East, to charities 
and schools that support the teaching of radical Islam and helps turn a 
new generation of young people against us in the region. And again, 
there is no plan by the administration for a new direction.
  Equally disturbing is a recent study that shows that anti-Americanism 
is rampant and growing throughout the world, not just throughout the 
Arab and Muslim world but also in those countries that have been 
traditional friends and allies of the United States. No matter how good 
and capable our military is, we cannot fight this battle against global 
terror without help and assistance in the international community.
  And still, here today, there is no plan by this administration to 
turn these conditions around. Iraq and these other challenging issues 
deserve an honest and open debate. Unfortunately, that opportunity was 
taken from us today by the majority who would rather whitewash 
conditions and pretend we're heading in the right direction. The 
American people deserve better than this, our troops and their families 
deserve better than this and this Congress deserves better than this. 
We must reassert our role as a co-equal branch of government, capable 
of conducting proper oversight, demanding accountability of this and 
future administrations, and willing to make policy changes to address 
and overcome the challenges we face today.
  I end as I began, by offering heartfelt thanks and undying admiration 
for our men and women in uniform for their service to our country. May 
God provide his special blessings and care for those who fell in the 
line of duty. And may God continue to bless these United States of 
America.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me go over what I said before.
  All of us applaud the elections. All of us applaud the fact that 
Zarqawi was caught and the way he was caught, using Iraqis, giving 
information to Iraqis, and the United States operating and going in and 
eliminating Zarqawi.
  The problem is because of the way we handled this at first, it got 
out of hand, and United States forces had to use overwhelming force in 
many cases. Fallujah, for instance, they went in and put 300,000 people 
outside their homes. Only 100,000 have come back.
  Now, in Anbar Province they have no electricity at all. They have 2 
million people there. They have zero projects in Anbar Province. That 
is the province where we had the most trouble. And then as I go through 
the liturgy of things that have happened with 130,000 troops there, 
this is the point: in May of 2003, we had 3,000 insurgents. In May of 
2006, we have 20,000 insurgents. Now, we are there. The United States 
forces are occupying Iraq. The estimated number of foreign fighters in 
2003 was 100. This comes from our intelligence people. And today there 
is an estimated 1,500. I think it is a little less than that, but it is 
estimated at 1,500.
  Now, think. We have got 130,000 troops. They supposedly have 265,000, 
police and army trained. They have more confidence in their army than 
they have in the United States forces; yet there are only 1,000 foreign 
fighters. We have sectarian violence which is, in my estimation, a 
civil war and we are caught in between. Our troops have become the 
targets in a civil war.
  All of us want this thing to be resolved. This is absolutely 
essential to stability in the free world because of the energy that 
comes from the Middle East. But how we do it is what we disagree with. 
As long as American troops are there, we actually are attracting 
terrorism.
  Do you know who wants us in Iraq? al Qaeda wants us in Iraq. Iran 
wants us in Iraq. North Korea wants us in Iraq. Russia wants us in 
Iraq, and China wants us in Iraq. Why? Because we are depleting our 
financial resources and our human resources. Because we are destroying 
the future viability of the Army. We have $50 billion in backlog right 
now for the Army, equipment that needs to be repaired. We have had to 
lower the standards for the Army, taking category 4s, which we did not 
take for a long time. We have had Air Force people and Navy people we 
transferred over to the Army because they do not have enough people. 
And we can talk about reenlistment, but they had no reeinlistment 
bonuses that I know of during the old days. They now have up to 
$150,000 that they pay people in reenlistment bonuses. So we are having 
real problems. I agree the troops are doing everything they can. Their 
mission is actually accomplished.
  But let me go on. Monthly attacks on oil and gas assets: there were 
five in 2003, and it has gotten worse in 2006. Oil production is less 
than the prewar level. Oil production. Somebody complained not long ago 
that electricity doesn't make any difference. Let me tell you 
something. If you have ever gone without electricity in your house, you 
know that it makes a difference.

[[Page H4156]]

  I am just saying that we have 130,000 troops there, and it is not 
going well. That is what I am saying. I am saying we have a problem, 
and our troops are not able to solve the problem. We have become the 
enemy. It has got to be won on the ground.
  We are giving a microphone to be people like Zarqawi. We talk about 
Zarqawi. We talk about all these foreign leaders and what they say. Why 
should we pay attention to what they say? Why should we pay attention 
when Zarqawi says they are going to drive us out of there? That is just 
rhetoric. That is only rhetoric.
  The only way it is going to be won is a change of direction. I gave 
some examples before. When President Reagan went into Beirut, he went 
in with 1,400 people, and he decided he needed to change direction. 
When he had the biggest tax cut in history at that time, he decided he 
had to make some adjustments later on. He changed direction.
  When President Bush went into Somalia, President Clinton changed 
direction in Somalia because we made a mistake and we went after Adid. 
There are times in our history when we have to be big enough as a 
country to change direction.
  All of us want the same thing: stability in the Middle East. All of 
us want to find a way to stabilize the Middle East. If we stay, we are 
going to pay; and we are going to pay long term. After the Vietnam War, 
it cost us through the Reagan administration to pay for it. Now, I 
voted against every tax cut because I felt very strongly that we 
couldn't fight a war and cut taxes. Now, there is an argument about 
that and you can argue about the benefit of the tax cut. But you cannot 
fight a war and have tax cuts. And we will have spent $450 billion by 
the end of this fiscal year.
  My proposal, if anybody has read, is to redeploy and be ready. 
Redeploy to the periphery. Now, we went after Zarqawi. What happened 
when we went after Zarqawi? The Iraqis reported to the Iraqis, and then 
the Iraqis reported to the United States forces and they worked 
together. This did not come from inside Iraq. This came from outside 
Iraq. This was the periphery. The F-16s came from outside of the 
country to go after him. And this was not something that just happened 
overnight. This was a long-term thing that they had been working on for 
a long time.
  So in my estimation, the only way we can change things in Iraq is to 
change direction. It has to be changed on the ground. What we say here 
today, as President Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, is 
going to mean very little. It will get lost in the rhetoric. What means 
something is what happens on the ground. All of us support the troops. 
If you vote for the appropriation bill, the defense appropriation bill, 
you vote to support the troops. If you voted for the Armed Services 
bill, you voted to support the troops.
  I believe this resolution, if you vote for it, you are voting to 
support a failed policy wrapped in illusion. And I would recommend to 
the Members they vote against this resolution.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is 
my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
majority leader (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  This week the House has engaged in an important debate on the war in 
Iraq and how best to combat terrorism in a post-9/11 world. And there 
are major differences between those of us who support a strong national 
defense and national security policy and understand what we have at 
stake and those who would prefer to retreat from the world stage and 
attempt to manage the threat of terrorism and the danger that it poses.
  During the 1990s, the enemies of freedom used terror and violence in 
futile attempts to intimidate the United States and the cause of 
freedom. I will remind all of my colleagues that on February 26, 1993, 
we had the first World Trade Center bombing. It killed six people and 
injured more than 1,000 people. And on June 25, 1996, a U.S. facility 
in Saudi Arabia, the Khobar Towers, was bombed, killing 20 people and 
injuring some 372 more. On June 7, 1998, our embassy in Kenya was 
bombed, killed 213 people and injured 5,000 people. And on June 7, 
1998, the same day, our embassy in Tanzania was bombed, killed 11 
people, injured 68 more. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was bombed, 
killing 17 of our sailors and injuring 39 more.
  What was our response? During the 1990s, world leaders looked at the 
mounting threat of terrorism, looked up, looked away, and hoped the 
problem would go away. But what happened on September 11, 2001? 3,000 
Americans were killed by these same terrorists. And in a post-9/11 
world, looking up, looking away, and hoping the problem would go away 
is no longer the answer.
  That is why we are having this important debate here on the floor 
today. The American public deserves to hear how their elected leaders 
will respond to international terrorism and those enemies who seek to 
destroy our American way of life.

                              {time}  1045

  Will we fight or will we retreat? That is the question that is posed 
to us. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle often refer to 
Iraq as a distraction.
  They have called Operation Iraqi Freedom a war of choice that isn't 
part of the real war on terror. Someone should tell that to al Qaeda. 
Let's be clear here. Those who say this is a war of choice are nothing 
more than wrong. This is a war of necessity that we must fight.
  But you don't have to believe me. Just listen to al Qaeda's own 
leader, their number two leader. Ayman al Zawahiri knows how important 
the future of Iraq is to his cause. In a 6,000-word letter to al 
Qaeda's then commander in Iraq, the recently eliminated Zarqawi, he 
made clear that the terrorists view Iraq as a central battlefield in 
the global war on terror.
  For some reason, this brazen declaration from one of our nemesis 
about Iraq's importance hasn't registered with many opponents of the 
war who insist on conceding defeat and withdrawing. If the terrorists 
tell us directly they see Iraq as a central front on their violent 
ambitions across the globe, should we dismiss it? Should we dismiss 
their claims and simply wait for them to attack America?
  Operation Iraqi Freedom was hardly a war of choice. Saddam was 
already a menace and a threat to international order when he ordered 
several divisions of the Iraqi army into Kuwait in 1990. He routinely 
supported and openly encouraged acts of terrorism. He relentlessly 
persecuted and tortured his own civilian population, including Shiias, 
Sunnis, Kurds and others. He engaged in a multi-billion dollar scandal 
involving a number of our allies aimed at thwarting the sanctions that 
were put in place after the gulf war, and abusing the Oil-for-Food 
Program, thus causing even greater harm to his own people.
  He refused to disclose and foreswear his maniacal pursuit of weapons 
of mass destruction, and he ignored international sanctions and 
resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council. Saddam made 
the case for his ouster better than anyone else could.
  President Bush said, on the eve of the American-led invasion, that we 
would meet the threat before it became imminent, so that we would not 
have to meet it later with armies of firefighters, police, doctors and 
others on the streets of our own cities.
  September 11 made it clear that we could no longer afford to ignore 
madmen who threaten our peace and stability. We can no longer let rogue 
regimes go unchecked and unchallenged.
  And because of the combination of modern technology and a murderous 
ideology, we can no longer count on vast oceans or our own military 
supremacy to keep America safe. The enemy we must confront does not 
accept political negotiations or coexistence. The aims of our enemies 
are clear, to destroy anyone who stands for values, beliefs or 
political systems which are contrary to their warped and repressive 
ideology.
  Their aims are to destroy the cause of freedom and democracy itself. 
That is why retreat is not an option in Iraq. As part of the global war 
on terror, the stakes for the American people are too great. The action 
we took in Iraq was in the best interests of the American people and 
the world community.
  The events of 9/11 demonstrated that we had to show our own resolve 
as the world's premier defender of freedom and liberty before such 
ideals were

[[Page H4157]]

preyed upon rather than after standing witness to their demise at the 
hands of our enemies.
  Some of my friends on the other side have called the war in Iraq a 
failed effort. This is curious, given the constant drumbeat of progress 
since the toppling of the Hussein regime. More children are going to 
school now in Iraq than at any point in their country's history. The 
Iraqis have held successful elections, drafted and ratified a national 
constitution, and have put together the first sovereign, free and 
unified government in Iraq's history.
  Just in the past week we have seen several positive developments in 
Iraq and the global war on terror. The U.S. military forces eliminated 
the terrorist al Zarqawi, al Qaeda's top commander in Iraq, and a cold-
blooded killer.
  The Iraqi Government named new Interior, Defense and Security 
Ministers as part of their new government's continued progress. And 
President Bush traveled to Baghdad to meet the newly appointed Prime 
Minister, Mr. Maliki, to discuss our growing partnership with our new 
democratic ally.
  Yes, there have been some setbacks. No war is easy, but an honest 
account of our effort must acknowledge the staying power of the 
insurgency and the support it has received from foreign forces. But the 
effort and savagery of these insurgents and their sponsors only 
underscores our progress and the importance of this effort in the 
global war on terror.
  If we had adopted the irrational policies of those who lack 
commitment to winning this fight, the terrorist, al Zarqawi, would 
still be alive and plotting attacks against Iraqis and Americans.
  Defeating repressive, radical terrorists and their allies is our 
defining task of the 21st century. Crushing their deadly and poisonous 
ideology, freeing from tyranny the millions threatened with its 
bondage, is an effort which the United States and her allies are 
uniquely suited.
  We are the primary target of radical terrorists, and the leader of 
nations with the capability and fortitude to wage a prolonged fight 
against these people. In my view, we must not shy away, if only so our 
children and their children may live in peace.
  The American people are understandably concerned about our mission in 
a post-Saddam Iraq. There have been many tough days since Iraq's 
liberation and transition to a sovereign democracy. Advancing freedom 
and building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing 
but tyranny is a difficult task. But achieving victory there and 
gaining a democratic ally in the region will be the best gift of 
security we can give to future generations of Americans and Iraqi 
people who have longed to rid themselves of tyranny and oppression.
  The world scoffed at Ronald Reagan when he said, tear down this wall. 
They said communism could never be replaced by freedom. Mr. Speaker, 
Mr. Reagan was right. And the editorial writers and many in Congress 
back then were wrong. It is that same faith in humanity, that same 
faith in freedom that compels us to win in Iraq and to win the global 
war on terror. Freedom wins. And we will win, because Ronald Reagan 
noted at the Brandenburg Gate, freedom trumps those ancient hatreds. 
The freedom to raise your family, the freedom to walk your kids to 
school, the freedom to live in peace. As Ronald Reagan said, it is 
always freedom that is the victor.
  President John Kennedy said once so eloquently, the cost of freedom 
is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we 
shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.
  This week's debate has given all of us an opportunity to answer a 
fundamental question, are we going to confront the threat of terrorism 
and defeat it, or will we relent and retreat in the hope that it just 
goes away?
  Achieving victory is our only option. And for the sake of the 
American people and our kids and theirs, we have no choice but to 
confront these terrorists, win the war on terror, and spread freedom 
and democracy around the world.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq reached 
another troubling milestone yesterday with the announcement that 2,500 
American soldiers have now been killed in the 3-year conflict. In 
Massachusetts alone, more than 35 families have mourned the loss of a 
loved one, killed in action in places like Ramadi, Fallujah and Najaf. 
And since President Bush declared an end to ``major combat 
operations,'' more than 17,000 troops have been wounded in combat.
  Every Member of Congress supports the heroic efforts of our troops in 
Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe. These brave men and women in 
uniform, and their service to our country, should never be forgotten. 
We have the finest armed forces in the world and they represent the 
United States of America with remarkable courage, honor and dignity.
  During a recent memorial service for a young soldier from western 
Massachusetts who was killed in Iraq, a Marine Commander paid tribute 
to our fallen service members by saying: ``we weep at their passing, 
honor their service and cherish their memories.'' I would simply add 
that we are also grateful for the enormous sacrifice they have made for 
our nation.
  We are here today in this historic chamber to discuss the future of a 
war that has already taken so much from so many. A war that a majority 
Americans now disapprove of.
  In October 2002, when this institution first debated authorizing the 
use of military force, I raised a number of concerns about a pre-
emptive war with Iraq including its cost, the lack of connection 
between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and the fact that Iraq was not a 
credible threat to the United States. I also believed that a pre-
emptive strike would act as an effective recruiting tool for radical 
Islamic fundamentalism worldwide. For these reasons, I was 1 of 133 
House Members who against the Iraq war resolution.
  Unfortunately, as I stand on the floor of the House, nearly 4 years 
later, many of these concerns still exist. According to the non-
partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), the war in Iraq has now 
cost the U.S. taxpayer roughly $319 billion to date. That's $6.4 
billion a month and more than $100,000 per minute. If you live in 
Massachusetts, $9 billion of your money has been spent in Iraq. And 
there is no end in sight.
  I would point out to my colleagues that former White House economic 
adviser Lawrence Lindsey lost his job for predicting that the war would 
cost a mere $200 billion. From the start, the Bush administration has 
not been straight with the American people about the cost of the war in 
Iraq. And this partisan resolution does nothing to address that.
  In fact, the White House has not been straight about most aspects of 
the war from the existence of weapons of mass destruction to the threat 
of the insurgency, and from Iraq's purchase of yellow cake uranium to 
Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda. And with this resolution, House Republicans 
will simply rubberstamp President Bush's poor planning and 
mismanagement. I believe it is time for a new direction in Iraq.
  More importantly, so do many military leaders. Marine Corps General 
Anthony Zinni, Army Major General Charles Swannack, Army General John 
Batiste, Marine Corps Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold and others 
have all expressed real concerns about our future in Iraq. These are 
individuals who were deeply involved in the planning and execution of 
the war. And they do not like what they see.
  As General Zinni recently said, ``we are paying the price for the 
lack of credible plan. Ten years worth of planning were thrown away, 
troop levels dismissed out of hand . . . These were strategic mistakes, 
mistakes of policy made back here.''
  Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I believe it is time for a new 
course in Iraq. I believe we need to develop an honorable exit 
strategy. I will vote against this resolution to give President Bush an 
open-ended commitment in Iraq. Let's bring the troops back home.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for 
my colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives. I respect them 
for their service and for their dedication to their constituents. 
However, Mr. Speaker, I take offense that any member of this House 
would stand here and challenge the patriotism of a colleague--such a 
charge is unworthy of this institution and the democracy we fight for 
every day. I refuse to allow anyone on the other side, as they have 
done today and have since this war in Iraq began, to question--whether 
directly or indirectly--my love of our country, my unwavering 
commitment to our troops, and my firm belief that we must do whatever 
necessary to defend the citizens of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I will oppose the resolution before us today. And, I do 
so because I love this country and who we are and what we stand for. My 
reason for opposing this particular resolution comes down to one word--
accountability. At every level, the Republican majority here in 
Congress, has failed to hold this Administration accountable. It is 
simply astonishing that most of my Republican colleagues have time and 
time again simply bent to the will of the Administration and allowed 
themselves to believe meaningless rhetoric without asking tough 
questions. I urge my colleagues on the other side to abandon their 
blind faith

[[Page H4158]]

in this Administration's rhetoric and instead demand accountability. 
For it is through information, recognition of errors, and the 
development of an honest plan that we will ultimately ensure our 
success in Iraq.
  Misjudgments and miscalculations have led to a conflict that 
continues three years after the President declared ``mission 
accomplished.'' History will judge the President and his cabinet for 
their performance. But, it is our responsibility as members of Congress 
to call for a clear plan going forward. It is past time that this 
Administration implement a strategy to meet our mission and bring our 
troops home, and it is past time that this Congress demand it.
  Instead, this resolution supports a ``stay the course'' policy that 
has failed our troops and failed our nation. We all want to see a safe 
and democratic Iraq. However, the President's open-ended declaration to 
stay as long as it takes--a policy that this resolution defends--will 
not require the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to make the tough 
choices that need to be made. That is why we must make clear that our 
military presence is contingent upon progress in the formation of a 
stable and functioning Iraqi government. We have to make it clear that 
we expect the Iraqis to take responsibility for their government and 
for their security. We will support them, but the time for a serious 
U.S. military presence is limited. To make that clear, we should begin 
to bring our Reservists and National Guard home, and put in place a 
strategy to bring the rest of our young men and women out of Iraq as 
soon as possible.
  My colleagues, today, we could have had the opportunity to discuss 
these important policy issues, demand answers, and work together to 
better define our objectives in Iraq and our strategy for completing 
our mission. Instead, we are once again stuck in neutral--playing 
politics with resolutions about whether Republicans or Democrats 
support the troops and whether Republicans or Democrats are stronger 
against terrorism. Let's be clear: we all support the troops and we are 
all committed to fighting terrorism. That is not the issue--the issue 
is the Bush Administration's failed policy in Iraq and how Congress--as 
a separate and independent branch of government--should demand 
accountability for their failures and demand a real strategy to achieve 
success and bring our troops home. We owe this to our constituents. We 
owe it to the brave Americans serving this country overseas. And, we 
owe it to our great country and its legacy.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to offer 
supplemental remarks to the remarks I entered into the Record 
yesterday. I offer these supplemental remarks as a continuation of my 
thoughts relative to the debate held yesterday, Thursday, June 15 and 
continuing into this morning, Friday, June 16.
  It is clear, Mr. Speaker, to anyone who reads the 730 words contained 
within the body of H. Res. 861 that this resolution concerns three 
principal objectives: (1) general support for American troops, (2) the 
Congress's stated belief that the United States will win the war on 
terror, and (3) the encouragement of the new permanent unity government 
in Iraq and Prime Minister Nuri AI-Maliki to succeed, toward the 
ultimate goal of stabilizing Iraq and returning American troops back to 
the United States. Like so many of my colleagues, I wish this 
resolution said much more: I wish that the Rules Committee had allowed 
amendments to this legislation; I wish that a Democratic substitute had 
been allowed. But none of those things occurred.
  Try as they might, the spin doctors and the pundits on the other side 
of the aisle are trying to make this vote something which it is not--a 
vote indicating support for the war in Iraq. It is most certainly not 
that, but is instead a political football that this Majority sees no 
problem kicking around.
  I was not a member of Congress when initial authorization was given 
to this President to enter into this conflict; I neither support this 
war nor President Bush's handling--or, rather, his mishandling, of it. 
This mismanagement has been evident practically from the conflict's 
inception.
  The very simple fact is that the vote today on H. Res. 861 and the 
surrounding circumstances, are highly political, and not substantive in 
nature. All those voting on this measure today know and understand that 
this is a vote scheduled by the Republican majority in Congress only to 
put Democrats into what Republicans perceive is a potentially difficult 
political spot. While I did not take a vote to authorize this war, it 
is my responsibility to work with my colleagues to deal with its 
aftermath--something that is far more difficult. And I take that 
responsibility very seriously.
  American troops are in Iraq right now. In my view, the establishment 
of an arbitrary deadline for a pullout--whether it is tomorrow, a month 
or a year from now--is irresponsible. Our military intervention has 
destabilized Iraq; as a result, this Nation maintains a duty to 
stabilize the situation before turning full control back over to the 
Iraqis. We must leave Iraq as soon as possible, but we must do so 
responsibly.
  Unfortunately, H. Res. 861 does nothing toward ending the 
instability. It is emotive. It inflames passions. It is red-meat 
election year politics at its worst.
  As I have said throughout my time in Congress, Iraq will be, in the 
end, what Iraqis themselves will make of it. Congress and the 
administration need to press forward and convert the well-intentioned 
but arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal of our troops into responsible, 
tangible plans that will serve to bring our troops home. We need to 
shunt aside the inflamed politics of the day--the politics that leads 
the House to take a day and a half to consider a resolution that 
accomplishes nothing--and begin a serious discussion about a 
responsible date for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq--a plan 
that builds upon the small but substantial positive steps we have seen 
in Iraq, such as the approval of a constitutional government, the 
holding of free elections and the institution of a democratic 
government under the leadership of Prime Minister AI-Maliki.
  It is sad that June 15 to June 16, 2006, will be known more for 
slogans and empty election-year rhetoric than for a realistic solution 
to a difficult problem. Sadder still is the majority's steadfast 
commitment to inflaming the passions of the American populace for 
political gain. I supported H. Res. 861 today, but I eagerly look 
forward to a day when the majority overcomes its singular focus on 
politics and commences a serious discussion about how to responsibly 
bring conclusion to our role in Iraq. I look forward to the day when we 
can set aside the rhetoric and meaningless non-binding resolutions and 
focus on a responsible and workable solution to the morass that the 
President and this administration have created half a world away.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in the 
Republican Congress' unwillingness to focus on the truth in Iraq. 
Calling today's spectacle a true debate of ideas on Iraq does not pass 
the ``straight face test.'' If House Republican leadership choose to 
have a real debate on Iraq, Members of the House should be able to 
offer alternatives and ideas. Instead, they have blocked all 
alternatives by Democrats and for 10 hours the American people are left 
with the same empty rhetoric they have been hearing from the House 
Republicans on the floor for 3 years.
  My constituents in the 37th District want a strategy in Iraq. They 
want to know when our brave young soldiers will return home to their 
families safely. Given this, I find it disingenuous for Republican 
leadership to talk tough about the war on terror when this debate is 
supposed to be about American troops in Iraq. It was the Republican 
leadership who could not wait to divert resources from the war on 
terror to chase after Saddam Hussein in the first place. Many Democrats 
said this was a dangerous path, and sadly, that is exactly where we 
find ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I support withdrawing our troops at a specific time and 
redeploying them to the periphery of the arena. Redeploying our troops 
is the natural and timely evolution to our mission in Iraq. But now is 
the time that we need to start the process and planning of bringing our 
troops home. Our troops have contributed to the building of a 
democracy, assisted in training an Iraqi police and military force and 
overseen three elections as well as the drafting of a national 
constitution. They have accomplished a great deal. And we have 
supported them throughout.
  I join the American people in their deep patriotism and love for our 
great land, and I join them in their solemn appreciation for the 
thousands of American families who have sacrificed a son or daughter.
  However, our troops have been in Iraq for over 3 years. We knew that 
when we entered this conflict that our troops were not going to be a 
permanent fixture in Iraq. This was the understanding Congress had with 
the administration and the American people. The men and women who have 
given their lives in liberating Iraq have completed their mission and 
they have done so with valor.
  Now it is time for the Iraqi people to rebuild their communities and 
it is time for us to make our communities whole again by bringing our 
troops home.
  The resolution today is not what the Republican leadership had 
notified us of. I can only hope that the next Iraq debate on House 
floor takes place both soon and with greater substance.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, although I am in opposition to 
the resolution, I strongly support our men and women in uniform who are 
fighting to protect our freedom. These brave men and women have made, 
and continue to make, the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our great 
country. Approximately 2,500 soldiers have given their lives for our 
country in this war. Approximately 2,500 families across America have 
been left devastated by the loss of a loved one. Mothers and fathers 
have lost their cherished sons and

[[Page H4159]]

daughters, men and women have lost their spouses, children have lost 
parents. Their sacrifices will forever be remembered.
  Our Government has spent more than $250 billion on the war in Iraq, 
and that number is increasing at the rate of $177 million per day. 
However, just as we cannot put a dollar figure on the cost of lives and 
limbs our brave soldiers have lost, we also cannot put a dollar figure 
on the amount of pride that we as citizens have for them. While our 
soldiers fight and persevere because they, more than anyone, realize 
what is at stake in Iraq, it is my sincere hope that we can bring them 
home soon and reunite them with their loved ones.
  Mr. Speaker, although I am in opposition to this resolution, today, 
tomorrow, and as long as our precious Republic shall exist, we should 
continue to honor our men and women for their sacrifice, devotion, and 
continued defense of our country.
  God bless America and thank God for the sacrifices made by our brave 
men and women in uniform.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, all of history--and indeed, all of life--is 
a series of choices. International relations--and our national 
security--are mostly about choices.
  The world chose to watch when Hitler published his blueprint for 
genocide in Mein Kampf. The world also chose to watch as Hitler took 
power on January 30, 1933; directing the boycott of Jewish businesses 
and opening the first concentration camp just 6 weeks later.
  The world continued to stand by and watch as Hitler breached the 
Treaty of Versailles while denying Jews their fundamental rights 
through the Nuremberg Race Laws.
  Then, on September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville 
Chamberlain hailed ``peace for our time'' after appeasing Hitler in 
Munich.
  Thirty-four years later, a terrorist massacre at the 1972 Munich 
Olympics launched a new era of appeasement. The world met the 
terrorists' murderous ambitions with an invitation to the negotiating 
table. Within weeks of the Munich Massacre, the German government let 
three jailed terrorists go to secure the release of a hijacked 
Lufthansa jet.
  When terrorism first came to American soil with the 1993 World Trade 
Center bombing, our government treated it as a police matter rather 
than what it was: an act of war. Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 
1996 and the U.S.S. Cole attack in 2000. America--and the world--chose 
to stand by and watch.
  9/11 was the most visible manifestation of a war that had been raging 
between the terrorists and civil societies around the world for 
decades. But even as the terrorists plotted to kill us, we had refused 
to engage them until President Bush committed America to fighting the 
global War on Terror.
  The global War on Terror isn't just a struggle against al Qaeda. It's 
a war against a violent, evil ideology with which we can never 
compromise or achieve an armistice. We can't walk away from the fight 
and hope our enemy goes away.
  Any withdrawal--any retreat--in Iraq or elsewhere will be met with 
more attacks, more bloodshed. Except that the blood could once again 
run in our streets, in our neighborhoods.
  We will learn history's painful lessons at last? That's the choice 
this resolution poses today.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 861. The 
resolution declares that ``the United States is committed to the 
completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and 
united Iraq.'' That's a big job. Ask the British, who tried and failed 
to do this in the 20th century, what a big job it is. While President 
Bush has said repeatedly that when the Iraqis stand up we will stand 
down, this resolution asserts that our troops will remain in Iraq 
indefinitely. That is unfortunate.
  A group of Republicans and Democrats tried to offer a more concrete 
and meaningful alternative to this resolution, which would have 
substituted the essence of H.J. Res. 55 for H. Res. 861. This is in 
line with every benchmark set by President Bush. Unfortunately, we were 
not allowed to offer an amendment.
  Our approach is so reasonable that I believe 75 percent of the 
American public would strongly support it. Our amendment would simply 
require the President to develop and implement a plan for the 
withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq in a reasonable time frame. 
It does not give a specific date to complete a withdrawal. It does not 
say to be out in 30 days or else. It just says try to define an end 
point for the benefit of everybody. This is exactly in line with what 
the President himself has stated; it supports his statements.
  We are not taking a radical approach. It is a very modest approach, a 
very mild approach. The reason that there was not a vote on our 
amendment is that we would have won. So this entire exercise is 
designed for politics. And men are dying. Women are dying! And we're 
going broke--we spend $300 million every single day in Iraq, at the 
same time programs here at home are being denied. So we're going to 
have a financial crisis, and we'll have a political crisis.
  I I would like to see this effort taken out of the political realm 
and put it into the realm of policy discussions. We need to look for 
real solutions rather than just making political statements.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reiterate that now is not the 
time to bring our troops home from Iraq. Our soldiers have done a 
valiant effort in fighting terrorism and bringing a semblance of law 
and order to the chaos in the region and it would be shortsighted to 
lay out a specific timetable to bring U.S. troops home prematurely 
before their mission is accomplished. Over the last 12 months, enormous 
progress has been made in training Iraqi security forces and already we 
are seeing the fruits of our labors. Iraqi forces took the lead in 
election security and maintaining order during the December elections. 
In Southern Iraq control of the countryside is already in the process 
of being transferred from Japanese and Australian peacekeepers to Iraqi 
security forces. Slowly but surely this approach of having Iraqi forces 
take the lead in patrolling the streets of their cities while the U.S. 
military moves their troops to the perimeter is taking hold. As Iraqi 
forces continue to stand up, American forces will stand down. Congress 
needs to ensure that by our actions we don't send a message to our 
Iraqi allies that the United States is lessening its resolve and going 
back on our commitment to achieve our strategy for victory in Iraq and 
defeat the terrorist insurgents who are threatening this victory. While 
the United States will continue to face setbacks as we move forward 
with our mission to transfer authority over to the Iraqi people, we 
have to be firm in maintaining our resolve and finish what we started 
by achieving a lasting peace in Iraq.
  Everyone agrees that our ultimate goal is to establish a free, open 
and democratic Iraqi government and bring our men and women in uniform 
home as soon as possible. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to our 
troops to ensure that terrorism does not prevail in the Middle East. 
Any Congressional agreement of an arbitrary time table to bring our 
troops home before we have accomplished our mission is unacceptable and 
could potentially increase the risk to our soldiers. I have confidence 
in our military leadership and in our troops that we will ultimately 
prevail in our war on terror. I look forward to the day when we can 
transfer U.S. authority over to Iraq's elected leaders and to a 
completed transition of power and governance of Iraq.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. 
Res. 861. Republicans aren't interested in debating or discussing the 
merits or conduct of the War in Iraq; they only want to play politics 
with it.
  Republicans wrote this resolution. Democrats were not consulted or 
allowed any input. Republicans then rigged the process and outlawed any 
amendments, so that the only real choice in voting was not yea or nay, 
but take it or leave it.
  There are serious issues we have to discuss that are being ignored.
  The war in Iraq has cost our country $320 billion so far--money we 
have had to borrow--and it will no doubt cost hundreds of billions 
more. It has cost the lives of 2,500 American service men and women and 
more than 18,300 have been wounded. The needs of our veterans are being 
shortchanged. Some of our troops are on their fourth deployment since 
2001. Our military readiness is affected because we are wearing out 
both our equipment and our troops. And House Republicans are still 
pretending that the war against terror somehow has to be fought in the 
same basic way we fought in Korea and Vietnam.
  The American people deserve better than a sham resolution and a 
staged debate.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
861.
  As Americans of good conscience, we can find some comfort in the fact 
that Saddam Hussein is on trial for his crimes and that the Iraqi 
people have formed a representative government.
  Yet, as we, the elected Representatives of the American people, 
engage in this discussion more than 3 years after President Bush 
declared ``mission accomplished'': 2,500 brave young Americans have 
died, over 18,300 have been injured, and more than 10,000 Iraqis have 
suffered a similar fate.
  Our national treasury continues to be squandered--to date by over 
$300 billion, with over $9 billion of reconstruction funds squandered 
with no accounting.
  And no believable argument has been advanced that our continued 
military presence in Iraq will make the American people more secure 
against the very real threats that we face in the Global War on Terror.
  Tragically, this House is now debating a non-binding resolution that 
is as short-sighted and devoid of direction as the President's policy 
in Iraq, that purposely confuses the Global War on Terror with the war 
in Iraq. And despite the crafty and artful wording of the resolution--
these two efforts are not synonymous. There is no connection between 9/
11 and Saddam Hussein nor Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

[[Page H4160]]

  The President has admitted this, yet the Republican Party in the 
House continues to support his failed policies in Iraq under the guise 
of fighting terror--consistently providing billions of off-budget 
funding, allowing waste, fraud and abuse to go unchecked and failing to 
exercise even the semblance of oversight.
  Upon close reading, the Resolution contains three different kinds of 
declarations.
  Some are irrelevant--because everyone believes them to be true.
  Some are cynical--because they contain assertions that no one can 
reasonably believe.
  And some are illusory--because they assert objectives that, based 
upon the ``facts on the ground in Iraq'' we cannot reasonably expect to 
achieve in the foreseeable future.
  The American people and especially the American troops deserve better 
than this. We all have unwavering pride for our troops--they are 
performing superbly. The quagmire that Iraq has become is not the fault 
of the troops--it is the failure of the President to plan for a 
transition to the peace.

  As a member of the Out-of-Iraq Caucus, I have co-sponsored and 
continue to support Representative Murtha's solution, House Joint 
Resolution 73.
  It makes it clear to the Iraqi people that our Nation renounces any 
claim to permanent bases in their country.
  It declares that we will bring our troops home at the earliest 
practicable date.
  And it provides a plan for peace.
  Saddam Hussein is no longer the ruler of Iraq.
  A reasonably democratic constitution has been ratified.
  A democratic government has been elected.
  Now, the Iraqi people must forge their own future. Forging their own 
future is what 80 percent of Iraqis want--allowing them to do so would 
represent true freedom and democracy for Iraqis.
  Now, this Congress is duty-bound to heed the reasoned assessments of 
American military commanders that we make both Iraqi and American soil 
less secure by our continued military presence there. In fact, sadly, 
our continued occupation has in fact increased the number of terrorist 
operatives in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, with this result it is time to rethink 
our ``help'' to the Iraqi people.
  The Iraqi people should continue to receive our continued assistance 
as they rebuild their country, without our military occupation.
  We should help them defend their borders against terrorist 
infiltration--if the need arises.
  But, it is time for a change. Let's stop the carnage.
  It is time to bring our troops home.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show support for the Out of 
Iraq Caucus and to add my voice to this much needed debate on the war 
in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted against this war because I thought it was a 
mistake from the beginning. Iraq was not an imminent threat to our 
security, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and it has never 
been a part of American foreign policy to preemptively invade another 
country in order to spread our will on their citizens.
  But Mr. Speaker we are in Iraq now, the President has committed our 
troops there and we now have an obligation to fix the mess that we've 
made over there.
  But how long do we stay the course when the course that we have been 
on has not been a successful one. How long do we keep our troops in a 
country where they are not treated as liberators, but are instead 
fueling the violence there just by their mere presence?
  The American people are starting to realize that this war was a 
mistake. The reason for going to war was wrong, the planning for 
keeping the peace after the war was nonexistent, and there does not 
seem to be any clear indication of what victory in Iraq looks like.
  This was a war of choice and the people of Iraq are very suspicious 
about our motives for being there. Many people in and out of Iraq 
believed America's motivation for invading Iraq had more to do with its 
oil fields and strategic location in the Middle East, than with its 
supposed weapons of mass destruction.
  The American public also overwhelmingly believes this war was not 
worth the human or financial burden, and how can we blame them?
  At a time when our education system needs vast improvement, our 
schools are deteriorating, and our children are losing their edge in 
the fields of math, science, and engineering, we are sending billions 
of taxpayer's dollars overseas on a weekly basis.
  While we have sent close to a half a trillion dollars over to Iraq, 
here at home many Americans still do not have the basic necessities 
they need to live whole, fruitful lives.
  Millions of our citizens do not have healthcare, and millions more 
are working overtime just to make ends meet. Sadly, many Americans are 
not feeling the great economic boom that the Administration is trying 
so desperately to tout.
  Constituents in my districts are feeling the pinch in their pockets 
due to skyrocketing fuel costs, an overpriced housing market, and debt 
that will follow them to their graves.
  My constituents are starting to wonder, how can we continue to 
justify sending billions of dollars out of the country when they need 
better services and resources here at home?
  How can we continue to ask our men and women in uniform to give their 
lives for a cause that was built on deceptions and misinformation?
  Our national deficit is fast approaching $8 trillion, I repeat $8 
trillion, and yet Congress is more concerned with enacting tax cuts for 
the wealthy, while simultaneously spending billions in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, something has to give. We cannot continue on this path 
that we are currently on. The resources of this country, as great as 
they are, are being stretched too thin.
  Our forces, as mighty as they are, are being stretched too thin for 
the long-term health of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of this great Nation, we need to set a new 
course. We need a new policy on Iraq and Congress needs to start 
focusing its attention on the problems facing our citizens here at 
home.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Murtha Resolution, which 
establishes a time line for a responsible troop redeployment and allows 
Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for the course of their own 
nation.
  As long as we are there doing the job that Iraqis should be doing for 
themselves we cannot expect them to stand up and take control of their 
own country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, GEN Anthony Zinni and other retired 
generals have been outspoken in their opposition to the planning and 
execution of our occupation of Iraq. The administration rejected their 
sound recommendations, which predicted exactly what would happen if we 
didn't plan for the occupation.
  These generals explain that our forces were not provided enough 
resources to do the job, that we alienated allies that could have 
helped in rebuilding Iraq, and that the Defense Department ignored 
planning for the post-war occupation, unaware of the growing 
Insurgency.
  I have heard from too many military families whose children have been 
wounded or killed in duty. Their grief is so much harder to bear 
knowing that we did not adequately equip their sons and daughters in 
battle.
  I have met many times with Lila Lipscomb, a proud mother from Flint, 
Michigan, who lost her son Michael in Iraq. Initially, Lila supported 
the war on the assumption that the government knew best. A week after 
finding out her son had died, Lila received a letter from her son in 
which he forcefully argued that we should not be in Iraq because there 
was no connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden.
  Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey in Iraq and became a voice for 
mothers of soldiers who oppose the war. Cindy's loss motivated her to 
unite with other grieving mothers in opposition to the war. Her 
willingness to speak truth to power has drawn attention to the 
misconduct of the war and the terrible price that servicemen and women 
and their families have paid.
  We have endured strategic missteps and now find ourselves with 
insufficient troop levels to provide adequate safety in Iraq. Insurgent 
bombings, ethnic battles, and mass abductions by rival Sunni and Shiite 
militias are clear indications that our occupation has not provided for 
the conditions that Iraqis need to form an effectively functioning 
government.
  United States reconstruction and infrastructure investment has had 
little impact in 3 years. Despite the billions of noncompetitive, cost-
plus contracts given to businesses friendly to this administration, 54 
percent of Iraqi households still lack access to clean water and 85 
percent lack reliable electricity.
  The administration's emphasis on unilateral action in this conflict 
has left America bearing too much of a military and financial burden. 
If Iraq is going to be stabilized and move toward a democracy, it will 
need a commitment and a will far greater than what America itself can 
provide on its own.
  Why haven't we learned from the first gulf war? In the 1991 gulf war, 
our coalition partners shouldered over 75 percent of the cost of the 
war. We had over 100,000 Muslim troops fighting alongside a broad 
coalition of forces.
  We need to encourage our friends and allies around the globe to help 
with Iraqi reconstruction and peacekeeping. We just don't have 
sufficient resources to manage this work on our own.
  If we can bring the international community into Iraq to help 
establish a democracy, protect its citizens, and rebuild its 
infrastructure, it will free American forces and resources to the real 
problem we face: terrorism.
  Let's heed the advice of our colleague John Murtha and redeploy our 
troops to find Osama bin Laden and fight terrorists. If we can shatter 
the myth that occupying Iraq is the same thing as fighting terrorism, 
then these 10

[[Page H4161]]

hours of debate will have been worth something after all.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my comments 
and concerns regarding H. Res. 861. While this resolution is purely 
symbolic and does not have the force of law, I am voting for it, as I 
agree with the majority of the sentiments it expresses. In 2003, I 
voted for the use of force resolution, based upon what we later learned 
was flawed intelligence about the existence of weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq. While I am glad that Saddam Hussein was removed 
from power and has been captured, and I hope that the new Iraqi 
government is successful, the U.S. must move toward a new policy in 
Iraq.
  As I stated in a letter to President Bush last month, the time has 
come for the United States to give the Iraqis strong incentive to stand 
on their own feet and take control of their own affairs. I acknowledge 
this will be a challenge, as there is a persistent and strong 
insurgency, which continues to kill Iraqis every day. Therefore, they 
must speed up the process of training Iraqi security forces that are 
willing and capable of defending their country. There are many former 
members of the Iraqi Army who are still unemployed. The United States 
and the administration need to send a clear message to the Iraqis that 
we will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Taking this 
step will motivate Iraqis to take charge of their own affairs and 
create incentives for involvement from regional players and the 
international community.
  Additionally, we need to begin private discussions with the leaders 
in Iraq regarding a timeframe for redeployment of our troops. To date, 
more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 19,000 wounded in 
Iraq. Extended and multiple deployments have eroded U.S. ground forces 
and overall military strength. A Pentagon-commissioned study recently 
concluded that the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations 
in Iraq without doing permanent damage to the quality of the force. 
More than three years of continuous deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq 
has contributed to serious problems with military recruitment, forcing 
the Army to lower the standards for recruits, led to military equipment 
shortages that hamper the ability of ground forces to do their jobs in 
Iraq, and undermine the ability of the U.S. National Guard to deal with 
problems at home.
  While I agree with concerns that publicly announcing a timetable for 
withdrawal would put our troops at risk, I'm concerned that political 
parties and new governments are very much like some people. If you 
undertake to do something for a person, some individuals will stand 
back and let you continue--and never step up to the plate to do for 
themselves.
  We have saved the Iraqi people from Sadaam Hussein, but we cannot 
save the Iraqi people from the Iraqi people--if they are not able and 
willing to fashion a political solution and bring the Iraqi people 
together. We must encourage the new Iraqi government and give them 
strong incentive to assume responsibility and stand on their own.
  Our fighting men and women have served bravely. We must commit 
ourselves to an outcome in Iraq that honors their sacrifices.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, 
which inaccurately describes the war in Iraq as part of the Global War 
on Terror. While I strongly and proudly support our courageous and 
dedicated troops, coalition partners, and the Iraqi Security Forces who 
put their lives on the line each and every day to fight for a 
democratic, stable and secure Iraq, I cannot support a resolution that 
does not paint an accurate picture of what the true situation on the 
ground is in Iraq.
  It is imperative that we acknowledge these realities: since we 
invaded Iraq in March 2003, more than 2,500 American service men and 
women have been killed in Iraq; 18,000 have been wounded. More than 
100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have lost their lives. Nearly $350 
billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent. Terrorist leader al-
Zarqawi has been killed and Saddam Hussein is in prison, but the 
pacification and reconstruction of Iraq have been a failure. Every 
single fact that the President has offered to justify both the invasion 
of and the sustained U.S. military presence in Iraq has proven to be 
wrong. The President said that the war would be short-lived, aided by 
our allies, paid for by Iraqi oil, welcomed by the Iraqi people, and 
would result in a reconstructed Iraq with an improved quality of life 
for its citizens. His strategy in Iraq is not working and, as we have 
seen so many times, he and his administration are incapable of 
admitting mistakes--even when those mistakes are irrefutable.
  This war has exhausted our military, hurt our war on terrorism, 
damaged our country's credibility internationally, and strained our 
economy. I strongly believe that the President's current ``stay the 
course'' plan in Iraq is not working. We need a new strategy. We need 
to take our troops out of Iraq.
  I strongly disagree with the assertion in this resolution that our 
continuing presence in Iraq is a vital part of fighting our war on 
terrorism. After all, the attacks on our troops in Iraq are not coming 
primarily from al-Qaeda. There are only approximately 1,000 al-Qaeda 
amidst the 26 million people of Iraq. The attacks on US. troops are 
planned by an insurgency that is comprised of native Iraqis. Once the 
American soldiers leave, we will remove the stimulus for the local 
Iraqi and worldwide incitement against America as an ``occupier.'' We 
can continue to assist the Iraqi people in strengthening their 
fledgling democracy, but we must remove the provocation of an American 
military presence and instead, reinvest our resources in strengthening 
U.S. border and port security, defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and 
elsewhere, and rebuilding our much-depleted U.S. military.
  For this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution and 
instead, support a new plan in Iraq that will bring our troops home.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
861, a resolution declaring that the United States will prevail in the 
Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from terrorist 
adversaries.
  This is a critical time in American and world history. Only 5 years 
have passed since the al Qaeda network attacked us on our homeland. 
Over 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001, and the world as we knew 
it changed instantly.
  Our principal terrorist enemies seek to establish regimes that rule 
according to a violent and intolerant distortion of Islam. As 
illustrated by Taliban-rules Afghanistan, such regimes would deny all 
political and religious freedoms and serve as sanctuaries for violent 
extremists to launch additional attacks--not only against the United 
States and its partners but the Muslim world itself.
  The enemy uses suicide bombings, beheadings, and other atrocities 
against innocents as a means to achieve their dark vision. Their 
demonstrated indifference to human life and desire to inflict 
catastrophic damage on the United States and its partners around the 
world has fueled their pursuit of and intent to use WMD.
  We cannot permit the world's most dangerous terrorists and their 
regime sponsors to threaten us with the world's most destructive 
weapons.
  Our national strategy is to stop terrorist attacks against the United 
States, our citizens, our interests, and our friends and allies around 
the world.
  We have and continue to defeat terrorists by attacking their 
established infrastructure, such as safe havens, management, power, and 
infrastructure. This disruption will naturally force the terrorists to 
disperse and decentralize, thereby removing their global influence.
  We have and continue to deny terrorists support. Separating 
terrorists from their sponsors and support will deny availability of 
critical assets needed to plan, train for, and conduct operations. 
Denying sanctuary will prevent the terrorists from having the 
opportunity to reorganize and reestablish a global threat. A terrorist 
that is constantly on the move to survive does not have time to plan or 
conduct major operations.
  We have and continue to work with the international community to 
diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit. It 
is in our best interest to continue focusing on resources and efforts 
towards at-risk regions to prevent the emergence or the reemergence of 
terrorists.
  The United States Government, through our dedicated public servants, 
courageous men and women in uniform, and attentive intelligence 
officers are protecting the United States, our citizens, and our 
national interests at home and abroad--24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 
365 days a year.
  Today, American values, liberty, and lives are still at stake. While 
we engage the enemy on foreign soil, we are also simultaneously 
establishing homeland defenses, and extending such defenses to identify 
and neutralize any emerging threats as early as possible.
  The American public is one of the world's most informed societies--
the American people understand that the threat against our Nation and 
values are real and imminent.
  And to mischaracterize the American people's support for the global 
war and the men and women in uniform fighting at the front lines of 
this war is unpatriotic and disingenuous. U.S. forces will withdraw 
from Iraq as soon as the mission is successfully accomplished. Success 
will be achieved when there is a free Iraq in which Iraqis themselves 
are sponsors of their own liberty and security. The criteria for 
withdrawing Coalition forces from Iraq are conditions based, not 
calendar based.
  For America will remain the land of the free, home of the brave as 
long as Americans are willing to fight for the principles of freedom 
and democracy.
  I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 861.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the 
comments of the

[[Page H4162]]

ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Ike Skelton. Had 
I not been called away to perform a funeral, I, like him, would have 
voted against this resolution, or, may have even walked out to protest 
this mockery in the People's House.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, today we debate an issue whose importance 
reaches farther than the citizens that live within the boundaries of 
our individual congressional districts--it touches citizens all over 
the world.
  Frankly, it is easy for us in this legislative body to praise or 
criticize our efforts in Iraq. It is easy for us to come to this floor 
and talk about the violence in Iraq and the difficulties in forming a 
free, safe and secure government, then return to our offices and send 
out press releases.
  It is easy because none of us have had to serve in a government that 
is breathing free air for the first time. None of us have had to form a 
government under intense international pressure to include members of 
all viewpoints to avoid sectarian violence. None of us have had to hold 
elections under the threat of terrorism and destruction. We have not 
lived under the oppression of a tyrant, nor have we had to fear that 
speaking our minds could lead to our execution or the execution of our 
family.
  And now that the light of freedom is shining into the darkness that 
was Iraq, many criticize the Iraqi people for needing time for their 
eyes to adjust to the light. When did we become this arrogant? At what 
point did seeing over 70 percent of Iraqi citizens risk their lives to 
participate in electing a free and democratic government not be good 
enough for us?
  It would be uninformed to characterize our nation's early history as 
a smooth transition. Sectarian division, violence, and human rights 
abuses were prevalent in the early United States. I would submit that 
our adversaries aren't ignorant of this. They understand that the work 
of forming a stable democracy cannot be accomplished in three and one 
half years. They are smart enough to recognize the monumental successes 
that have been achieved by the Iraqi people and our extraordinary men 
and women in uniform in the face of immense challenges. And they are 
determined to use the most horrific tactics to stop the spread of 
freedom.
  Their opposition is a strategy of oppression and we must stand united 
to make sure it does not succeed. I would hope that every so often, the 
debate on this floor can be about more than temporary politics. I would 
hope that every once in a while, we can ask ourselves the hard 
questions and come together to find good answers to the problems not 
only in this country, but the problems facing the world.
  We have risen to the challenge before. On June 9, 1944, shortly after 
the beginning of the D-Day invasion, the following appeared in the 
Washington Post: ``There is a noise of wrangling on Capitol Hill which 
has a discordant, ugly sound today. There is a jostling among us for 
preferences which is incongruous in comparison with the unity among 
those safeguarding us oversees. Like them, we need to remember now how 
much unites us, and again draw together.''
  These words are just as relevant and commanding today as they were 62 
years ago. The question we must answer is still the same as it was 
then: do all men and women deserve to be free? If our answer is yes, 
then what is our responsibility toward that goal? I was taught that to 
whom much is given, much is expected. In this nation we have been given 
a great gift of freedom. Will we now fail to remember what unites us 
and deny our hand of assistance to those that seek the same gift we are 
so fortunate to enjoy?
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the 
Armed Services Committee to have a frank discussion about the Iraq war. 
We need to make hard choices to ensure that our presence in Iraq does 
not do long-term damage to our military or endanger the men and women 
who proudly defend our Nation. However, this resolution doesn't address 
any of those questions nor does it provide answers for a Nation that 
demands them. Instead, Republicans have given us more of the same.
  In October 2002, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use 
of force against Iraq, but since then, I have supported every 
supplemental appropriations measure to fund our troops because it is 
Congress's responsibility to give them the resources needed to 
accomplish their mission. It is precisely that support for the troops 
that motivates me to point out how we may do irreparable harm to our 
military if we do not alter our mission in Iraq quickly. Our men and 
women in uniform have performed admirably in difficult conditions--in 
many cases adapting quickly to missions outside their traditional 
roles, such as policing and reconstruction. However, the current pace 
of operations is untenable, and we are seeing evidence of the impact it 
is having on our military.
  Our troops have faced numerous deployments to the area, with the 
National Guard and Reserve in particular demand because of their 
expertise in needed skills such as policing, civil affairs, and 
engineering. Nearly 500,000 members of the Selected Reserves have been 
mobilized since September 11, with more than 10,000 members having been 
deployed more than three times. We are spending more and more money in 
an attempt to meet recruiting and retention goals in the active 
military and reserve components, and we are nevertheless starting to 
see increasingly more mid-level officers exiting the force--a dangerous 
sign for the future health of the military.
  Furthermore, the harsh desert conditions in Iraq--coupled with the 
high operational tempo--have taken their toll on our equipment, which 
is wearing out at twice to nine times the normal rate. The National 
Guard has only one-third of its equipment on hand, which weakens our 
ability to respond to a natural disaster or other major event on U.S. 
soil. Despite the billions we have provided in supplemental 
appropriations, it will take years and tens of billions more dollars to 
restore our forces to appropriate levels.
  General Barry McCaffrey recently traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to 
assess U.S. operations there. Upon his return, he briefed the Armed 
Services Committee on his findings and gave us a very frank assessment. 
He has stated that we should know by the end of the year whether the 
new Iraqi government will be effective in controlling the insurgency. 
He has also claimed that we cannot sustain our current level of 
operations beyond Christmas without breaking our military and 
endangering our ability to fight future missions. In other words, we 
are quite possibly six months away from a point of no return that could 
have long-ranging effects on our military and the stability of the 
Middle East.
  So what is our strategy to prevent the worst-case scenario from 
occurring? Where is the accountability? Where is the Congressional 
oversight? I'll tell you one thing--they're not in the resolution we're 
debating today. The Republican leadership promised a debate on Iraq but 
then refused to consider any alternatives to their own bill, preferring 
to embrace the status quo and ignore the very difficult decisions this 
Congress needs to make. We deserve better. Our brave men and women in 
uniform deserve better. The American people deserve better.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is right for Congress to ask the 
President to implement a plan to start bringing our troops home from 
Iraq. That would be the right message to send to the Iraqis: they must 
assume the responsibility for security of their own country.
  Congress needs to have a real and meaningful debate on the future 
role of the U.S. military in Iraq as we approach the fourth anniversary 
of the congressional authorization to use force in Iraq. Congress 
should take seriously its obligation to oversee our military.
  The majority has given us one option with this resolution, which is 
to make a political statement in support of President Bush. The House 
leadership has refused to allow amendments to this resolution. It is 
interesting that we are committed to building democratic institutions 
in Iraq but we are not willing to let the Members of Congress vote on 
alternative policies in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform that are 
putting their lives on the line every day deserve the full attention of 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree with those parts of the resolution that: 
honor Americans who have taken part in the global war on terror, 
including our first responders, diplomats, military, and intelligence 
officers; honor the sacrifices of American, Iraqi, and Afghan military 
forces, and the families of those troops; congratulate the Iraqi people 
for holding free and fair elections, under a new democratic 
constitution; supports the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to 
live in freedom; and declares that the United States will prevail in 
the global war on terror.
  We should be debating whether or not and how to withdrawal or 
redeploy United States Armed Forces from Iraq, and members should be 
permitted to offer amendments to this resolution. We should not simply 
be asked to ``stay the course.'' Congress must reclaim its oversight 
responsibility and ask serious questions about the Iraq war and 
reconstruction effort.
  I am convinced that we must change course. The repositioning of our 
troops would help us to regain the focus on the war on terror.
  The President came to Congress in October 2002 and asked Congress to 
authorize force against Iraq. I voted against giving the President this 
authority, and parted ways with most of my colleagues in Congress. This 
was not a popular vote at the time, but it was the right vote. I was 
proud of my vote then as I am now.
  I have remained an outspoken critic of President Bush's policies in 
Iraq. There was no connection between the events of 9/11 and the Saddam 
Hussein regime. The Bush Administration distorted and misused 
intelligence information about Saddam Hussein's actual

[[Page H4163]]

WMD capacity. Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and did not 
pose an imminent threat to the United States.
  During our debate in 2002, I stated on the House floor that I had 
``grave concerns'' about a unilateral, pre-emptive military attack by 
the United States which could ``endanger our global coalition against 
terrorism.'' I also stated that ``we cannot overlook the massive cost 
and effort that the United States would have to undertake in a post-
Saddam regime.'' Finally, I stated that ``the United States will need 
the help of its allies as it attempts to transition Iraq from a 
dictatorship to a democracy.'' I regret to say that I was correct on 
all these counts.
  The President prematurely disbanded the Iraqi security forces. After 
overthrowing Saddam, the President protected the oil ministries, but 
not the weapons and ammunitions depots, which were looted by insurgents 
and are now being used to attack American forces. The President did not 
provide the heavy armor needed for our troops and equipment. The 
President did not plan for an insurgency. Finally, the President 
invaded Iraq and then attempted to reconstruct Iraq without seeking any 
significant assistance from the international community.
  We have paid a heavy price. More than 2,500 American soldiers are 
dead. More than 18,000 American soldiers have been injured. We have 
spent over $300 billion to date on the Iraq war and reconstruction.
  Mr. Speaker, in December 2004 I visited Iraq as part of a 
Congressional delegation. I wanted to see the situation on the ground 
in Iraq firsthand. It is an experience that I will not soon forget. I 
thanked our troops for their service, including troops from Maryland 
and from our Maryland Guard and Maryland Reserve. Our troops have 
performed with honor and distinction and have done everything that we 
have asked of them. Our troops deserve to come home to their families 
and a grateful nation.
  Yet the President still says that we must stay the course. We need to 
immediately change course in Iraq, which must include the drawdown of 
U.S. troops from Iraq. We currently have approximately 130,000 troops 
in Iraq, roughly 20 percent of which are Guard and Reserve troops. 
Military experts have recommended a drawdown of at least 10,000 troops 
a month. It is not necessary for us to announce a specific timeline for 
the withdrawal of our troops. It is reasonable to expect, however, that 
one-half of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2006, and 
that all of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2007.
  We should make sure that our National Guard are the first to come 
home, as they were never intended to be used as the primary military 
force for overseas conflicts. Our Guard units should be made available 
for local needs.
  The drawdown of American troops from Iraq back home will allow us to 
achieve certain necessary objectives. First, we will bring our troops 
home to their families, and take them out of the middle of a civil war. 
Our soldiers should not be used as police officers. Second, we will 
send an important message to the Iraqi government to take 
responsibility. U.S. troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely. Third, 
we will remove a powerful propaganda and recruitment tool for Al Qaeda 
that the United States is an occupation force. Fourth, we would be able 
to stage our troops outside of Iraq to work with our allies and the 
international community to fight the war against international 
terrorism. The repositioning of our troops would help us to regain the 
focus we have lost on the war on terror. Finally, bringing our troops 
home would help us preserve the strength of our all-volunteer military 
by improving troop morale and boosting our efforts to improve 
recruitment of new soldiers.
  The United States should convene an international conference on Iraq 
which would include the government of Iraq. As the sole remaining 
superpower, the United States needs to mend diplomatic fences. Such a 
conference should achieve three primary goals. First, it should produce 
a verifiable cease-fire. Second, it would establish a mechanism for the 
completion of the training of Iraqi security forces. Finally, it would 
coordinate all international humanitarian and reconstruction assistance 
to the new Iraqi government.
  Finally, we must honor our commitment to our military and veterans' 
families, which will strengthen our recruitment efforts for new troops. 
Our volunteer military is in danger. The morale of our troops is 
suffering due to longer tours of duties and budgets that have not fully 
funded veterans' benefits, particularly in meeting their health care 
needs.
  Our recruitment efforts have fallen short in the military, as both 
the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have only met roughly 80% of 
their recruiting goals.
  The answer is the proper deployment of our troops, and the full 
funding of our veterans' benefits, particularly their health care 
needs. These benefits are particularly relevant considering we have 
18,000 wounded veterans so far as a result of the Iraq war. We must 
also bear in mind that estimates indicate that 50,000 war veterans will 
experience battle fatigue and post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and 
will require extensive treatment and rehabilitation.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on the President to immediately change course in 
Iraq, including the implementation of a plan to start bringing our 
troops home from Iraq.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the last two days the House 
has debated for over 10 hours a politically motivated resolution on 
Iraq. Not one word in this resolution will do anything to bring us one 
step closer to success in Iraq, or one day closer to bringing our 
troops home.
  This resolution is not about the troops.
  If it were, this resolution would actually do something to hold 
accountable those responsible for the manipulation of pre-war 
intelligence, the poor planning, the incompetence, and the 
mismanagement that has brought us to this point in Iraq. This 
resolution does nothing to give our troops a real plan that charts a 
path toward victory and home.
  Instead what we have is another attempt at re-writing history to buck 
up fading support for this administration's failed status quo policies.
  As even Secretary Condoleezza Rice has acknowledged, the 
administration has made mistake after mistake when it comes to Iraq. It 
is the military that has saved them, even as civilian policymakers have 
scorned and marginalized senior combat generals who have criticized 
them.
  Last week's elimination of al-Zarqawi was a reminder of the skill and 
determination of our men and women in uniform. It is our troops and 
their families who have borne the brunt of sacrifice in this war, and 
they continue to persevere despite the failures of this administration.
  For the past 12 years, I have voted for every bill that supports our 
troops and honors the sacrifices they and their families make in 
defending our Nation. For every year of this war, I have voted for 
every appropriations bill funding our troops, fighting to provide them 
with the bulletproof vests and up-armored Humvees that they were sent 
into Iraq without.
  But the administration needs to understand that more of the same 
P.R., rosier rhetoric, better stagecraft at another rally, or viciously 
attacking generals who served on the ground in Iraq will not achieve 
success in Iraq, nor bring us one step closer to bringing our troops 
home.
  The administration needs to wake up and stop taking the American 
people for a spin.
  Public confidence in this administration's handling of Iraq has 
plummeted because the American people have seen through the rhetoric to 
see the reality on the ground in Iraq.
  No amount of publicity stunts and political posturing can change 
that.
  More of the same from the administration will not make our country 
any safer from terrorists than we were on September 11, 2001. A poll 
conducted by Foreign Policy magazine of our Nation's top 100 foreign 
policy minds, liberal and conservative alike, found that 84 percent did 
not believe that the U.S. was winning the war on terror. Sharing that 
view was 71 percent of conservatives.
  The status quo is not acceptable. We need a change. The 
administration needs to take the ideological blinders off and 
acknowledge the reality of the facts on the ground.
  As GEN John Abizaid and Ambassador Khalilzad have stated, the reality 
is that civil war is now a greater threat than insurgency.
  Because of the regional destabilization that could follow, I do not 
believe we can pull out of Iraq precipitously. But I cannot support 
letting Iraq become an open-ended commitment without limit or end.
  So instead of occupying themselves with defending their mistakes of 
the past, the administration should focus instead on achieving real 
measurable progress on the ground in Iraq so our troops can begin to 
come home.
  Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the importance of 
our country's role in the Global War on Terror and to observe the 
heroic, enduring efforts of our men and women in uniform who are 
working to secure freedom and democracy for the people of Iraq.
  In January, I stood with the Eastern Washington families and 
colleagues of nearly 100 airmen from Fairchild Air Force Base and said 
goodbye as they were deployed to Iraq for 4 months. In April, I had the 
opportunity to travel to Iraq and visit with these members of the 92nd 
Air Refueling Wing and the 141st Air National Guard Medical Squadron. 
And in May, I was privileged to welcome them back to Eastern Washington 
with gratitude for their work on behalf of our Nation and in pursuit of 
freedom and democracy in Iraq.
  Troops based at Eastern Washington have long played a central role in 
the Global War on Terror. In Iraq, they assisted in the rebuilding of 
airfields and other crucial infrastructure projects. In April 2004, a 
crew deployed from Fairchild delivered the one-billionth pound of jet 
fuel in the Iraqi theater from a KC-135 to

[[Page H4164]]

an F-16CJ Fighting Falcon from the 555th Fighter Squadron.
  Much deserved attention is given to the combat efforts of our troops 
serving alongside Iraqi Defense Forces to protect the fragile but 
promising unity government and the Iraqi people whom it represents. Yet 
I would draw attention also to the remarkable accomplishments of 
service men and women who are rapidly restoring the infrastructure--
roads, airports, and utilities--that is critical to Iraq sustaining 
itself.
  But even beyond the duty and mission charged to them, many of our 
troops are volunteering to help out at orphanages and day cares in 
Iraq. We should be encouraged by the commitment and compassion that 
these soldiers show to the comprehensive task of restoration in Iraq.
  Congress must continue to support the unity government of Iraq as it 
rebuilds its country. Like the generations before them, fighting Nazis 
and Communists, United States warfighters are today doing a duty for 
which we can never repay them. I express my undying appreciation for 
their commitment and their sacrifice.
  One of the priorities in assisting the Iraqi people is establishing 
an independent, self-sufficient Iraqi Security Force. Here our progress 
has been astounding. Today, there are over 264,600 trained and equipped 
members of the Iraqi Security Force. The ISF is conducting 84 percent 
of company-level operations independently or along side coalition 
forces. This will give Iraq the ability to defend itself and 
participate as allies in the Global War on Terror.
  On the urgency of the Global War on Terror, there is no debate. And 
it would be irresponsible for this Congress to deny the fact that Iraq 
is a front in that war or to abandon our efforts there.
  The fierceness of the foreign-led insurgency that was drawn to Iraq 
after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime is evidence that the 
presence of democracy in Iraq and the United States aggressive pursuit 
of the roots of terror abroad are deadly threats to al-Qaida and others 
across the globe. We are fighting this tyrannical and ruthless enemy 
precisely where we should be--thousands of miles away from American 
families and American soil. To think that terrorists would confine 
their attacks to Iraq's borders is to not recognize the reality of the 
threats we face.
  We must not abandon the people of Iraq. We must not neglect an 
opportunity to strike lethal blows to the Islamic extremist network. We 
must assist the Iraqi people in establishing a free, stable and secure 
nation and not give up until then. The security of our country and our 
families depend on it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise today in support of H. Res. 861 and our 
efforts in Iraq. Democracy's biggest strength is also its biggest 
weakness. Democracy is the strongest form of government when the people 
and allied governments are united in a common goal. Because the United 
States worked hand-in-hand with Europe, we were able to defeat fascism 
in World War II and the totalitarian threat of Hitler and imperial 
Japan.
  Conversely, democracy's weakness arises when the people do not 
wholeheartedly believe in the cause. For example, Vietnam included a 
hazy mission and the drafting of unwilling participants. Policy was 
diverted due to powerful public opinion.
  We are not in Iraq and Afghanistan today because the President seeks 
for us to be. We are there because the public was outraged after the 
attacks of September 11, and rightly so. We were deliberately attacked 
by a terrorist regime seeking to cripple the United States. It was the 
dramatic escalation of decades of terrorist attacks. We felt these 
attacks deeply in our financial center of New York, at the Pentagon, 
and were almost hit at the heart of our Government, the Capitol 
building, were it not for the brave passengers of Flight 93.
  But as a nation, we chose to not lie dormant anymore. We chose to 
show the resolve of America and defeat the enemy of terrorist regimes 
and the countries that harbor them. I support the policy of not giving 
in to totalitarianism or terrorist threats. And I support the military 
if force becomes the necessary method of resolution. Progress is being 
made in Iraq, and our troops will be successful in supporting this new 
democratic government. We are not propping up a dictatorial regime; we 
are working to help democracy take hold in the Middle East. And our 
efforts are paying off.
  The idea that all people desire to be free is a powerful one. This 
idea is our single biggest weapon, and will ultimately bring success to 
this fight. The government that allows its citizens to steer their own 
course is undeniably stronger and more peaceful. I believe our troops 
are making incredible progress and so are the people in Iraq who are 
working for an inclusive, stable government. I remain committed to 
supporting all of their good works.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
this resolution.
  I say reluctant opposition--because I agree with much of what this 
resolution says.
  I support its statements about honoring the sacrifices of our troops 
and their families. There's no question that our military is the most 
professional fighting force in the world, and we are all grateful to 
our men and women in uniform for putting their lives on the line for 
our country.
  I support the resolution's statements congratulating the new prime 
minister upon forming his government and the Iraqi people for their 
courage in participating in elections, and calling on the nations of 
the world to work together for global peace.
  I even agree with the statement that we should not set an arbitrary 
date for the redeployment of our troops.
  I opposed the Iraq war resolution, but I have resisted supporting an 
artificial deadline for withdrawing troops. I believe that how we 
withdraw is as important as when we withdraw. This means giving the 
Iraqis time to get their newly installed permanent government up and 
running 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.
  But I profoundly disagree with the overall tone of the resolution and 
disagree even more with the way this debate was conducted.
  Mr. Speaker, a few months ago--in response to pressure from both 
sides of the aisle--the Republican leadership promised a full debate on 
Iraq.
  What we got was certainly a long debate, but it was far from 
``full.'' A full debate would mean that Members would have been able to 
offer alternatives to this resolution. We would then have been able to 
debate the merits of all the resolutions offered.
  I had hoped to offer the bipartisan resolution I introduced with my 
colleague Joe Schwarz of Michigan that recognizes political progress in 
Iraq, including the establishment of a national unity government, but 
also recognizes that more progress is needed, and that the Iraqis must 
meet their own deadline for modifications to their new constitution.
  As it is, the debate has been tightly controlled, and our only choice 
is to vote up or down on a status quo resolution that doesn't focus on 
Iraq and that doesn't reflect reality on the ground.
  If this were a real debate on Iraq, it would be about where we are 
versus where we thought we'd be, and where we should go from here. Just 
last year, Congress called for 2006 to be a year of transition in Iraq 
that would allow U.S. forces to begin to redeploy. But we're into the 
middle of June, and we are actually adding troops.
  A real debate would begin by recognizing that Iraq is a distinct 
issue, ouly part of the ``global war on terror'' insofar as the 
security vacuum in Iraq has attracted terrorists. But as the gentleman 
from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, has said--Iraq is a separate conflict, an 
insurgency with terrorist elements and sectarian violence.
  A real debate would have been honest about how continuous deployment 
in Iraq hurts our military personnel and their families, strains 
recruiting and retention, and damages readiness.
  A real debate would have looked at the human cost. We are losing one 
battalion every month of killed or wounded soldiers. Just yesterday the 
military reported that we've hit a tragic milestone. A total of 2500 
American men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. More than 18,000 
have been wounded. Attacks on U.S. forces are now at their highest rate 
ever--900 a month.
  A real debate would have looked at the financial cost. We are 
mortgaging our future and the future of our children. So far Congress 
has appropriated $320 billion for Iraq alone, a war that was supposed 
to pay for itself through proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil, and the 
``bum rate'' is now up to $8 billion per month. That's $2 billion every 
week, or $286 million every single day.
  And if we were really concerned about the well-being of our troops, 
we would be talking about the fact that every one of the Army's 
available active duty combat brigades has served at least one 12-month 
tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, 40 percent of the National Guard and 
Reserves has been mobilized since September 11th, and nearly half of 
those mobilized have been deployed two or more times. We need to 
consider that the readiness of Army units here in the U.S. is at the 
lowest level since the late 1970s.
  We would also have considered what it means for current and future 
readiness that fully 40 percent of the Army and Marine Corps ground 
equipment is deployed to Iraq and that equipment in Iraq is wearing out 
five times faster than the rate in peacetime. If the war in Iraq ended 
today, the Army would require two years of supplemental appropriations 
and at least $24 billion dollars to repair and replace equipment.
  If we were properly concerned about our National Guard, we would have 
addressed the

[[Page H4165]]

fact that it only has about 34 percent of its equipment on hand, down 
from 75 percent of its requirement in 2001. The missing equipment has 
been left in Iraq or transferred to units deploying to Iraq. The Army 
National Guard has been directed to transfer more than 75,000 pieces of 
equipment valued at $1.76 billion to the Army to support operations in 
Iraq. There is no plan to replace these items.
  No matter how each Member chooses to vote today, there's no question 
that we all honor and support our troops. But I would argue that if we 
really cared for our troops, we would make sure they had the equipment 
and training they need. We wouldn't make it less possible for them to 
meet some future mission. No one wants a new mission for our troops, 
but if we had to fight somewhere else, we wouldn't have the equipment 
or forces to do it.
  These are the things that we should have been debating, not the 
``feel good'' messages included in the Republican resolution. We all 
want to feel good about Iraq and believe that progress is possible. But 
we can't want progress so much that we blind ourselves to the reality 
on the ground.
  Of course, it's hard to know reality on the ground if Congress does 
no oversight. Congress has a fundamental responsibility to review how 
the money it appropriates is being spent and to ask tough questions. 
The Republican majority would have us believe that asking questions 
makes us unpatriotic.
  But that's just wrong. We abrogate our responsibility to the American 
people if we shut our eyes to how their tax dollars are being spent.
  The Republican leadership seems unable to come up with anything other 
than the same old tired lines. They will all toe the Administration 
line when they vote today, but we all know that even Republicans are 
having doubts as to the wisdom of the President's direction in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, we were led into war as a divided nation and today we 
are even more divided. A successful withdrawal from Iraq can only 
happen if Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at 
home.
  This resolution doesn't bring us together, Mr. Speaker, and I regret 
that the Republican leadership continues to seek to divide this House. 
But that is the course they have chosen, and so they have left me no 
choice but to reluctantly oppose this resolution today.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 
brave soldiers who have sacrificed so much to ensure our Nation's 
freedom.
  I am extremely proud of all of Western North Carolina's brave men and 
women, including the 210th and 211th Military Police Units, who have 
fought courageously to establish a united, free, and sovereign Iraq.
  The sacrifices these men and women make are unimaginable, whether 
it's spending time away from their families, enduring financial 
hardships, or laying their very lives on the line for freedom. And 
while these sacrifices are great, we must not forget that they are 
fighting to protect the world from the grip of terrorism. By risking 
their lives in Iraq and abroad, these brave men and women, including my 
son, are protecting the lives of American families and making our 
country safer.
  Four men from Western North Carolina have given their lives in the 
Iraq conflict. Attending the funeral of one of those men--CW03 Mitchell 
Carver--served as a stark reminder that freedom is not free. It is not 
the press who protect a Nation's right to free speech; instead, it is 
men like Mitch Carver who choose the responsibility to do so. And Mitch 
Carver is not alone. In the eight years I have been privileged to serve 
as a representative on the Board of Visitors of our Nation's military 
academy at West Point, I have seen thousands of young men and women 
take the oath to protect us. Theirs is a simple pledge: ``Duty, Honor, 
Country.''
  To me the great and central question in our debate is this: Are the 
Iraqi people capable of and deserving of democracy? The answer is quite 
simple. Any man or woman, nation, or civilization that thirsts to live 
free from tyranny, desires to speak freely, and wishes to freely and 
fairly elect their leaders is worthy of the great gift of democracy. We 
have seen the images of Iraqi men and women with tears in their eyes as 
they cast their first votes in the parliamentary elections. Iraq has 
embraced democracy with a contagious enthusiasm. Democracy is never 
easy, but in due time Iraq will be a beacon of hope for the Middle 
East. To turn our backs on the Iraqi people as they are making such 
great strides would be arrogant and foolish. In short, it is 
abandonment not only of the Iraqi people, but also of the principles 
which we have preached and practiced as a nation for more than two 
hundred years.
  I wish to express my sincere gratitude to our brave troops and our 
Iraqi allies. We owe the men and women in our Armed Forces a debt of 
gratitude--their courage should inspire us all. I encourage all 
Americans to join me in continuing to keep our troops and their 
families in our thoughts and prayers.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise once more to denounce our 
continued involvement in the Iraq war, which was the wrong decision, at 
the wrong time, based on wrong information. And, what are we doing 
today to correct all those wrong actions?--absolutely nothing--nothing 
but talk about it. It is time for a change; it is time for a new 
direction.
  We are having a debate today to adopt a resolution that merely 
expresses this chamber's views and opinions on our current military 
engagements in the War on Terror. This resolution honors our men and 
women who have given their lives in the defense of this country and it 
honors our armed forces presently on active engagement overseas, among 
other things. These praises to our armed forces are indeed truly 
deserved, as they have been thrust into a very difficult conflict with 
perilous conditions.
  However, I think our troops can better appreciate Congress' good 
intentions with actions rather than mere congratulatory words. This 
majority could have demonstrated our appreciation of the troops through 
laws that gave them all the equipment they needed when we sent them to 
war. This majority could have shown their commitment by demanding that 
the Commander in Chief clearly layout a plan of action and exit 
strategy, instead of allowing the continuing improvisation our troops 
have endured. This majority certainly might have demonstrated its 
commitment to the troops by not nickel and diming them on health care 
and making their reintegration to civil society more difficult and 
costly; and this majority definitely could have made the ultimate honor 
by acknowledging their well done job by bringing the troops home.
  This majority only wants to praise them--but won't lift a finger to 
make sure our troops can come home sooner rather than later. We 
constantly hear the mantras such as: Stay the course; we are making 
progress and so on and so forth. That is the extent of their strategy. 
Mr. Speaker enough is enough! It is time to bring the troops home!
  Iraq has a new democratic government; it is our responsibility to 
help them secure their country. This country can help Iraq, as it helps 
other countries, protect itself by providing resources and equipment. 
We need to let them fight for their country in their way. It is time to 
be friends and not guardians, let Iraq fight for Iraq. Our troops have 
done their job; it is time to bring them home.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say we need to bring our 
troops home.
  Before continuing, though, I must say that this resolution before us, 
unfortunately, is perfectly irrelevant to the choices facing the 
American people and this Congress. It is transparently political, does 
nothing to get us out of our predicament in Iraq, and is a crude 
attempt to intimidate and smear those who wish to honor the desire of 
the American people by bringing our troops home. This resolution 
attempts to reinforce the lies that led us to war which have been 
refuted and disproved many times over.
  All of the lies that were offered to justify sending our men and 
women to fight and die have evaporated in the light of truth. All that 
we are left with is this argument that we're there now, so we have to 
stay ``as long as it takes.'' This is nonsense.
  This is the same illogical rhetoric that kept our Nation in Vietnam, 
the rhetoric that doubled the cost of that conflict in American lives. 
More than half the combat deaths in Vietnam occurred after Richard 
Nixon was elected on a promise to bring the war to an end, and after 
the American people had already decided that they did not want one more 
soldier to die in Vietnam.
  Our vital task today in this Congress is to prevent a repeat of that 
tragedy in Iraq, to stop the bleeding, to make the will of the American 
people, which is to bring our troops home, the policy of our government 
as soon as possible. Our task today is to save the lives of our troops 
who remain in Iraq by bringing them home.
  We in this Congress have a choice. The American people have a right 
to exercise a choice on this issue, as to whether our men and women 
will continue to fight and die in a war based on deception and fantasy, 
or to start bringing the troops home.
  The American people have decided that it was a mistake to choose to 
go to war in Iraq.
  The American people deserve some answers, as to how we could spend so 
much in Iraq and achieve so little. They deserve to know why all this 
money is being spent on a war of choice, when one on eight Americans 
lives in poverty, and when 46 million Americans have no health 
insurance, including 13 million children.
  No one in this body wants to see terrorism and the rule of force 
prevail in Iraq. Some on the other side say otherwise, but I believe 
they know better.
  Bringing the troops home is necessary not just for the future of 
Iraq, but also for the people of the United States. We must stop the

[[Page H4166]]

hemorrhaging of tax dollars that could go to meet our Nation's vital 
domestic needs.
  This war of choice in Iraq is undermining the very fabric of American 
society.
  By the end of this year, the costs of the invasion and occupation of 
Iraq will total $450 billion; $450 billion spent in Iraq, who knows how 
much of it going to corrupt, crony contractors.
  All of the President's statements amount to excuses for an open-
ended, seemingly never-ending commitment of our troops to occupy Iraq. 
He is trying to salvage the terrible wager he made in Iraq by doubling 
down the bet with human lives: Iraqi and American.
  While this debate today is a belated effort to inform the American 
people, it is nevertheless an empty gesture. It is time to admit our 
mistake in Iraq and begin to bring our troops home with honor.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the current 
situation in Iraq, as are the vast majority of Americans. We need an 
honest assessment from the civilian leadership at the Pentagon about 
what is working and what is not working, and what needs to change in 
terms of our strategy.
  I strongly oppose efforts to weaken the position of our military by 
setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal of our military forces. We 
all want American troops to return home from Iraq as soon as possible. 
Some Members of Congress have called for an immediate withdrawal from 
Iraq--I disagree with them.
  As a longtime supporter of our military, I believe that a calendar-
based date for withdrawal serves as a rallying point for insurgents. It 
also places a target on the backs of American troops. Finally, I am 
very concerned that the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops would leave 
a volatile vacuum of power in Iraq, which would rapidly be filled by 
insurgents. A better alternative is for Congress to clearly delineate 
the conditions that, if met, would permit a U.S. withdrawal.
  Standing around arguing about why we're in this position doesn't 
serve a good purpose, in my opinion. Instead, I think today's debate is 
an opportunity to talk about how we can develop a strategy for success. 
Regardless of when the last American soldier leaves Iraq, I want to be 
able to look at him or her and be able to say that the service of our 
military achieved something greater than the political ends of a few 
here in Washington. I hope all of my colleagues share that desire. A 
strategy for success should be comprehensive--it should include not 
just a military role, but also a plan for political, diplomatic, and 
economic success.
  In the next few weeks, a field artillery unit from my district--the 
222nd--is heading home after a long year in Iraq. These soldiers have 
made immense sacrifices on behalf of our great Nation and I am so 
grateful that they're going to be back in Utah. We all have 
constituents serving overseas and I would like to take this opportunity 
to sincerely thank our military service members for their work on 
behalf of all Americans.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House 
Resolution 861. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have 
pursued terrorists and brought them to justice around the world. In 
this Global War on Terror--where evil, bloodthirsty fanatics kill to 
prevent democracy and liberty from taking root--there is no option for 
the forces of freedom but victory. This resolution affirms our 
commitment to victory. It is a solemn declaration that we will prevail 
over the terrorists, and that we will do so hand in hand with all who 
cherish freedom and repudiate extremism.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress in January 2001. The Global War on 
Terror has been the defining issue during much of my time here on 
Capitol Hill. From that perspective, I can state that we have made 
tremendous progress in strengthening our defenses at home, and taking 
the fight to our enemies overseas.
  I visited Iraq for the first time in December 2003, shortly before 
the capture of Saddam Hussein. At that time, the Iraqi Governing 
Council had been formed, but the Coalition Provisional Authority still 
exercised most of the essential functions of government. In December 
2003, Iraqi sovereignty seemed possible, but distant.
  I returned to Iraq this past Memorial Day recess. We are well on our 
way to achieving our goals. The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the 
foreign terrorist who was al-Qaeda's top commander in Iraq, puts us one 
step closer to neutralizing the insurgency and defeating the 
terrorists. Democracy and liberty have taken root in the heart of a 
region that is not known for either. The Iraq I visited two weeks ago 
had a sovereign, democratic government; the result of three successful 
elections.
  And after much negotiation, the Iraqi government recently named 
interior, defense, and security ministers. These new ministers will 
continue to lead Iraq to security self-reliance.
  As an example of the improved security on the ground, it was my honor 
and privilege to be part of the first Congressional Delegation to spend 
the night Baghdad.
  The new leaders of Iraq implored me to bring back a message to this 
Congress: Iraq will never achieve security self-reliance if the United 
States leaves before its work is done. If we leave before our job is 
done, the terrorists and insurgents will not only wreak greater havoc 
upon the Iraqi people, but they will also create a terrorist state from 
which to perpetrate acts of violence against those who disagree with 
their world view.
  For the sake of our own national security, we must do everything we 
can to support the new leaders of Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I also had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan during 
the Memorial Day Recess. President Karzai heads a fully democratic 
government, the culmination of a complete transition to democracy. 
Women now have the right to vote and work. Although President Karzai's 
government has greatly extended its authority, history teaches us that 
we cannot let any part of Afghanistan remain a haven for terrorists. We 
must continue to pursue, capture, and eradicate the remaining Al Qaeda/
Taliban terrorists.
  What I saw overseas is not what is being reported by the media back 
home. The Iraqi economy is picking up steam: currency is more stable, 
the national stock exchange is up and running, and business 
registrations are on the rise. More roads and schools are being built 
as we speak, and the oil sector shows promise as pipeline security 
efforts increase. In Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda/Taliban terrorists are 
on the run and 28% of Afghan Parliament delegates are women.
  What our troops told me is not what is being reported either. We have 
the finest military in the world, and morale is high. Our brave troops 
know the world will be safer when the mission is complete. We must 
stand strong and support our troops and allies in this fight against 
global terror.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, America and its allies are engaged in a 
war against a terrorist movement that spans all corners of the globe. 
It is sparked by radical ideologues that breed hatred, oppression, and 
violence against all of their declared enemies. Since September 11, 
2001, the powerful coalition of nations, led by the United States, has 
seen many successes against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It is 
imperative that we remain united and steadfast in the quest to defeat 
terrorism around the world.
  Last year I traveled to the Middle East to visit with troops in 
Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I came away with several observations:
  First, morale of the troops is HIGH. They are confident of the 
progress they have made in the mission to spread freedom and democracy 
in the Middle East. Not one serviceman or woman I encountered had any 
doubts about the purpose and importance of his or her presence there. 
The troops are positive and appreciative of all of the support they 
received from back home.
  Their confidence in their mission is well-justified. Since my visit, 
the Iraqis have ratified a new constitution and installed a new, strong 
Prime Minister, Nuri Al-Maliki. And now the latest milestone: Abu Musab 
al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, was killed in an air raid last 
week.
  Mr. Speaker, as I sat in a tent in Kuwait eating dinner with troops 
from Texas, I was struck by how young most of them were. Those soldiers 
with me were 18-20 years old. Their experiences and their stories 
humbled me. Never in my life have I felt such emotion and love for our 
service men and women than when I sat and looked at these brave young 
soldiers. Barely out of high school, yet each day these heroes awaken 
knowing of the perils that lie ahead. Danger awaits them, but they 
continue to make a great sacrifice each day so that you and I can be 
free.
  I sometimes feel that we Americans take our freedoms and our lives 
for granted. We forget the images of 9/11. Yet while on my trip to the 
Middle East, the London bombings occurred. This was yet another stark 
reminder that if we don't fight terrorists abroad, they just get closer 
to our home.
  Mr. Speaker, the War on Terror is a global effort; it reaches beyond 
a small concentration of countries in the Middle East. I'd like to 
share the story of Marine Staff Sergeant Nathan Fletcher. Sergeant 
Fletcher's wife, Mindy, lived in Dallas and also worked for another war 
hero, my fellow Texas Congressman Sam Johnson, on Capitol Hill. He is 
currently experiencing his third extended separation from Mindy since 
they married a few years ago and the start of the war on terrorism.
  Sergeant Fletcher is serving in a very remote region in the Horn of 
Africa. He is part of a Combined Joint Task Force focused on defeating 
transnational terrorist groups operating in the region. Sergeant 
Fletcher and his fellow troops in Africa lack amenities like running 
water, reliable power, and air conditioning. There is no internet, 
television, or even paved roads. Because they are so far away from the 
main camp they eat off the local economy. There are no fruits or 
vegetables where he is based, and so far he has

[[Page H4167]]

eaten camel, goat, lamb, beef, and a couple things he could not 
identify. They cook their meals over an open fire and sleep outside 
every night.
  Sergeant Fletcher's wife writes, ``His team is doing well and I know 
they are working very long hours. I can't imagine going 40 days without 
running water in temperatures over 100 degrees without air 
conditioning, but I know Nathan and other servicemen and women do it 
everyday.'' She continues, ``Iraq and Afghanistan get most of the 
focus, but our troops are fighting the global war on terror throughout 
the world. I am really proud that he is part of making sure al-Qaeda 
and other terrorists aren't able to expand into another part of the 
world.''
  Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Fletcher and the millions of other troops 
fighting the War on Terror around the world believe in what they're 
doing. They don't want to stop. They know their mission is right. We 
owe it to them to see this campaign for democracy through until we are 
completely victorious.
  Mindy no doubt wishes that Nathan was at home with her. Nathan no 
doubt wishes he was at home sitting in the air conditioning and eating 
a t-bone steak rather than camel steak. Yet they both know the reasons 
and the importance of the mission.
  Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Fletcher is enduring these harsh conditions for 
our freedom. Make no mistake--this mission is not only justified, it is 
essential. Let us never forget the Pearl Harbors, the attacks of 9/11. 
Let us never forget the freedom we have. Let us never forget the 
Sergeant Fletchers and the sacrifices they make for us.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not lay down our arms now. We must press on, for 
freedom, for peace.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration today 
presents Congress with a single option--to endorse the Administration's 
handling of the War in Iraq. Such an endorsement means committing our 
troops to protracted, open-ended involvement for an indefinite number 
of years while incurring thousand of additional casualties and spending 
hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Unfortunately, this is a counterproductive option. I do not believe 
the newly elected Iraqi government can achieve the politically daunting 
challenge of building a democracy as long as there is an expectation 
that the United States will always be there providing the principle 
security and defense roles for the country.
  Exceedingly difficult compromises between the ethnic and secretarian 
factions in Iraq need to be made, and those compromises must be 
determined by the Iraqis themselves. The Administration's course 
currently is emboldening these factions to seek maximum advantage for 
their respective groups--even as the business of building a united 
country is harmed significantly. The result is a full blown insurgency 
which increasingly looks like a civil war in destruction and effect.
  The Administration did not foresee these challenges, and certain 
officials still appear to be in denial of this reality. The United 
States deserves new leadership on Iraq and a new course, and the 
Administration should take the steps to remove those who have brought 
us to the present circumstances and revitalize our effort with a new 
leadership team.
  I have traveled to Iraq on three occasions. After my last trip in 
October 2005, I came away strongly believing in the need for a timely 
transition of responsibility to Iraqis. One month later, when this 
House debated a resolution ordering an immediate withdrawal of troops 
from the nation, I opposed the resolution, but I noted the following: 
``We need to come together on an exit strategy for our soldiers based 
upon the transition of security to the Iraqis themselves in order to 
give the new democratic government of the people of Iraq a fair chance 
of success.''
  I still oppose an ``immediate withdrawal'' ordered by the U.S. 
Congress. Some will argue that opposition to an indefinite U.S. 
military presence in Iraq means support for immediately abandoning 
Iraq. This is completely false. I favor leaving military commanders 
with authority for the military redeployment and troop drawdown. I do 
not favor near term deadlines imposed by Congress as the way to 
accomplish this result.
  I strongly support our troops and their families. I support giving 
them the resources they need to do their job, and the benefits they 
deserve.
  I support winning the Global War on Terror.
  For these reasons, I cannot support this resolution. It is too open-
ended, too blind to the reality of the difficulties we are facing, and 
too simplistic a resolution for the complex situation in which we find 
ourselves.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
before us today, despite the fact that it barely touches on the war in 
Iraq, which is the stated purpose of our debate, and makes some claims 
I do not agree with. While I will vote yes, I want to be absolutely 
clear that I am doing so to emphatically support our troops and the 
bravery they display every day in fighting the war on terror. I did not 
vote to authorize the Iraq War and continue to believe it was a 
mistake. I do not agree with parts of this resolution that misstate the 
original administration arguments for invading Iraq. The heart of this 
discussion needs to be that the Bush administration has been almost 
totally inept in its planning and prosecution of the war and occupation 
of Iraq.
  Time and again, the Bush administration has been wrong. Before 
invading Iraq, we were told that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat 
to the United States. After attending the briefings provided by the 
administration, I did not feel that administration officials made this 
case, and the lack of weapons of mass destruction certainly undercuts 
this argument. Even worse, we were given a stream of incorrect 
assumptions of the costs of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Then-
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz testified before a Senate 
Committee and predicted that the monetary cost of the war to the United 
States would not exceed $2 billion. Including money to be appropriated 
this year, we are approaching $400 billion, and continue to spend $8.1 
billion every month in Iraq. Wolfowitz also said Iraq had no history of 
ethnic strife.
  It is important to remember that the Bush administration assertions 
were not conventional wisdom at the time. Both then-Army Chief of 
Staff, GEN Eric Shinseki, and then-Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey, 
soon left their positions after publicly stating, respectively, that 
the war would take large numbers of troops and hundreds of billions of 
dollars to prosecute.
  Further, it quickly became clear that the planning of the occupation 
of Iraq was woefully inadequate, placing our soldiers in increasing 
danger. Stories of inadequate supplies of bulletproof vests and armor 
for humvees documented this fact. The outspoken concern of former 
generals in regard to these preparations further underscored the 
problems. The intensity of the insurgency caught the administration by 
surprise.
  The United States has allocated $50 billion to private contractors 
for reconstruction and rebuilding efforts in Iraq since the beginning 
of the war. Nine billion dollars in reconstruction funds are 
unaccounted for, while the Defense Contract Audit Agency has deemed 
that $1.47 billion spent by the Halliburton Corporation was excessive 
or insufficiently documented. Oil production is at 2.2 million barrels 
per day--down from 2.6 million barrels per day prior to the war.
  The resolution we are debating also says ``. . . the terrorists have 
declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who 
oppose their ideology.'' This is true only because we gave them the 
opportunity to do so. Iraq clearly was not the central front before the 
U.S. invasion--another unfortunate outcome of poor planning.
  I continue to believe that part of our decision making process 
concerning how to move forward in Iraq must include an analysis of how 
we got there. It is not enough to say that since we are there, we have 
to make the best of it. I agree that we cannot just walk away, and do 
not support a certain date for our exit, but we still do not have any 
framework for evaluating our progress there. While the death of Al 
Zarqawi is great news, and it seems that Iraqi security forces are 
taking on more responsibility, does anyone really believe that in one 
year, or two years, or even five years, that Iraq will be able to 
defend itself?
  I said at the outset of this war that the United States was going to 
pay the vast majority of its costs, in both lives and dollars, and this 
has clearly been the case. We must reengage the international community 
to take on more of the burdens of the occupation, and seek to bring our 
troops home as soon as possible.
  Today, I join my colleagues in celebrating the extraordinary efforts 
and accomplishments of our troops. But I do not celebrate our country's 
undertaking of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was a bad 
decision followed by numerous other bad decisions, and while I hope it 
ends well, we will feel the ramifications in many ways for years to 
come.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the members of this House have had a lengthy 
and passionate debate today. When these hours of debate are over, I 
think the American people need a clear understanding of what the 
Democrats propose to do.
  Lets look at the Democrats' blueprint, the Murtha Plan.
  The Murtha Plan proposes to have our forces ``redeployed at the 
earliest practicable date'' with no details about what that means. 
Meanwhile, the Iraqi leadership only days ago requested for our forces 
to continue their side-by-side work with Iraqi forces. The Democrats' 
plan advocates redeployment before the job is done, which is nothing 
short of retreat.
  The Murtha Plan calls for the creation of a ``quick-reaction force'' 
and an ``over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines'' with, again, no 
details about what exactly that means. The Democrats continue to 
advocate retreat, while

[[Page H4168]]

our President has stated time and time again that our commanders on the 
ground will determine the tactical plans, not politicians in 
Washington.
  The Murtha Plan calls for America to ``pursue security and stability 
in Iraq through diplomacy.'' Are Democrats suggesting that we can 
negotiate with terrorists? This is a war unlike any other. If we leave 
this front now, the terrorists will come after us somewhere else. This 
is not about territory or conquest. This is a fight for the future of 
the free world.
  The Murtha Plan supported by the Democrats is nothing more than an 
enormous step backwards in the fight against the Islamic fascists. It 
is a rehash of the same old policies of appeasement and retreat that 
contributed greatly to our lack of preparedness for the 
9/11 attacks. The policy of appeasement and non-engagement has only 
emboldened terrorists in the past.
  Thankfully, our President has charted a new course to take the fight 
to the terrorists so we do not have to fight them here at home. We must 
aggressively keep our resolve in this decades-old war with the 
terrorists.
  Mr. SABO. I come to this House debate deeply frustrated over the 
chaos in Iraq. I voted against authorizing President Bush to take us to 
war in Iraq. I believed in 2002, and am more certain today that this 
war has been a grave mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but respect for the honorable American 
service men and women who have been put into harm's way. However, the 
goodwill I feel for these brave Americans is contrasted by my lack of 
confidence in President Bush and the Defense Department leadership. 
Once they got us into this war, they have, time and again, ignored 
sound military planning and blatantly disregarded the violent, grinding 
reality that has steadily descended on Iraq over the past 3 years.
  As members of Congress, it is one of our highest duties to hold the 
civilian and military leadership accountable when they take our nation 
to war. To date, 2,500 American service men and women have been killed, 
and more than 18,000 more have been injured. There are no higher stakes 
than these. Unfortunately, H. Res. 861 does nothing to demand that the 
Bush administration correct its disastrous policies in Iraq.
  Earlier this year, General Anthony Zinni, former Commander of the 
U.S. Central Command, pointedly expressed the views of many, many 
Americans about Iraq when he said, ``We are paying the price for the 
lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years worth of 
planning were thrown away, troop levels dismissed out of hand. . . . 
These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here.''
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents and people across the nation want a 
clear plan for success in Iraq. Americans want to believe that there 
can be a successful end to this conflict, and that our soldiers, 
marines and other personnel will return home soon. Unfortunately, it is 
hard to hold onto this hope given the President's stubborn refusal to 
acknowledge the failures in his Iraq policy. We must change course.
  The United States has a critical role in helping Iraqis to build a 
peaceful, democratic society. I am certain, however, that an open-ended 
U.S. military presence in Iraq will not accomplish peace and stability 
there. Furthermore, waving the flag, with Congressional resolutions 
like H. Res 861, accomplishes nothing.
  With mounting casualties and the $320 billion in spending on this 
war, Americans deserve to hear the unvarnished truth from their 
President and elected representatives. I firmly believe that 
Congressman Murtha has the right idea with his resolution to redeploy 
our troops. We must make it clear to Iraqis that we support their 
transition to a peaceful and prosperous society. Hard-nosed diplomacy, 
Iraqi institution-building and support from the international community 
are better tools than the U.S. military to accomplish this goal.
  I still seek answers to questions I asked Defense Secretary Rumsfeld 
in appropriations hearings earlier this year: What is your plan for 
success in Iraq? When and under what conditions can our honorable men 
and women serving there come home? The House debate on H. Res. 861 will 
not provide the answers, and I am still waiting for a thoughtful and 
credible response from Secretary Rumsfeld.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H. Res. 861. The 
Republican leadership has been promising for weeks that the House would 
have a genuine debate about the future of U.S. military involvement in 
Iraq. Given that promise, I am disappointed that H. Res. 861 is a truly 
hollow effort. Despite the eloquent words used, the resolution has no 
legally binding impact. It does nothing to require a re-evaluation of 
U.S. policies in Iraq or to change the status quo. It does nothing to 
address the mistakes that have been made in Iraq. The American people, 
particularly our troops serving honorably in difficult circumstances in 
Iraq, deserve more than cheerleading and sloganeering. Unfortunately, 
empty promises are all this resolution offers.
  A vote for this resolution is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote 
for staying indefinitely in Iraq, perhaps a decade or longer. It is a 
vote for continuing with the current policies with no end in sight. I 
cannot support endorsing the status quo. On March 21, 2006, President 
Bush actually said that the question of bringing home U.S. troops from 
Iraq ``will be decided by future presidents,'' signaling that U.S. 
troops will not be home until 2009 at the earliest. The American people 
need to understand that a vote in favor of this resolution is a vote to 
stay in Iraq until at least 2009.
  Let me address my specific concerns with the text of the resolution.
  First, I am concerned that the resolution inappropriately lumps Iraq 
in with the so-called global war on terror. It was Osama bin Laden and 
al-Qaeda who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, not Saddam 
Hussein and Iraq. I believe it was a mistake to move intelligence and 
military assets away from the fight against al-Qaeda, which did not 
have a presence in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion, in order to attack 
Iraq. Iraq did not pose a direct threat to U.S. national security, had 
not attacked the U.S., and could be contained with sanctions, 
inspections, and no-fly zones.
  Second, and perhaps of most concern, the resolution endorses keeping 
U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a ``sovereign, free, secure, and 
united Iraq.'' By that standard, the U.S. will be in Iraq for a decade 
or more. That is unacceptable and unnecessary. And, in fact, it 
undermines U.S. national security by indefinitely tying up U.S. 
intelligence and military assets that could be better used finding 
Osama bin Laden and breaking the back of al-Qaeda around the world.
  The U.S. cannot impose freedom, security, and unity in Iraq by force. 
Those worthy goals can only be achieved by the Iraqi people themselves, 
which will only happen when the Iraqi people and their leaders decide 
to put aside their sectarian differences. The U.S. cannot force Sunnis, 
Shias, and Kurds to make peace or to act for the common good. They have 
been in conflict for 1,400 years. Nor should the U.S. military be 
forced to remain in Iraq essentially as an army for one side of a civil 
war. As long as the U.S. military remains stuck with the president's 
pledge of unending, open-ended support, Iraqi politicians and security 
forces will use the U.S. presence as a crutch. Establishing a timeline 
to bring the bulk of our troops home and redeploy others to fight al-
Qaeda would force the Iraqi people, politicians and security forces to 
resolve their differences, establish an effective and inclusive 
government, end sectarian violence and create a secure society. The 
U.S. military cannot solve the sectarian problems in Iraq. Only the 
Iraqis can.
  Proponents of the resolution say that those like me who want our 
troops to come home are defeatist and want to cut and run from Iraq.
  To the contrary, I believe the U.S. military has already done all 
that has been asked of them. Saddam Hussein is on trial. The threat 
from alleged weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq has been 
neutralized. The programs do not exist, and didn't before the war for 
that matter. The Iraqi people have written and adopted a new 
constitution and elected a new government. It is time to turn over 
control of the country to the Iraqi government, Iraqi security forces, 
and the Iraqi people to build their own future.
  Second, the resolution contains the blatantly false assertion that 
negotiating a timeline for bringing U.S. troops home with the Iraqi 
government undermines U.S. national security. Such a statement shows a 
misunderstanding of the enemy we face in Iraq.
  Although today the president and proponents of this resolution fail 
to distinguish between the various enemies we face in Iraq, in a speech 
on December 12, 2005, the president actually did make important 
distinctions between the insurgent elements in Iraq. He mentioned 
``rejectionists,'' which are mostly Sunni Arabs who miss the privileged 
status they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein. He mentioned ``Saddamists'', 
who are former regime elements who want to return to power. Again, they 
are Sunni Arabs. And, he mentioned foreign terrorists affiliated with 
or inspired by al-Qaeda, which even the president acknowledged was the 
``smallest'' element of the insurgency. The one huge element he left 
out was nationalist Shias, such as those influenced by Moqtada al-Sadr.
  The reality is that the rejectionists, Saddamists, and nationalist 
Shias, who combined make up the vast bulk of the insurgents in Iraq, 
have no interest in attacking the U.S. homeland. They just want U.S. 
military forces out of their own country. They have no designs on our 
country. So it is misleading, at best, to argue that if we don't fight 
the insurgents there, we will fight them in the streets of the United 
States. Even the foreign terrorist elements in Iraq seem more focused 
on igniting a Shia-Sunni civil war in the Middle East

[[Page H4169]]

and attacking regimes they consider infidels in the region, such the 
Jordanian monarchy.
  It is also misleading to pretend that if the U.S. leaves that somehow 
Osama bin Laden will take control of Iraq. There is no chance that the 
Shias and Kurds, who represent around 80 percent of the population in 
Iraq, will allow foreign terrorist elements to take over the country. 
Even the majority of the Sunnis have grown tired of foreign terrorists 
operating in Iraq.
  With respect to the argument about waiting us out, as long as the 
Sunni, Shia and Kurds cannot resolve their political differences, 
violence will continue in Iraq. It is not a matter of whether we're 
there or not. It is ridiculous to assume that the insurgent elements 
will stop attacking once a timeline for bringing U.S. troops home is 
announced and will wait to start again until after we leave.
  I believe that negotiating a timeline for bringing U.S. forces home 
is a prerequisite for stabilizing Iraq over the next several months.
  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 bringing our troops home would undermine 
support for insurgents. Public opinion polls show that nearly 9 in 10 
Iraqis support announcing a timeline for U.S. withdrawal and 70 percent 
want the U.S. out by the end of 2007. The U.S. cannot want to stay in 
Iraq more than the Iraqis themselves want us there.
  As, the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General George Casey, 
testified to Congress last year, ``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 
unite Iraqis, Sunni, Shia and Kurd, against the foreign terrorists 
operating in Iraq. That would be a key turning point in stabilizing the 
country.
  A timeline for bringing U.S. troops home that is 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 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 bringing our troops home 
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.
  A plan to bring the bulk of our troops home from Iraq and free up 
intelligence and defense assets to redeploy to fight al-Qaeda, 
particularly in Afghanistan and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, 
could also help the United States in our broader fight against Islamic 
extremists with global ambitions. It would make the U.S. safer by 
taking away a recruiting tool and training ground. Former Director of 
the CIA, Porter Goss, 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.''
  In addition to a timeline, I have proposed that U.S. troops be 
removed from front line combat positions in Iraqi cities and towns, 
turning over daily security patrols, interactions with citizens, and 
any offensive security actions to the Iraqis themselves. The training 
and equipping of Iraqi security forces should be accelerated. The U.S. 
must renounce any U.S. interest in constructing permanent U.S. military 
bases in Iraq. It is also important to accelerate reconstruction 
spending and grant the bulk of reconstruction contracts to local 
companies employing Iraqis rather than multinational corporations, whom 
have proven inefficient, inflexible, sometimes fraudulent and have even 
imported workers rather than employing Iraqis. The U.S. embassy in 
Baghdad should also be reduced to normal size and authority rather than 
establishing one of the largest embassies in the world.
  Third, I am concerned that the resolution continues to mislead the 
American people, about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam 
Hussein was a brutal tyrant. I am glad he is now on trial for crimes 
against humanity. But, opposition to a dictator is not the measure I 
use when deciding whether to send our men and women in uniform off to 
war and possible death. For me, there must be a direct threat to U.S. 
national security to justify the sacrifice of the blood and wealth of 
fellow Americans. In the case of Iraq, I didn't see that. The 
resolution claims that Hussein ``supported terrorists'' and 
``constituted a grave threat against global peace and security.'' 
Saddam Hussein did pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So 
in that sense he did support terrorists, but he did not support the 
terrorists who attacked the U.S. The 9/11 Commission and other experts 
have found no operational links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Further, as 
I previously mentioned, Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass 
destruction programs and could be contained by sanctions, inspections 
and no-fly zones.
  Finally, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a survey 
of 100 top foreign policy experts just released by the Center for 
American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The survey indicates 
that despite the cheerleading we're hearing on the House floor today, 
the U.S. is not winning the war against Islamic terrorists and Iraq has 
undermined our efforts. More than 80 percent of the experts surveyed 
believe the U.S. is becoming less safe. Even 71 percent of the self-
identified conservative experts said the U.S. is not winning the war on 
terror. Twenty-eight percent of respondents, including 26 percent of 
the conservatives, said the Iraq war is the principal reason the U.S. 
is less safe, second only to the more generic reason of rising Muslim 
hostility toward the U.S. An astonishing 87 percent of respondents, 
including 69 percent of conservatives said that the war in Iraq has had 
a negative impact on U.S. security and nearly 60 percent said the U.S. 
needs to put more focus on bringing our troops home. The results of 
this survey of top foreign policy experts from across the ideological 
spectrum are sobering and directly contradict the blind optimism and 
endorsement of the status quo that is reflected in H. Res. 861.
  It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership continues to 
prohibit an open and honest debate about the fight against radical 
Islamic terrorists like al-Qaeda, and the distinct issue of the best 
strategy for bringing our troops home from Iraq. The American people 
deserve better.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues 
in honoring those serving in our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
and all the civilians serving here at home and abroad to protect 
America from terrorism.
  With the support of their families, the brave men and women of our 
Armed Forces have performed their duties with professionalism and 
distinction. They and their families deserve the gratitude of this 
nation. We especially honor, and will never forget, the more than 2,500 
Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice in our nation's service. 
And their families have our enduring sympathies for their loss.
  To honor all who have taken an active part in the war in Iraq and the 
fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world, it is the 
duty of Congress to aggressively pursue the most effective strategy for 
winning the Iraq War by demanding accountability for poor planning, 
mismanagement, and lack of oversight, in addition to developing a new 
direction that includes a responsible redeployment of U.S. Forces.
  While I agree with most of the content of H. Res. 861, I cannot vote 
in favor of it because it does not acknowledge the need for a new 
direction in Iraq. This resolution was offered without any opportunity 
for amendment, preventing the House of Representatives from holding a 
full and fair debate on the most important matter facing our nation 
today. Our troops, and all Americans, deserve a better and more 
responsible debate. While I will not support this resolution, I will 
always continue to stand by our troops and their families.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this 
politically motivated resolution. Our country is under a real and 
serious threat from extremists. We do not have time to waste on cheap 
political resolutions that distract us from the unity and sense of 
purpose that we should all have together, as Americans, in confronting 
the real threat.
  We need to have a real debate on real solutions to determine an 
effective course of action in Iraq. An honest debate does not undermine 
our soldiers' morale, as some have suggested in an attempt to silence 
all questions. What is actually demoralizing to our service men and 
women is to be sent into harm's way lacking body armor and supplies and 
a definitive plan for success; and then coming back as veterans only to 
be harassed by creditors because the VA did not take steps to protect 
them, or not receiving the necessary treatment for medical issues like 
PTSD.
  In fact, a real, open discussion of the facts on the ground and the 
challenges we face globally would show our soldiers that we are serious 
about this endeavor and their safety and that we want to be successful. 
That is good for our troops.
  The way our current debate on Iraq is conducted, with resolutions 
like this, hurts all of us--this is political grandstanding. We can no 
longer allow political leaders to shield a badly conducted policy in 
Iraq behind the cloak of 
9/11.

[[Page H4170]]

  We were attacked on 9/11, and we had a united country and a united 
world join together in approval as we sought to stop the terrorists in 
Afghanistan. This had nothing to do with Iraq. And now, five years 
later, we find ourselves with a divided nation, and few allies who 
support our policies. This has everything to do with Iraq.
  Despite the courage, dedication and professionalism of our men and 
women in uniform, our military has been strained as a result of the 
poor and extremely shortsighted leadership of the Secretary of Defense. 
Recruitment is down. Our National Guard has assumed a greater burden in 
military operations then ever before and as a result our homeland 
security is weakened.
  The invasion of Iraq and our continuing occupation has damaged our 
standing in the world. Abu Ghraib, massive civilian casualties, 
lawlessness and little economic hope in Iraq have undermined the global 
support that we had to hunt down and destroy terrorists around the 
world. The war has not made us safer from terrorists--it has created 
more terrorists. 90 percent of the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqi. The 
sad reality is that we have created thousands of terrorists where there 
were none before.
  But a review of these errors does not solve the problems. Now, we 
must look forward. We must ask, what is the best course for our Nation, 
our soldiers, and the Iraqi people? A policy of ``Stay the course'' 
does not address the real situation on the ground in Iraq. It does not 
provide a clear and understandable path to success and to bringing our 
troops home. It does not help us to address the damage that we have 
seen to our moral authority around the world and it certainly does not 
provide a plan to destroy al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations.
  Instead, we must have a new course in Iraq, a way of instituting 
fundamental change in our role there, and a way of removing our 
military presence. It is time for the Iraqi people to take full control 
of their country. The United States military cannot act as the dominant 
security force in Iraq indefinitely. I believe, as many leading 
military experts do, that our presence in Iraq incites and perpetuates 
the violence. We need a timeline for withdrawal so that the elected 
government of Iraq can fully assume its duties in the political, 
economic, and security arenas.
  The principle of our efforts must be this: that we cannot want a free 
and stable Iraq more than the Iraqis themselves do. It is time for them 
to take control of their own country, and their own destiny.
  I strongly believe that we must continue to support the efforts of 
the Iraqi people to establish a free, secure and sovereign state, but 
we cannot do this by occupying the country and dominating its internal 
security and economic development. International cooperation, economic 
aide, security training, and assistance for infrastructure development 
should be our aims.
  Too many American and Iraqi lives have been lost. Too much money has 
been diverted to this endeavor instead of going toward hunting down al 
Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, who are the true enemies of 
our American freedom.
  It is time for us to move forward together, in support of our 
soldiers, in support of the Iraqi people, with the support of our 
allies, and in the firm belief that with a change in approach in Iraq, 
we can secure greater freedom and prosperity here and abroad.
  Mr. SODREL. Mr. Speaker, Sir Winston Churchill once said ``An 
appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last.'' 
We followed the process of appeasement with terrorists for too long. We 
ignored the jihadists for too long, and they finally arrived on our 
soil.
  Let me highlight a few examples of terrorist attacks for which we 
responded with appeasement.
  December 21, 1988, Pan American Airlines Flight 103 was blown up by a 
bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland killing all 259 passengers on board;
  February 26, 1993, an Islamic terrorist group attempted to blow up 
the World Trade Center using a bomb in an underground garage;
  August 7, 1998, bombs exploded simultaneously in front of U.S. 
Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing 12 U. S. citizens and injuring 
thousands of innocent bystanders;
  On October 12, 2000, they attacked the USS Cole while docked in Aden, 
Yemen killing 17 sailors and injuring 70 others.
  After the loss of the World Trade Center and the attack on the 
Pentagon on September 11, 2001 our military was finally ordered to take 
the fight to the terrorists.
  When a new recruit is inducted into the U.S. military he or she takes 
an oath. In part this oath pledges the soldier, sailor or airman to 
``protect and defend the United States Constitution from all enemies 
foreign and domestic.'' If I had to distill the U.S. Constitution down 
to a single word I would define it as ``liberty.''
  Young Americans fought and died at Trenton and Yorktown to achieve 
liberty. They died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg to extend liberty to all 
Americans. They gave their all at Normandy and Iwo Jima to restore 
liberty to people they did not know. Throughout American history 
Americans have stood up to the enemies of liberty.
  In my youth I heard the President of the United States say ``Let 
every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay 
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, 
oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.''. That 
President was John F. Kennedy. He knew the value of liberty. As part of 
the ``The Greatest Generation'' he risked life and limb in defense of 
liberty.
  The Greatest Generation spent 144 percent of our Gross Domestic 
Product defending liberty. Not 144 percent of the Federal budget, but 
144 percent of the total annual output of goods and services in our 
country. Over 400,000 young Americans died in the effort. There are 
9,387 crosses in the American cemetery on the bluffs overlooking the 
beaches of Normandy. The Greatest Generation of Americans was willing 
to pay any price, and bear any burden, in defense of liberty.
  We have some people today who know the price of everything and the 
value of nothing. Has liberty depreciated so much? Is she worth less to 
us than she was to our parents? And their parents? Shall we tell those 
who lay at Flanders' fields we are not willing to support any friend, 
and oppose any foe, to make the world safe and secure for liberty?
  Anyone who does not understand that Osama bin Laden is an enemy of 
liberty, deludes himself. Anyone who believes al Zarqawi was not 
determined to kill liberty is feeding the crocodile. The value of 
anything is determined by the price paid. For Americans throughout our 
nation's history we would not sell our liberty for any price. For our 
Founders it was worth their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred 
honor.
  It took us 13 years after the start of our revolution to adopt our 
current constitution. The Iraqi people are progressing to a 
constitutional government at a comparatively rapid rate. I have a great 
deal of respect for those who are willing to serve in their government. 
Serving in our government often brings verbal abuse. Serving in the 
Iraqi government is often life threatening for them and their families. 
And I have the utmost respect for those serving in the U.S. military 
and coalition forces.
  Mr. Speaker, as a young man grows up he is often confronted with 
bullying and intimidation. When my son, Noah, was a little boy I gave 
him two rules on fighting. The number one rule is: We don't start 
fights. I told him if I ever caught him bullying or picking a fight I 
would make him regret it. Looking for a fight is unacceptable behavior 
for our family. He asked me what the second rule was. I told him we 
don't lose fights. If he finds himself in a fight he did not instigate, 
if he is engaged in a fight through no fault of his own, then I expect 
him to win.
  We did not ask for this fight, Mr. Speaker. The people who went to 
work at the World Trade Center on September 11 were not trying to pick 
a fight. The Americans at the Pentagon weren't spoiling for one. The 
enemies of liberty after being fed for two decades came to eat us at 
last. We all want our soldiers, sailors and airmen home safely, but not 
until the job is finished. Appeasement is not a logical policy and 
losing is not an option.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, throughout the centuries a test of 
the human spirit has arisen; a test of our foresight; and, a test of 
our most basic, fundamental belief that we are endowed by our Creator 
with inalienable rights that no person--through tyranny, terror or any 
other mechanism--may deprive another.
  Today, we face a new evil that is unique in history. It comes not in 
the form of another nation. It calls radicalism home, while living in 
every country, spreading quietly like a cancer awaiting the most 
opportune time to strike.
  The question we face is simple: Will we rise to that challenge or 
will we exit the arena leaving future generations to battle a more 
emboldened enemy?
  We, as Americans, are blessed as a free people and are obliged to 
defend liberty. It is an inherited responsibility that does not end at 
our borders; and while the major battlefield is halfway around the 
globe, it is a challenge that cannot be dismissed by distance--a fact 
the last two World Wars should have taught us well.
  On September 11, 2001, terrorists, in a murderous rage, sought to 
shake our foundation in hopes we would abandon the cause of freedom. 
Since that bloody day, our men and women in uniform have not only 
answered our Nation's call to duty; they have not only served ably and 
nobly; but they, like thousands of American soldiers before them, have 
responded without hesitation to freedom's call for help and they have 
followed her voice into the darkest comers, bringing new life and new 
light to generations of the oppressed.

[[Page H4171]]

  Today, because of their actions Afghanistan is rid of the Taliban; 
Iraq has been released from the iron grasp of Saddam Hussein; Osama bin 
Laden has been sent scurrying; and, his ``Prince of Al Qaeda,'' Abu 
Musab al-Zarqawi, has been delivered to his final fate.
  After nearly two decades of being left virtually unchecked, we are 
now fighting back and beating back the terrorists. This is not a war on 
paper; it is a war with real costs and real lives are being lost--not 
the least of them the more than 3,000 innocent civilians who were 
murdered on 9/11.
  We owe them and the men and women now serving on the front lines who 
have given the ultimate sacrifice an un-repayable debt of gratitude. We 
must live our lives in such a way as to be worthy of their sacrifice 
and we must pick up their cause and see it through to the end.
  Make no mistake about it, the debate we are having today is an 
important one. The war we wage will dictate the course of human freedom 
for years to come. We can allow the terrorists to turn Iraq into a safe 
haven from which they can hatch and launch their plans to destroy our 
way of life, or we can create a stable Iraq that is an ally to free and 
democratic nations around the globe.
  At every turn the people of Afghanistan and Iraq have made the right 
choice. Despite threats of violence, Iraqis voted not once but twice in 
national elections to establish a new government with new leaders. They 
have now completed the formation of that government and are on the 
brink of reclaiming their country.
  My friends, I choose to continue to support our new friends, the 
Iraqi people, in their struggle. I choose to support our men and women 
in uniform. And, I choose to stand steadfast in this global war on 
terror.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me and support this resolution.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 861 and 
to stand beside the members of our armed services who have gallantly 
fought and died for our freedom.
  Early in the morning on September 11, 2001, our Nation was at peace. 
Then at mid-morning a group of terrorists attacked us. What had we done 
to deserve such an attack? We saved the world from fascism in the 
1940s; then rather than punish our enemies, we helped them rebuild 
their war-torn countries. We saved the world from communism and helped 
those who were trapped in darkness behind the Iron Curtain see the 
light of freedom. We are the world's first responders to every 
emergency, but because a group of murderous cowards hate our way of 
life, our liberty, and our compassion and values, they attacked us.
  Last September, I traveled to Iraq and had the privilege of seeing 
firsthand our troops' brave actions in combating terrorism. I spent a 
great deal of time listening to them and learning their perspectives. 
And these perspectives are contrary to what the American people hear 
from the media.
  Their morale is extremely high and they are proud to serve their 
country. They believe that we are winning the fight against terrorism 
and that perseverance and patience will ensure our long-term victory. 
The most moving part of my trip came when I visited the Air Force 
Theater Hospital in Balad, Iraq. I was not surprised, but deeply 
touched, to see that all those I spoke with who were wounded in combat 
were eager to return to their units.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect every Member's opinion on this extremely 
important subject. However, I submit that we cannot say we support our 
troops and also continue this overheated political rhetoric about Iraq 
being a mistake or an ``un-winnable war.'' This undermines the efforts 
of our troops and jeopardizes our mission--just as was done during the 
Vietnam war. Having served on active duty for 4 years in the early 50s, 
I understand that.
  Our brave men and women are winning this fight for us in the streets 
of Baghdad so we don't have to face terrorists on the streets of 
America. As long as I am in this body, I will continue to fight for our 
troops and veterans and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. 
Res 861, the global war on terrorism resolution. I am opposed to the 
resolution because it is terribly flawed, nonbinding, and does not 
provide a viable plan that protects our soldiers or serves our country.
  The general assumption is that the debate on the global war on 
terrorism, GWOT, will be a full and honest debate. In fact, the process 
we are engaged in represents nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric. 
H. Res. 861 is flawed because it does not reflect bipartisanship. 
Democrats were not allowed to offer our substitute or amend the 
Republican resolution. Further, I strenuously disagree with the 
language contained in the resolution.
  I want to strongly emphasize that the failed Republican policy in 
Iraq includes poor planninq that left troops without critical 
equipment, and provided no plan for success. The war in Iraq 
exemplifies gross mismanaqement, as evidenced by $9 billion that is 
either lost or stolen and cannot be accounted for. There has been no 
oversiqht of spending to date. The Republican controlled Congress has 
refused to oversee military conduct and the policy that contributed to 
the war. There has been a complete lack of accountability regarding 
this war. No investigating committee has ensured taxpayer dollars were 
legally and well spent. This administration is guilty of entering into 
no-bid contracts, totaling $17 billion to Halliburton alone.
  Let me be clear, Democrats want and demand a new direction in Iraq. 
We want a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops to take place 
immediately. We must redeploy and be ready.
  I disagree with the resolution premise that the U.S. will prevail in 
the Global War on Terrorism due to the fact that the ``terrorist 
adversary'' cannot be identified or quantified. The misguided 
perpetrators of terrorism consist of disparate and loosely confederated 
groups, some of whom are religious zealots that justify their terrorist 
actions based on their Islamic beliefs; others are mercenaries seeking 
to retaliate against the U.S. for our invasion of Iraq. The terrorists 
identified as members of AI Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden do not adhere 
to a traditional command and control military structure, thereby making 
it impossible for our military forces to engage in traditional 
battlefield strategies.
  H. Res. 861 presents the proposition that Saddam Hussein's regime 
supported terrorists and posed a threat to global peace. There is no 
documentation to support this premise. These allegations have been 
wholly disproved, yet supporters of the war and the architects of the 
resolution continue to propagate these mistruths. This is why today I 
reaffirm my steadfast opposition to another in a long list of 
resolutions that seek to delude Americans into believing that we are 
debating legislation that provides a clear direction to winning the so-
called global war on terrorism. This resolution does not.
  I oppose this resolution because it does not address the fact that to 
date we have spent in excess of $368 billion, mainly in the form of 
supplemental spending bills that are off-budget and contribute mightily 
to the Federal deficit. The resolution does not address that our 
President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
National Security Agency, NSA, all provided the American public with 
undeniably wrong information and allegations contrived to seduce them 
and Members of Congress to support an act of aggression against Saddam 
Hussein. We engaged in a war without broad international support. 
America, through its actions in Iraq, reinforced the perception 
throughout the Middle East that the global war on terrorism is an 
attack on the religion of Islam, and in some measure that the interests 
of the U.S. related more to controlling oil in Iraq than promoting 
democracy. This war has united our enemies and divided our friends.
  I reject this resolution because it does not acknowledge that we 
hastily entered this war and unnecessarily placed our soldiers in 
harm's way, resulting in 2,500 deaths.
  My ongoing assessments of the situation in Iraq have caused me to 
conclude that it is critical for the House and our nation to develop a 
strategy that will ensure the redeployment of our forces from Iraq and 
return them home. I support my colleague Represenative Murtha and his 
calls for a reevaluation of our military strategy and a return of our 
troops as soon as practicable. As our troops redeploy, they will be 
ready to respond to whatever challenges our Nation may be forced to 
confront.
  Finally, I oppose H. Res. 861 because it will not deliver any 
tangible solutions to the quagmire that engulfs our soldiers and places 
them in perpetual danger. H. Res. 861 provides the appearance of 
substantive and honest debate. In reality, it is merely an exercise 
designed to appease the emotional and intellectual appetite of 
Americans seeking to justify what they believe and have been told is a 
real global war on terrorism. It is not.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H. Res. 861.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 
861, expressing our continued dedication to the global war on terror 
and the brave men and women serving on the front lines in that war. 
Alongside their counterparts from across the world, they have worked on 
our behalf to confront terrorist elements and foster freedom in the 
name of peace and stability.
  I want to focus my remarks on the extraordinary efforts of the Bush 
administration to improve our Nation's intelligence-gathering 
capabilities and prevent future terrorist attacks. Armed with the new 
tools Congress provided in the Use of Force Resolution, the USA PATRIOT 
Act, and other intelligence laws, our military, law enforcement, and 
intelligence communities have scored many successes in the last 4 
years. Their efforts to track terrorist networks and decipher their 
plans have broken up sinister plots here at home and around

[[Page H4172]]

the world. An FBI supervisor has confirmed that the PATRIOT Act led to 
the breakup of an al Qaeda cell in suburban Buffalo, NY. And just a few 
days ago, months of painstaking information gathering by U.S., Iraqi, 
Jordanian, and other sources resulted in the killing of the terrorist 
mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
  For all the well-earned kudos that have been heaped upon the military 
and intelligence communities for their successful mission against 
Zarqawi, most of their successes aren't widely known and can't be 
publicly broadcast. The intelligence community can't take credit for 
them for fear of giving away secrets about their modes and methods of 
gathering this valuable information.
  Which is why the revelation in the media last year of the National 
Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program was an outrageous 
breach of national security.
  This leak--timed to coincide with Congress's debate on reauthorizing 
the USA PATRIOT Act--let al Qaeda and other terrorist groups know that 
the NSA had been intercepting the international communications of 
individuals with links to their groups.
  Then-CIA Director Porter Goss confirmed before the Senate 
Intelligence Committee that the damage caused by the leak has been 
``very severe,'' leading to the loss or disruption of some sources and 
methods--not to mention the damage caused to our relationships with our 
intelligence counterparts in other countries.
  This program has provided valuable intelligence on terrorist 
activities. CIA Director Michael Hayden, who oversaw this program at 
the NSA, stated ``unequivocally'' that we have obtained information 
through the terrorist surveillance program that would not otherwise 
have been available.
  It's also consistent with Congress's direction that the President use 
``all necessary and appropriate force'' against nations, groups, and 
individuals found to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We have 
tracked and intercepted calls in cases where we have reason to believe 
that at least one party in the conversation is a member of al Qaeda.
  The program is also fully compliant with existing law, and has been 
reviewed by the Justice Department and White House counsel roughly 
every 45 days. Congress has been briefed regularly on its provisions, 
consistent with the National Security Act of 1947. Chairman Pete 
Hoekstra has confirmed that congressional leadership, along with the 
leaders of the two intelligence committees, had numerous opportunities 
to express concerns about the program.
  Sadly, rather than giving the administration credit for working to 
gather intelligence and ``connect the dots,'' the outrage of some in 
this Congress has been directed not at those who leaked information 
about the program, but at the NSA and the White House. Unbelievably, 
four of our colleagues in the other body even introduced a resolution 
to censure the President over this program--a program that, had it been 
in place before 9/11, could have led the NSA to locate and identify two 
of the 9/11 hijackers who settled in San Diego in 2000.
  It's simply irresponsible to claim that this program is outside the 
administration's authority, since leaders of both parties have had 
every opportunity to express misgivings over the last 4\1/2\ years. 
Frankly, it smacks of political grandstanding that criticisms were 
raised only after the program's existence was leaked to the New York 
Times.
  Some have tried to minimize the significance of this leak, saying 
that terrorists obviously know that we're spying on them. But the truth 
is that terrorist cells need to communicate, and they'll keep using 
methods of communication that they know to work--and stop using methods 
that have been compromised. You can guarantee they'll move on to other 
modes of communication, now that details of the terrorist surveillance 
program have been publicized.
  It also defies logic to suggest that the privacy of communications 
with known terrorists is constitutionally protected. Just like in every 
military conflict our Nation has fought, the interception of enemy 
communications has been a fundamental part of the war on terror. The 
day after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the 
interception of all communications into and out of the United States. 
That act was necessary and lawful--as is this more focused interception 
of al Qaeda communications, given the nature of the enemy we face.
  Future al Qaeda attacks on our homeland are likely to be conducted by 
operatives who are already here. Identifying and tracking them is a 
sizable challenge, and it's preposterous to suggest that our 
intelligence professionals will cast such a wide net that they threaten 
the privacy of ordinary American citizens in doing this work. They 
don't want useless information that takes them off the trail of 
criminals and terrorists; they have neither the time nor the resources 
to waste. They're constantly working against the clock to counter 
terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who are preparing to attack when 
and where they can.
  As a special agent of the FBI, I conducted wiretaps. They're wrapped 
in layers of legal protections and never done without probable cause. 
The NSA's actions simply give intelligence services the same wiretap 
authorities that have been available to those fighting organized crime 
and drug lords. Americans not in contact with al Qaeda can be assured 
that their rights have not been violated.
  Even as we debate this legislation, terrorist groups are plotting to 
kill Americans. If the NSA tracks a call from a known terrorist in 
Afghanistan to a phone number somewhere in the U.S., it's in our best 
interest to know who's on the other end of that call and what they're 
talking about.
  This is no time to let our guard down or publicize details of our 
clandestine intelligence work. The fact that we have not had a major 
terrorist attack in this Nation since 9/11 is no accident. The focused 
efforts of our intelligence officials have helped detect and prevent 
attacks, and we as a nation are safer as a result. They deserve our 
gratitude, as do all of our service men and women serving on our behalf 
on all fronts in the global war on terror.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the rationale for the Bush administration's 
going to war in Iraq has been one of shifting sands.
  The first reason given for the action in Iraq was that it was 
necessary because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which 
turned out to be wrong. Then the rationale was the threat of nuclear 
weapons from Iraq's alleged purchase of uranium from Africa, which also 
was not true and was seriously questioned within the Bush 
administration before the military action.
  Then it was said that there was a linkage between the Iraqi regime 
and the perpetrators of 9/11, a claim that has never been found to be 
true. The evidence is that al Qaeda did not have a presence in Iraq 
until after the President ordered military action in Iraq.
  The Republicans try to paint Democratic opposition to the 
administration's Iraq policies as a reflection of refusal to use force. 
That is absolutely not true. It is a question of under what conditions 
and circumstances. That was at the heart of the debate over Iraq before 
the action was taken.
  In 2002, a majority of Democrats voted for an alternative resolution 
allowing the President to undertake military force in Iraq, but only 
after first attempting a multilateral approach to dealing with Saddam 
Hussein through the Security Council, just as the first President Bush 
did in 1991. What Democrats rejected was implementation of an approach 
emphasizing the use of unilateral, pre-emptive military action by the 
U.S.
  That approach has had a number of consequences: terminating 
inspections before the inspectors could fully disclose that there were 
no WMD; the twisting of truth about the lack of an Iraqi program of 
developing nuclear weapons and the lack of a connection between the 
Iraqi Government and 9/11; a belief that military action would not only 
be easy to begin with, but would lead to rapid development of a 
democracy in Iraq; inadequate equipment to safeguard our troops from 
the dire consequences of guerilla and radical insurgent attacks; and a 
vast and deep distrust of our Nation among peoples of the Middle East, 
Europe and elsewhere.
  The situation in Iraq is not getting better. It's getting worse. As 
of today, 2,500 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Nearly 
18,000 of our soldiers have been wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqis 
have died. Iraq is teetering on the brink of a full-fledged civil war. 
Sectarian killings have risen rapidly.
  This resolution represents a seal of approval of the Bush 
administration's approach to Iraq. I oppose it. It is essential that we 
change the course, not simply stay the course, and adopt policies that 
heighten the pressure to bring about that change and accelerate the 
reduction of American military involvement in Iraq.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to this resolution, H. 
Res. 861.
  Mr. Speaker, I pride myself on being unapologetically supportive of a 
robust military. I do believe that President Wilson was correct when he 
said the United States can help make the world safe for democracy. I 
believe that we must stand decisively against totalitarianism in 
whatever form it takes--and today, it takes the form of a twisted 
misinterpretation of Islam that is radical, extremist, and murderous. 
And nothing is more important to me, as a member of the House Armed 
Services Committee, than supporting and honoring our troops.
  Sadly and cynically, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us has not 
been drafted to unify the American people around these principles. It 
has been drafted to divide the American people based on politics.
  This resolution--a nonbinding sense of the House--is not a policy 
statement. It is a political strategy. It is designed not to win the 
war in Iraq, but to win elections at home.
  First, Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about the legislative 
intent of this resolution.

[[Page H4173]]

  It is a sign of this Republican leadership that they would introduce 
a resolution on an issue as critical as the war in Iraq; then refuse to 
include in that resolution a single idea, a single solution, a single 
policy that would actually win the war in Iraq; then refuse to allow 
sufficient debate or even consideration of alternative resolutions that 
would demonstrate our national resolve as well as our constructive 
ideas on how to prevail.

  Who can be against the resolution's operative statement: ``Declaring 
that the United States will prevail in the global war on terror, the 
struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary''?
  Who can be against the clause in the resolution that states that we 
``Honor the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces'' . . . that 
we ``call upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and 
security''?
  But the Republican leadership, in their callous attempt to politicize 
the war in Iraq has inserted other language that is troubling.
  A clause I find questionable, Mr. Speaker, is this: ``Whereas Iraqi 
security forces are taking over from United States and Coalition forces 
a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead 
the fight to secure Iraq'';
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are reports that Iraqi Security Forces 
are not significantly leading independent operations. Proportionately, 
Iraqi security forces are performing fewer combat operations than just 
6 months ago.
  Mr. Speaker, the Majority should have worked on a bipartisan basis to 
write a plan to find Osama Bin Laden, and catch or kill him.
  If the Republican Majority wanted near unanimity, they would have 
removed these clauses, or at least refined them. They would have 
allowed us to offer alternative language. They would have offered to 
hold bipartisan consultations to find language that would unite 
Congress and the American people.
  Instead, they put partisanship ahead of bipartisanship on an issue 
that demands cooperation from both sides of the aisle: the war on 
terror, the war in Iraq, the well-being of our troops, the honor of 
their sacrifices.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make two final points.
  First, about the importance of honoring our troops. I passionately 
agree with the resolution's call for honoring our troops. In fact, 
while the House debated this resolution on the floor yesterday, I 
secured a public commitment from the Army at an Armed Services 
Committee hearing that they would end the shortages of life-saving 
coagulant products that help our soldiers from bleeding to death. Every 
day for the past 2 weeks I have been working on this issue.
  It is proper that we pass a non-binding resolution honoring our 
troops. But I have secured a commitment from the Army to bind their 
wounds. So I will not take second place to anyone in this body on the 
issue of supporting and honoring our troops. And I am insulted that 
some of the very same people who rail about not degrading the morale of 
our troops will use the vote on this resolution to degrade the morale 
of our troops.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, instead of passing non-binding resolutions that 
are political documents, let us pass a binding policy to win the war on 
terror. The resolution we should be voting on today would require the 
President to certify to Congress that number of Iraqi forces that have 
reached combat proficiency, and redeploy an equivalent number of U.S. 
forces. It would commit some of those forces to containing the growing 
resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and finding, once and for all, 
the murderer who escaped our grasp and started the real war on terror--
Osama Bin Laden. It would commit ourselves to properly funding our 
troops so that no American citizen has to dig into their own pockets 
and mail life-saving coagulants to our troops because they were not 
properly equipped.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if those who wrote this resolution spent more 
time unifying us around those principles and less time dividing us on 
political rhetoric, we might be out of Iraq by now, and relentlessly 
finding, capturing and killing those who masterminded the attacks on 
our country in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 
868, the resolution is considered read and the previous question is 
ordered on the resolution and on the preamble.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256, 
nays 153, answered ``present'' 5, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 288]

                               YEAS--256

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     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
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--5

     Boyd
     Jones (NC)
     McCotter
     Miller (NC)
     Sherman

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachus
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Carter
     Cleaver
     Dingell
     Evans
     Gutierrez
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Lewis (CA)

[[Page H4174]]


     Nussle
     Reichert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Waxman
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1117

  Mr. OBERSTAR and Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.
  Stated against:
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 16, 2006, 
had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 861, the 
resolution on the War in Iraq.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 288, 
for H. Res. 861, I would have voted ``nay'' on this non-binding and 
toothless sham of a resolution, that was not a meaningful legislative 
document.

                          ____________________