[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27418-27430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 563

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of November 18, 2005, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of any of the following 
     measures:
       (1) A bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 
     any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon.
       (2) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3199) 
     to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, 
     and for other purposes.
       (3) A bill or joint resolution relating to flood insurance.
       (4) A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
     section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2006.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 563 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
that requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it 
is reported from the Rules Committee against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee; applies a waiver to any special rule 
reported on the legislative day of November 18, 2005 providing for 
consideration or disposition of any of the following measures:
  First, a bill or a joint resolution making general appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, any amendment thereto, or 
any conference report thereon; second, a conference report to accompany 
the bill H.R. 3199, to extend and modify authorities needed to combat 
terrorism and for other purposes; third, a bill or a joint resolution 
relating to flood insurance; and finally, fourth, a bill to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 563 that the 
Rules Committee reported in order to ensure that we are able to 
complete the work of the American people in a timely and a proper 
manner before the Congress adjourns for Thanksgiving. In the following 
week, Members from both sides of the aisle will return to their 
districts to spend Thanksgiving with their families and with their 
constituents. However, before doing so, there remains important work to 
be done; and, Mr. Speaker, this rule will ensure that it gets done.
  From making appropriations that keep this government running to 
ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to keep this 
country safe, to insuring Americans against floods, to finally 
strengthening the economy while cutting the budget, this rule gives the 
House an opportunity to move forward on an important legislative 
agenda, though difficult choices have and will continue to have to be 
made for the sake of the American people, and for the sake of an agenda 
of which all Americans can be proud. Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage 
all of my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying 
legislation for which it provides.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  I thank my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me, before I begin, let me ask my friend from 
Georgia, does his leadership plan to amend this martial law rule in any 
way to add any other issues besides the ones that have been listed?
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, yes, we will have an amendment to the rule, which I will 
present at the end of the debate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Could the gentleman just tell me generally what the 
topic is going to be?
  Mr. GINGREY. The amendment would basically say, ``A resolution 
relating to United States forces in Iraq.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day in the House. This House, I 
think, is about to embark on a process that should dismay every single 
Member of this House. The only way keeping us from going down this road 
is I think to vote down this martial law rule.
  While I have many strong objections, and many of us on this side have 
strong objections, to martial rules in general, we have been 
accommodating in the past when they come to matters like important 
conference reports or emergency pieces of legislation that we need to 
get done before the recess. But this matter on Iraq does not qualify in 
that category. In fact, we just received a copy of the resolution just 
a couple of minutes ago about what they plan to bring up here.
  This is not about a debate on Iraq. This is about politics, clear and 
simple. I will go further to say that I believe this is a deliberate 
effort to attack a Member of this House and his views because the 
majority is afraid of this man and afraid of his views and afraid of 
his words, so they believe that somehow he has to be attacked, that we 
need to take some quick action here on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we should have a debate on Iraq. We should have had a 
debate on Iraq a long time ago. But what we are about to have is not a 
debate on Iraq. This will not be able to be amended, there be a limited 
amount of time for Members to be able to express their views, and, 
quite frankly, it is demeaning to this institution, it is demeaning to 
our soldiers, and it is demeaning to those who have raised questions 
about the war in Iraq. It is demeaning to the American public who now 
overwhelmingly have questions about this war in Iraq. They want us to 
take this issue seriously and not just play politics with it.
  The fact of the matter is that from the very beginning, the efforts 
of this leadership have been geared toward covering up all of the facts 
about the war in Iraq. We were presented faulty intelligence. When we 
found out there were no weapons of mass destruction, we wanted a full 
investigation to figure out what actually went wrong, whether any of 
that intelligence had been manipulated. We were told we cannot have 
that investigation, we cannot have that discussion.
  The fact of the matter is that we have had no formal investigations 
and no formal oversight of this war in Iraq. We sent a bunch of our 
soldiers off to war without proper equipment, without the proper body 
armor and Humvee protection, and this in spite of the fact that a few 
months before we went to war, we passed a defense authorization bill 
which essentially ordered the Pentagon to provide our soldiers with all

[[Page 27419]]

the necessary equipment that they would need if they should ever go 
into war. Why did not that materialize? Where was the oversight into 
that?
  Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been lost in this war in 
Iraq. We do not even know where it has gone, and nobody can give us an 
answer, and there is no investigation, there is no oversight, there is 
no debate.
  The fact of the matter is this Congress has been complicit with the 
White House in covering up the facts. The situation at Abu Ghraib 
prison, I would argue that that instance probably more than anything 
else has been responsible for poisoning the hearts and minds of so many 
people in Iraq and the region. And rather than getting to the bottom of 
it, rather than making sure it never happens again, what has this 
Congress done? Covered up. Sweep it under the rug. Make believe it 
never happened.
  You want a debate on Iraq? We should have a debate on Iraq, but not 
this bit of political theatrics. There are Members who believe that we 
should end this war immediately. I am one of those. There are Members 
who believe we should add more troops to the ones we already have in 
Iraq over there. All of us should have the opportunity to be able to 
debate this in a serious way.
  Do you want to respect our troops? That is how you do it. You make 
sure we are doing our job. We have not been doing our job, and there is 
no objective person in this House, even those of you who staunchly 
support this war and advocate continuing staying the course, who can 
tell me things are going the way they were planned.
  There are none of us in this Chamber who are going to fight in this 
that war, none of us are going to put our lives on the line, and, with 
very few exceptions, none of our kids are going to be fighting in that 
war. So it takes absolutely no courage for anybody in this chamber to 
wave the American flag and to say, ``Stay the course.''
  This is not about a debate on Iraq, this is about political cover for 
you. This is about finding a way to not answer the tough questions. 
This is about a way to cover the administration's backside at a time 
when we should be demanding questions.
  Congress should be doing its job, and this process, this process is a 
disgrace. We owe the people of this country, we owe the troops who are 
fighting bravely at our request over in Iraq, we owe them much more.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this martial law rule needs to be defeated.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not attack any Member of this body. 
This amendment follows the rules of decorum of this body.
  The gentleman from the other side just listed a litany of complaints 
in regard to Iraq. Members on his side of the aisle even have what is 
known as the ``Out of Iraq Caucus.'' I do not know if the gentleman 
from Massachusetts is a part of that membership or not, but we have, 
this side of the aisle, have heard repeatedly from Members on their 
side of the aisle, and not just one high-profile ranking member with 
strong defense credentials. Oh, no. No. We have heard every night of 
the first session of the 109th Congress from the 30-something Group, 
several Members on their side of the aisle, pounding this President, 
coming within an inch or less, Mr. Speaker, of accusing the President 
of lying, of out and out lying, repeatedly accusing the President of 
misleading the public about Iraq, demanding the immediate pullout of 
our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, they are going to have the opportunity today on the 
floor of this House to vote yes or no, do they want us to immediately 
pull our troops out of Iraq, and that is all this amendment is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, anybody who believes that what we are doing today is not 
in response to the comments by one single Member of this Congress, a 
Member who is highly respected by both sides of the aisle, a Member who 
is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, a Member who is an expert on 
military and defense issues, anybody who believes we are not doing this 
in response to that, quite frankly, defies credibility. This is a 
personal attack on one of the best Members, one of the most respected 
Members of this House, and it is outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how dare you. How dare you. Yesterday, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking Democrat on the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a 27-year marine, a veteran of, I 
believe, three tours in Vietnam, a well-known conservative hawk, 
announced that he was introducing a resolution that was meant to 
stimulate a thoughtful and profound debate on how we salvage a failed 
policy in Iraq. That resolution was meant to stimulate the kind of 
hearings that Bill Fulbright ran during the Vietnam War, hearings which 
could bring in the best military minds and the best experts on the 
Middle East to try to help us find a new direction to American policy 
in Iraq.
  The reaction of the Republican leadership of this House is nothing 
short of disgraceful, and, in my view, that reaction dishonors the 
traditions of this House and this democracy.
  This resolution, which is now going to be offered as an amendment to 
this rule out of the Rules Committee, is nothing less than an effort to 
drive a stake through the heart of the Murtha resolution, without any 
effort to get at the facts with respect to Iraq.
  For the House to be asked to vote on whether or not we ought to 
withdraw immediately from Iraq without having the benefit of those 
thoughtful hearings is a disgraceful abdication of our responsibility 
to think this issue through clearly and with judgment. I am absolutely 
appalled, I am absolutely appalled, at this action. It is a cheap 
political stunt that does a disservice to every serviceman and woman 
fighting in Iraq today, and whoever thought up this pipe dream should 
be ashamed of themselves. It brings incredible shame to this House.
  If I have to choose between supporting the Murtha resolution, even 
without these hearings, and the failed, discredited policy that we are 
now pursuing in Iraq that dead-end nowhere-going policy, I would 
happily endorse as an alternative the Murtha amendment.
  It is irresponsible of the House to be dealing with this in this 
manner. What this House ought to do is to set aside the cheap political 
tricks and to address the thought behind the Murtha proposal. This 
House, instead of politicizing this issue, ought to try to find a way 
for once to bring people in this institution together, instead of 
dividing them by phony, cynical, political, outrageously tricky and 
sneaky maneuvers like this.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that this amendment to the 
resolution basically says, ``Resolved, that it is the sense of the 
House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in 
Iraq be terminated immediately.'' It does not reference any Member 
whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and in strong opposition to 
the underlying resolution. Our mission in Iraq is clear: Peace through 
strength, victory through resolve. Those who would have us retreat 
immediately have forgotten what appeasement does to the Islamic 
extremist madmen and murderers. Our goal in Iraq is honorable and wise. 
We must see this through to our victorious end. The choice is that 
simple, yet that important.
  In his 2005 speech commemorating Veterans Day, President Bush 
affirmed that it is courage that liberated more than 50 million people 
from tyranny in the last century, and it is courage that will once 
again destroy the enemies of freedom.

[[Page 27420]]

  As the stepmother of a proud Marine, Douglas Lehtinen, who, together 
with my future daughter-in-law Lindsay, is currently serving our Nation 
in Iraq, and as the wife of a decorated Vietnam veteran, I have 
witnessed this courage and this commitment to the mission of liberty.
  In one of his e-mails from Iraq, Dougie asked that I remind the 
American people that it was not the United States who asked for this 
global struggle against Islamic extremists. It was the Islamic 
jihadists who targeted the free world and our Nation long before we 
entered Iraq. We cannot afford to yield the victory to the Islamic 
extremists by withdrawing now.
  Dougie forwarded a piece to me just yesterday by Lieutenant General 
James T. Conway which best summarizes the opinion of many of our troops 
about the need to stay the course. Conway states: ``Our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines realize that the biggest threat to mission 
accomplishment depends on what their fellow Americans do. The 
insurgents realize full well that the only choice they have of 
defeating the U.S. military is to weaken the will of the American 
population.''

                              {time}  1630

  He adds, The insurgents in Iraq maim and kill the less protected 
Iraqis, but their real target is that portion of the American public 
that is shaped by the news media.
  Let us heed the message from our men and women in our Armed Forces 
serving in Iraq. They are in the best position to assess what we need 
to do, and they are asking us not to pull out of Iraq at this juncture. 
Iraq is at one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to 
fight terrorism worldwide.
  Our ability to project major Armed Forces to the very heart of the 
Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war 
against terrorism the ability to directly address the tactical and 
ideological challenges of Islamic extremists. Through the promotion of 
an incipient Iraqi democracy, we continue our concerted efforts to 
counter the root causes of Islamic extremists in the region. These 
radicals are fully cognizant that the emergence of a new and democratic 
Iraq will inevitably threaten their very survival because freedom 
threatens them. Democratic governments deny them the funds, the 
weapons, and the sanctuary that they need to survive. Democracy denies 
them the new recruits that they need.
  As such, Mr. Speaker, we must continue to support the people of Iraq 
in their efforts to strengthen their emerging democracies whose pace of 
development has been astounding. In January, the people of Iraq turned 
out in droves to vote in their first free democratic elections. In 
October, they once again voted to approve their Constitution, and today 
they are busily preparing for elections in December that will continue 
Iraq in its transition from a brutal totalitarian state to a free 
democratic nation. It takes time. We will succeed.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentlewoman who just spoke, 
I have to tell you, I am tired, I think we are all tired, of the 
rhetoric. You want to discuss this issue seriously, let us have a real 
debate, not an hour in which we will debate this resolution that cannot 
be amended. That is ridiculous. That is demeaning to this House of 
Representatives.
  We are not doing our job. This is about war. We have troops in harm's 
way. We have lost over 2,000 Americans. We have members of our Guard 
and Reserves on double and triple deployments; and the best you can do 
to respond to what is going on, all the mess that has been created over 
there is to bring this up for 1 hour. This is a disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) was a hero 
in Vietnam. The gentleman is a hero today.
  We know that the Bush administration deliberately misled the American 
public about nuclear weapons in Iraq, about al Qaeda in Iraq. And now 
out here on the House floor, in a continuation of their deliberate 
misleading of the American public, they are refusing to have a debate 
on the Murtha resolution.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has called for a debate 
on the redeployment of troops consistent with protecting their security 
and the security of our country and maintaining over the horizon forces 
to protect our country, to promote democracy and diplomacy that will 
protect our country.
  What this group of Republicans, what the Bush-Cheney White House is 
doing today is a continuation of the perpetuation of the fraud on the 
American public. This is not the debate on the Murtha resolution. This 
is an attempt to undermine the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), to continue their attempt to undermine any critic of their 
administration rather than having a real debate on the war in Iraq that 
serves the American people, the American fighting men and women, and 
every single person in the world.
  I have known Jack Murtha for nearly 30 years and I have enormous 
respect for his patriotism and his expertise on military matters.
  I've heard Jack Murtha speak about what is going on in Iraq and about 
the adverse effect that this war is having on our troops and our 
Nation's security. I agree with him that it is time for us to start 
bringing our troops home, and I support his proposal to do so.
  This is a war that was based on false and misleading intelligence 
from the Bush Administration about Iraqi nuclear weapons, and which has 
been bungled at almost every stage by incompetence and mismanagement on 
the part of the White House and the civilian leadership at the 
Pentagon. Our brave troops deserve better than to be asked to continue 
risking their lives for a mistake. At this point it has become clear 
that our troop presence in Iraq is making the situation over there 
worse, not better. The Iraqi people need to know that the U.S. is going 
to end its occupation of their country, and that they need to assume 
responsibility for their own security.
  We should get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, consistent 
with ensuring their safety. Instead of continuing this diversion, which 
has only harmed America's international reputation, we should refocus 
our nation's energies on capturing Osama bin Laden and disrupting and 
destroying the Al Qaeda terrorist organization that was responsible for 
the September 11th attacks.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a perfect time to talk about the very 
brave acts of our men and women who are serving to defend this Nation. 
I recently led an armed services trip to Iraq. The very first person 
that I met looked me in the eye and he said to me, Ma'am, do not worry 
about me. He said, I know what I am doing. He said I know what the 
threat to this Nation is; and if I have anything to do with it, we will 
never have another attack on our Nation. He picked up his gear. He 
said, So do not worry. Just pray for me. And he walked away.
  The thing that I brought back from that trip to Iraq, and I realized 
it immediately, is that these men and women are true heroes. They 
volunteered to serve in our military and many of them have volunteered 
to serve in Iraq because they understand the threat that faces this 
Nation if we were to fail. But what they want to know, Mr. Speaker, is 
what is America saying and what is America thinking?
  They watch C-SPAN. They watch the words that you say. And I was proud 
to be able to be there in Iraq and tell them the stories of America, 
about true Americans who value what they are doing who are at Sea World 
and stand and clap and cheer, the marines that walked through the 
airport in Ireland on our way back and everyone stood and everyone 
clapped for those marines.
  The reason we are on this floor today talking about this is because 
the other side has made this an issue; and for the last several months, 
all we have heard is that we need to bring our troops home.

[[Page 27421]]

  I do not know if you have seen the letter that has come from a-
Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi. One of the quotes in this letter is: ``Things 
may develop faster than we imagined. The aftermath of the collapse of 
American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents is 
noteworthy.''
  When the speaker of the Iraq General Assembly came to Washington 
about 6 weeks ago, four of us went to hear him; and he repeatedly said, 
there is no other option. When Members of this body went on January 30 
to the first election in Iraq, there were two things that they said to 
our Members: one, you cannot have purple ink on your finger because you 
are not an Iraqi; and, two, do not abandon us.
  Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of a democracy and freedom in Iraq. 
If we were to cut and run like they expect us to do, then what is going 
to happen is the 2,000-plus Americans who have died and given their 
lives for freedom will be for naught.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we defeat this resolution on the floor today 
and show those men and women that are watching us on TV that we support 
what they are doing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentlewoman, if she wants to honor our 
troops, then give us a real debate. Do not bring this piece of garbage 
to the floor with an hour left at the end of the day. This is not 
honoring our troops. We are doing them a disservice. You are 
politicizing this war, and it is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for me as an American, as 
a Member of Congress, to see that we have reached a point that those 
who want to be critical of the President's entrance into this war and 
how it is being conducted now have to be called cowards and we are 
cutting and running and we are not deserving of being called Americans.
  The vicious attacks that are taking place by people who never served 
their country is really something that is really painful.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has earned the right to 
have an opinion. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has 
served this country. The gentleman has served not only in the Army but 
he served right here in this Congress. And what is he up against? Who 
are these people making these dirty, nasty remarks against his 
character and those who support him? They are people who say that we 
are going to stay in this war until we win; that we are going to fight 
and die in this war until we win; and we are not going to leave until 
we win and not one day sooner.
  Fight who? Who is going to surrender? What are the conditions? If you 
can be critical of what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is 
going to say, how can you not be critical of the confused way in which 
we are getting involved in this war where we do not know what the enemy 
looks like, we do not know what flag they carry, we do not know who is 
going to surrender.
  It is time for us to be civil. If you want to be concerned about our 
troops, you have to be concerned about why they are there. And for the 
President of the United States on Veterans Day, the day that all of us 
veterans hold so true and that brings us together, to attack his 
political opponents on that day and then to send out with his tuxedo-
clad Vice President as someone to attack other people, other Americans, 
this is a sad day.
  But the bottom line is if you love these troops like the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) loves these troops, you will be 
supporting this legislation.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman on the other side complained about not having enough 
time to discuss this resolution. We will have a minimum, Mr. Speaker, 
of 3 hours. We are debating right now the same-day rule. Then we will 
debate the rule on House Resolution 571 and then have the debate on the 
resolution itself. So there will be plenty of time for Members on both 
sides of the aisle to express their opinions on this hugely important 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has a lot of passion; 
and when a lot of passion is embracing an issue, things are said that 
are very harsh and I think at times untrue.
  Earlier we heard that there were quote/unquote dirty, nasty remarks 
against him, referring to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). 
No one is saying that about the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha). The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has a great deal 
of respect on both sides of the aisle and across the Nation.
  This resolution is very simple. It is expressing a sense of the 
House. It has three lines to it. It says: ``Resolved, that it is the 
sense of the House of Representatives that deployment of United States 
forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.''
  We are in a war for the Free World, and I think part of what we have 
to do and understand is the enemy himself. Al Qaeda is not fighting for 
a religion. They are fighting for political power by using a religion. 
Their targets on Americans, Jews, secular Muslims, and other Islamists 
like Shiites and Sunni Muslims.
  They have killed and maimed innocent men and women and children from 
many faiths and walks of life. Their goals are measured in steps that 
include Iraq and every country from Spain to the Philippines, all under 
one theocratic government.
  They oppose the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to 
vote, women's rights, education for women, religious freedom. They 
oppose music, movies, even the right to choose your own clothing, your 
own education, even who gets to drive. They despise who we are and what 
we stand for as Americans. And it is spelled out on their Web sites, 
their videos, their cassette tapes. It is written in their material. It 
is on the laptops that we have captured, and it is undeniable.
  Al Qaeda's goals are confirmed in a letter on July 9, 2005, from 
Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Al-Zawahiri is the number 
two man in al Qaeda, the spiritual leader of Osama bin Laden, his 
advisor. Al-Zarqawi is al Qaeda's director of jihadist attacks. He has 
been in Iraq since before Operation Iraq Freedom.
  In this letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's director of 
jihadist attacks, al-Zawahiri says, We have four goals. The very first 
goal is to expel Americans from Iraq.
  If this resolution were to pass today, it would be headline news on 
al Jazeera TV. They would declare victory in al Qaeda, and it would 
jeopardize every American across the face of the globe. We have to 
decide where this battle is going to take place. Is it going to be in 
Iraq where every American carries a gun, or will it be on the streets 
of New York and Washington, D.C.
  I say we vote this resolution down for the safety of our troops and 
our citizens.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if people do not like this resolution, 
they can vote against the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Harman), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Earlier today, the Democratic members of the House Intelligence 
Committee issued a letter to the chairman of our committee protesting 
his decision to shut down a bipartisan investigation into the 
intelligence failures that led us into war. Failure to learn from the 
mistakes of the past is an abdication of our responsibility to the 
American people and dangerous for our country. If we do not learn 
lessons, we will repeat mistakes.
  It is likewise the responsibility of this House to conduct rigorous 
oversight over our policy in Iraq. There is now broad consensus in the 
country that we need to change course.

[[Page 27422]]



                              {time}  1645

  Many of us have offered thoughtful suggestions to do just that.
  Let me be clear, it is not our troops who have failed. They are 
performing heroically, as are our intelligence personnel. A month ago, 
on my most recent visit to Iraq, I had dinner with troops from 
California who are part of Task Force Baghdad. They are doing an 
outstanding job.
  Reasonable people can differ on whether we should redeploy troops in 
6 months or 16 months and what events should drive that redeployment, 
but today we stand united that a change of course is urgently needed. 
We stand united behind the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), 
our colleague, a 37-year veteran who has had his patriotism attacked by 
the White House, but who is not backing down, and we stand united that 
the Republican leadership should not use a stunt like this to score 
political points.
  In case anyone missed it, the terrorists do not care whether we are 
Democrats or Republicans. They are not going to check our party 
registration before they blow us up.
  I take a back seat to no one in my efforts to craft bipartisan 
solutions to problems. Iraq policy is failing, and it is time for this 
House to be bipartisan as the Senate was earlier this week, and it is 
way past time for this White House to give us a serious strategy and to 
clarify its intentions with respect to no permanent bases, no design on 
Iraqi oil, and a plan to help build true power sharing among the ethnic 
factions and true operational capability in the Iraqi security forces.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This resolution is 
intended to divide us, to put partisanship in the way of patriotism.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say, Scoop Jackson must be spinning in his grave. 
The late Democrat Senate leader would be shocked to see his party has 
now been taken over by Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan and the radical 
extremists on the left who do not like George Bush so much that now 
they are going to put danger to our troops by siding with the 
terrorists that it is time for an immediate pullout.
  I plan to vote ``no'' on the Democrat resolution for immediate 
pullout. I think it is irresponsible, and it definitely sends the wrong 
message to our troops.
  I represent the 3rd Infantry Division. I am proud to represent the 
3rd Infantry Division. I know many of these soldiers. I have dealt with 
them. I have gone to their funerals. I have gone to their services, and 
I would like to quote what the leading General said, General Webster, 
yesterday, who is in charge of the 3rd Infantry, the troops on the 
ground, and I am proud to say is a friend of mine, and I am proud to 
say is an extremely thoughtful and patriotic, brave American. General 
Webster said, in response to the Democrat call for immediate 
withdrawal, ``Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost 
this year, that their lives would have been lost in vain.''
  He continued to say that Iraq's armed factions would likely take a 
cue from a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal to lie low, gathering their 
strength and laying plans for renewed conflict as soon as Americans 
leave. In fact, the Democrat Party now seems to be taking their cue 
from France: Lose, leave and wait.
  The Democrats seem to want to cut and run and dishonor the sacrifices 
of those who are doing such a great job already. The President has 
said, and as much as the Democrats hate sometimes, it appears, the 
President's policies, he said, ``Our strategy is to clear, hold, and 
build.''
  What have we done is we have rounded up 116 al Qaeda rulers. A number 
of tips from the indigenous folks on the ground have risen from 442 in 
February to 3,341 today. That is cooperation by the Iraqis themselves. 
We have trained 210,000 Iraqi security forces, and we have more than 20 
operating bases that are ready that they are doing a good job of. We 
have rebuilt 3,404 schools, 304 water and sewer treatment facilities, 
257 fire/police stations, and 149 health services. This is progress.
  Mr. Speaker, they just overwhelmingly passed a resolution adopting a 
new Constitution October 15, and in December, they are going to have 
their own elections for their own government. That is progress. Do not 
cut and run. Stand firm with our troops.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. McGOVERN. The gentleman from Georgia just referred to this as a 
Democratic resolution. I would like to inquire of the Chair if he knows 
who introduced this legislation.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 
stated a parliamentary inquiry. The chair can only identify the Member 
who introduced the legislation, which was Congressman Hunter.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Congressman Hunter, a Republican?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have served in this House for 22 years, 
all of them on the House Armed Services Committee, and my esteem for 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the wisdom he has 
accrued over defense and military matters has increased every year. He 
is a real American. He is a patriot. He is a marine. He is the best 
embodiment of Semper Fidelis that I have ever known.
  He made a proposal yesterday that I, myself, do not fully agree, but 
I have profound respect for the man who made it, and I watched the pain 
that he experienced as he agonizingly laid out what the conclusions 
were that he had come to. To take this proposal and trash it, 
trivialize it is outrageous. To treat Jack Murtha this way, a great 
American, a wonderful patriot, is beneath contempt.
  This resolution takes a profound issue we face, whether and when we 
wage war, and makes it another cheap pawn in the political process. You 
present a resolution that purports to be a facsimile or proxy of Jack 
Murtha's resolution when it is nothing of the kind, nothing of the 
kind, and then you dare to call it something it is not, a Democratic 
resolution.
  This is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, and all I can say is, at long last, 
have you no shame?
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the 
time.
  I believe it is imperative in this body that we have an open and 
frank dialogue on issues that are of concern to us. I am disturbed and 
disappointed, frankly, by some of the rhetoric I have heard, because we 
are judged and we are acquitted and/or we are found guilty by those 
words, but the luxury we have is they are simply words here.
  The impact of those words, though, on the other side of the ocean, in 
the AOR, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that in this small world, not only 
do our friends but also our enemies watch, and they do not understand 
our concept of openness, of tolerance, of free speech and spirited 
dialogue.
  Indeed, sometimes remarks that have been made in this Chamber have 
been used for the recruiting of suicide bombers. I think that one 
thing, and I would have to say quite candidly, is in our oversight: It 
is also important that we have oversight on our own words.
  The comments that were made yesterday by a man with a distinguished 
military record, who I do not fault one bit, fly in the face of the 
comments of hundreds of soldiers, ranging from junior enlisted 
personnel across the AOR to my West Point classmates who are commanding 
brigades on the ground and disagree categorically, based on the phone 
calls that I got last night, including one from the commander of

[[Page 27423]]

America's premier counterterrorism organization, who asked what in the 
world was happening here to make those kind of comments to encourage 
our enemies.
  However, remarks irresponsibly given, not based on facts, simply do 
this: They place policy over politics while our young men and women are 
on the front line and unwittingly cooperates with and emboldens our 
enemies.
  Liberal leadership has stated that they do not have a policy on Iraq, 
as one of your leaders said yesterday, but will have one in an 
appropriate time, I am sure in time for the 2006 election.
  Because we are accountable for our words, I urge a yes on this rule 
to bring this resolution to the floor so the time for tough talking 
will end, and there will be accountability. If people want to make hard 
statements, they can be accountable for their words because of this. 
Because of our words, our troops are going to endure the consequences 
of those statements, and I urge all of you to be accountable for the 
statements that have been made.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I do so 
because it does not seem to me reasonable to bring us into a debate 
over a very serious issue where our young men and women are in harm's 
way without hearings, without giving it any thought, without any 
careful thinking or examination, but thrusting it, thrusting us into 
voting on a resolution that is, as the gentleman from Georgia said, 
three lines long.
  In Texas we have saying that ``this dog don't hunt,'' and it does not 
hunt. This political strategy speaks to an observation that was made to 
us in a hearing recently by General Kelley from the Army. He said, We 
are a Nation at war. We are a Nation at war except in Washington, DC. 
We are not a Nation sharing the sacrifice. Nothing exemplifies his 
testimony better than the so-called debate here on this rule.
  In August, we honored four soldiers that are recipients of Purple 
Hearts, and one of the sergeants told me, Congressman, does anybody in 
Washington understand that we have a flawed strategy where we are being 
subjected to a mentality of ``The Charge of The Light Brigade?''
  So I went back and I looked up ``The Charge of The Light Brigade'' by 
Lord Tennyson, and I will just read a portion of it:

     Half a league, half a league,
     Half a league onward,
     All in the valley of Death
     Rode the six hundred,
     `Forward, the Light Brigade!
     Charge for the guns!' he said:
     Into the valley of Death
     Rode the six hundred.
     `Forward, the Light Brigade!'
     Was there a man dismay'd?
     Not tho' the soldier knew
     Some one had blunder'd:
     Their's not to make reply,
     Their's not to reason why,
     Their's but to do and die:
     Into the valley of Death
     Rode the six hundred.

  Every day our men and women are riding convoys into that valley of 
death. Shame on us for this resolution. Vote against it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues are coming down 
here and accusing us of slandering our friend and fellow Member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and that is absurd. It is not 
about him, and it is not about any of us. It is about foreign policy 
and national security, and, quite frankly, this idea on the left that 
we can and should immediately withdraw is not only a bad idea, it is 
dangerous. How do you tell a 19-year-old American, fighting, bleeding 
for their country, that it is all pointless? How dare you do such a 
thing?
  You may not agree with the way things are being managed, but do not 
minimize the importance of what we are doing in Iraq. You all on the 
left opened up this debate. I think they have been itching for a fight 
for a long time from the way their comments have sounded, and now they 
would like to sneak out of the room and avoid this topic.
  The left in Congress wants a debate on the idea of immediate 
withdrawal, and since they have been wanting it, we are going to have 
it. The left wanted to go out. They wanted to talk about this with no 
regard for the big picture, with no regard for constituents, who have 
families, who are fighting. Well, now, we are going to have to stand 
here, they are going to have to stand here. And they are going to take 
the heat and take the debate.
  We are fighting because we do not want our kids living in a world 
dominated by terrorism. We are fighting for freedom.

                              {time}  1700

  The left works real hard to isolate Iraq from the Middle East and 
from the global war on terrorism. The left actually thinks terrorists 
separate Iraq from the war on terrorism.
  We know that is not true. We know it is not true.
  I do not believe America is willing to give up on what is the war for 
the Free World. I do not think they are willing to give up on the war 
for the Free World.
  The left wanted the debate. Let us have the debate. They are going to 
lose the debate. The American people have stronger backbones than the 
radical left.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman who just spoke keeps on talking about how the 
Democrats want to call for immediate withdrawal without providing for 
the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops and the protection of our 
troops. Only Mr. Hunter, the Republican from California, has called for 
that in his resolution. None of us have called for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
spoke with courage and conviction about the war in Iraq, and there is 
no one in this body who knows more about our national defense and has 
devoted more of his life to our troops and our security than Jack 
Murtha. But evidently his speech has prompted this stunt that the 
Republicans are pulling here to force a vote on a resolution never 
considered by any committee.
  Well, I must tell the Members that like the intelligence that led to 
war, the resolution before this body is a fake. Republicans are 
describing this resolution as a Murtha resolution, but it is not his 
language and differs in key ways from his proposal.
  One of the points Mr. Murtha raised yesterday was the misuse of 
intelligence on Iraq. He called the war a flawed policy wrapped in 
illusion. Like Mr. Murtha, I voted for that war. And like him, I have 
profound concerns about the intelligence, that it was warped and 
twisted to justify an invasion.
  My concerns are deeply personal. I voted for the war resolution 
because the President said Iraq would soon brandish nuclear bombs; and 
like millions of Americans, I was misled.
  I raised concerns about the nuclear intelligence in a letter to the 
President on March 17, 2003, before any bullets were fired and before 
the war started, and I am going to attach this letter to my statement, 
but I want to read a part of it.
  I wrote: ``Dear, Mr. President, in the last 10 days, it has become 
incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and others in 
the administration have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain 
nuclear weapons is a hoax. The evidence in question is correspondence 
that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an 
African country. For several months this evidence has been a central 
part of the U.S. case against Iraq. It has now been conceded that this 
evidence was a forgery. Even more troubling, the CIA, which has been 
aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence 
as reliable.
  ``The implications of this fact are profound. It means that a key 
part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that 
your own

[[Page 27424]]

intelligence experts do not believe is credible. It is hard to imagine 
how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious 
explanations, knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence, both have 
immediate and serious implications.''
  I made that request 2\1/2\ years ago, and I am still waiting for an 
answer. The President has never explained how forged evidence could 
become a cornerstone in the case for the war on Iraq.
  Yesterday, the gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke with courage and 
conviction about the war in Iraq. There is no one in this body who 
knows more about our national defense--and who has devoted more of his 
life--to our troops and our security than Jack Murtha.
  His speech has prompted this stunt by the Republicans to force a vote 
on a resolution never considered by any committee. Like the 
intelligence that led the Nation to war, the resolution before this 
body is a fake. Republicans are describing this resolution as the 
Murtha resolution. But it is not his language and differs in key ways 
from his proposal.
  One of the points Mr. Murtha raised yesterday was the misuse of the 
intelligence on Iraq. He called the war ``a flawed policy wrapped in 
illusion.''
  Like Mr. Murtha, I voted for the war. And like him, I have profound 
concerns about how the intelligence was warped and twisted to justify 
an invasion.
  My concerns are deeply personal. I voted for the war resolution 
because the President said Iraq would soon brandish nuclear bombs. And 
like millions of Americans, I was misled.
  I raised concerns about the nuclear intelligence in a letter to the 
President on March 17, 2003--before any bullets were fired and before 
the war started. I ask unanimous consent to introduce this letter into 
the Record.
  I wrote:
       Dear Mr. President: . . . In the last ten days, it has 
     become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence 
     you and other Administration officials have cited regarding 
     Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. . . .
       The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates 
     that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African 
     country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a 
     central part of the -U.S. case against Iraq. . . . [I]n your 
     State of the Union address, you stated: ``The British 
     government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought 
     significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
       It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. 
     . . . Even more troubling, . . . the CIA, which has been 
     aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the 
     evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are 
     profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been 
     building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence 
     experts . . . do not believe is credible.
       It is hard to imagine how this situation could have 
     developed. The two most obvious explanations--knowing 
     deception or unfathomable incompetence--both have immediate 
     and serious implications.

  I made that request 2\1/2\ years ago. And I am still waiting for an 
answer. The President has never explained how forged evidence could 
become a cornerstone of the case for war in Iraq.
  And this body has been part of the cover-up. We've averted our eyes 
and shut down our oversight committees. The Washington Republicans who 
run this body are afraid to ask questions and embarrass the President. 
They have abrogated their solemn constitutional obligations to hold the 
executive branch accountable for its abuses.
  As the ranking Democrat on the House Committee in charge of oversight 
and investigations, I have requested hearings to review:
  (1) The way intelligence was manipulated by people in this 
administration. On my website--www.reform.democrats.house.gov--there is 
a report of 237 misleading and inaccurate statements made by the 
President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Defense and the 
National Security Adviser, based on what they knew at the time and not 
what we learned later.
  (2) An investigation of prison treatment by the U.S. after Abu Graib.
  (3) An investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame for 
political purposes, even though it jeopardized our national security.
  (4) An investigation of the secret meetings Vice President Cheney had 
with energy executives regarding our energy policy.
  The Republicans should do the work required under our Constitution--
do the oversight to provide the checks and balances to avoid a 
concentration of power in an imperial and out of touch administration.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2003.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am writing regarding a matter of 
     grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon 
     initiate the first preemptive war in our nation's history. 
     The most persuasive justification for this war is that we 
     must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.
       In the last ten days, however, it has become 
     incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and 
     other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq's 
     efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What's more, the 
     Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the 
     evidence at the same time you and other Administration 
     officials were citing it in public statements. This is a 
     breach of the highest order, and the American people are 
     entitled to know how it happened.
       As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution 
     condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite 
     serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I 
     believed congressional approval would significantly improve 
     the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I 
     believed that you had access to reliable intelligence 
     information that merited deference.
       Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by 
     your views about Iraq's nuclear intentions. Although chemical 
     and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument 
     for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of 
     Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is 
     why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many 
     have looked to you for honest and credible information on 
     Iraq's nuclear capability.
       The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates 
     that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African 
     country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a 
     central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19, 
     the State Department filed a response to Iraq's disarmament 
     declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State 
     Department response stated: ``The Declaration ignores efforts 
     to procure uranium from Niger.'' A month later, in your State 
     of the Union address, you stated: ``The British government 
     has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant 
     quantities of uranium from Africa.'' Defense Secretary 
     Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing 
     reporters.
       It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. 
     On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence 
     that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was ``not 
     authentic.'' As subsequent media accounts indicated, the 
     evidence contained ``crude errors,'' such as a ``childlike 
     signature'' and the use of stationary from a military 
     government in Niger that has been out of power for over a 
     decade.
       Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware 
     of this information since 2001, has never regarded the 
     evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are 
     profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been 
     building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence 
     experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is 
     credible.
       It is hard to imagine how this situation could have 
     developed. The two most obvious explanations--knowing 
     deception or unfathomable incompetence--both have immediate 
     and serious implications. It is thus imperative that you 
     address this matter without delay and provide an alternative 
     explanation, if there is one.
       The rest of this letter will explain my concerns in detail.


                 Use of the Evidence by U.S. Officials

       The evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from an 
     African country was first revealed by the British government 
     on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair 
     released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons 
     of mass destruction. As the New York Times reported in a 
     front-page article, one of the two ``chief new elements'' in 
     the report was the claim that Iraq had ``sought to acquire 
     uranium in Africa that could be used to make nuclear 
     weapons.''
       This evidence subsequently became a significant part of the 
     U.S. case against Iraq. On December 7, Iraq filed its weapons 
     declaration with the United Nations Security Council. The 
     U.S. response relied heavily on the evidence that Iraq had 
     sought to obtain uranium from Africa.
       For example, this is how the New York Times began its 
     front-page article on December 13 describing the U.S. 
     response:
       ``American intelligence agencies have reached a preliminary 
     conclusion that Iraq's 12,000 page declaration of its weapons 
     program fails to account for chemical and biological agents 
     missing when inspectors left Iraq four years ago, American 
     officials and United Nations diplomats said today.
       ``In addition, Iraq's declaration on its nuclear program, 
     they say, leaves open a host of questions. Among them is why 
     Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa in recent years.''

[[Page 27425]]

       The official U.S. response was provided on December 19, 
     when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the 
     Security Council. As the Los Angeles Times reported, ``A one-
     page State Department fact sheet . . . lists what Washington 
     considers the key omissions and deceptions in Baghdad's Dec. 
     7 weapons declaration.'' One of the eight ``key omissions and 
     deceptions'' was the failure to explain Iraq's attempts to 
     purchase uranium from an African country.
       Specifically, the State Department fact sheet contains the 
     following points under the heading ``Nuclear Weapons'': ``The 
     Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. 
     Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?'' A 
     copy of this fact sheet is enclosed with this letter.
       The Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa were deemed 
     significant enough to be included in your State of the Union 
     address to Congress. You stated: ``The British government has 
     learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant 
     quantities of uranium from Africa.'' As the Washington Post 
     reported the next day, ``the president seemed quite specific 
     as he ticked off the allegations last night, including the 
     news that Iraq had secured uranium from Africa for the 
     purpose of making nuclear bombs.''
       A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told 
     reporters at a news briefing that Iraq ``recently was 
     discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from 
     Africa.''


             Knowledge of the Unreliability of the Evidence

       The world first learned that the evidence linking Iraq to 
     attempts to purchase uranium from Africa was forged from the 
     Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency 
     (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. On March 7, Director ElBaradei 
     reported to the U.N. Security Council: ``Based on thorough 
     analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of 
     outside experts, that these documents--which formed the basis 
     for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and 
     Niger--are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded 
     that these specific allegations are unfounded.''
       Recent accounts in the news media have provided additional 
     details. According to the Washington Post, the faked evidence 
     included ``a series of letters between Iraqi agents and 
     officials in the central African nation of Niger.'' The 
     article stated that the forgers ``made relatively crude 
     errors that eventually gave them away--including names and 
     titles that did not match up with the individuals who held 
     office at the time the letters were purportedly written.'' 
     CNN reported: ``one of the documents purports to be a letter 
     signed by Tandjia Mamadou, the president of Niger, talking 
     about the uranium deal with Iraq. On it [is] a childlike 
     signature that is clearly not his. Another, written on paper 
     from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of 
     October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not 
     been foreign minister of Niger for 14 years.''
       U.S. intelligence officials had doubts about the veracity 
     of the evidence long before Director ElBaradei's report. The 
     Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that ``the CIA first 
     heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in 
     late 2001'' when ``the existence of the documents was 
     reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand.'' The Los 
     Angeles Times quotes one CIA official as saying: ``We 
     included that in some of our reporting, although it was all 
     caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that 
     information.'' The Washington Post reported on March 13: 
     ``The CIA . . . had questions about `whether they were 
     accurate,' said one intelligence official, and it decided not 
     to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure 
     weapons of mass destruction.''
       There have been suggestions by some Administration 
     officials that there may be other evidence besides the forged 
     documents that shows Iraq tried to obtain uranium from an 
     African country. For instance, CIA officials recently stated 
     that ``U.S. concerns regarding a possible uranium agreement 
     between Niger and Iraq were not based solely on the documents 
     which are now known to be fraudulent.'' The CIA provided this 
     other information to the IAEA along with the forged 
     documents. After reviewing this complete body of evidence, 
     the IAEA stated: ``we have found to date no evidence or 
     plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons 
     programme in Iraq.'' Ultimately, the IAEA concluded that 
     ``these specific allegations are unfounded.''


                               questions

       These facts raise troubling questions. It appears that at 
     the same time that you, Secretary Rumsfeld, and State 
     Department officials were citing Iraq's efforts to obtain 
     uranium from Africa as a crucial part of the case against 
     Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials regarded this very same 
     evidence as unreliable. If true, this is deeply disturbing: 
     it would mean that your Administration asked the U.N. 
     Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to 
     rely on information that your own experts knew was not 
     credible.
       Your statement to Congress during the State of the Union, 
     in particular, raises a host of questions. The statement is 
     worded in a way that suggests it was carefully crafted to be 
     both literally true and deliberately misleading at the same 
     time. The statement itself--``The British government has 
     learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant 
     quantities of uranium from Africa''--may be technically 
     accurate, since this appears to be the British position. But 
     given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you 
     intended--that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought 
     uranium from Africa--was simply false.
       To date, the White House has avoided explaining why the 
     Administration relied on this forged evidence in building its 
     case against Iraq. The first Administration response, which 
     was provided to the Washington Post, was ``we fell for it.'' 
     But this is no longer credible in light of the information 
     from the CIA. Your spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked about 
     this issue at a White House news briefing on March 14, but as 
     the following transcript reveals, he claimed ignorance and 
     avoided the question:
       Q: Ari, as the president said in his State of the Union 
     address, the British government has learned that Saddam 
     Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium 
     from Africa. And since then, the IAEA said that those were 
     forged documents----
       Mr. Fleischer: I'm sorry, whose statement was that?
       Q: The President, in his State of the Union address. Since 
     then, the IAEA has said those were forged documents. Was the 
     administration aware of any doubts about these documents, the 
     authenticity of the documents, from any government agency or 
     department before it was submitted to the IAEA?
       Mr. Fleisher: These are matters that are always reviewed 
     with an eye toward the various information that comes in and 
     is analyzed by a variety of different people. The President's 
     concerns about Iraq come from multiple places, involving 
     multiple threats that Iraq can possess, and these are matters 
     that remain discussed.
       ``Thank you [end of briefing].
       Plainly, more explanation is needed. I urge you to provide 
     to me and to the relevant committees of Congress a full 
     accounting of what you knew about the reliability of the 
     evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew 
     this, and why you and senior officials in the Administration 
     presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the 
     Congress, and the American people without disclosing the 
     doubts of the CIA. In particular, I urge you to address:
       (1) Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about 
     the credibility of the forged evidence to other 
     Administration officials, including officials in the 
     Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National 
     Security Council, and the White House;
       (2) Whether the CIA had any input into the ``Fact Sheet'' 
     distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and
       (3) Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of 
     the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium 
     from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the 
     statement.
       Given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate an 
     expeditious response to these questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry A. Waxman,
     Ranking Minority Member.
                                  ____


 Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the 
                    United Nations Security Council


             Anthrax and Other Undeclared Biological Agents

       The UN Special Commission concluded that Iraq did not 
     verifiably account for, at a minimum, 2160kg of growth media.
       This is enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax--3 times 
     the amount Iraq declared; 1200 liters of botulinum toxin; 
     and, 5500 liters of clostridium perfrigens--16 times the 
     amount Iraq declared.
       Why does the Iraqi declaration ignore these dangerous 
     agents in its tally?


                           Ballistic Missiles

       Iraq has disclosed manufacturing new energetic fuels suited 
     only to a class of missile to which it does not admit.
       Iraq claims that flight-testing of a larger diameter 
     missile falls within the 150km limit. This claim is not 
     credible.
       Why is the Iraqi regime manufacturing fuels for missiles it 
     says it does not have?


                            Nuclear Weapons

       The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from 
     Niger.
       Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?


                                   VX

       In 1999, UN Special Commission and international experts 
     concluded that Iraq needed to provide additional, credible 
     information about VX production.
       The declaration provides no information to address these 
     concerns.
       What is the Iraqi regime trying to hide by not providing 
     this information?


               Chemical and Biological Weapons Munitions

       In January 1999, the UN Special Commission reported that 
     Iraq failed to provide credible evidence that 550 mustard 
     gas-filled artillery shells and 400 biological weapon-capable 
     aerial bombs had been lost or destroyed.

[[Page 27426]]

       The Iraqi regime has never adequately accounted for 
     hundreds, possibly thousands, of tons of chemical precursors.
       Again, what is the Iraqi regime trying to hide by not 
     providing this information?


                        Empty Chemical Munitions

       There is no adequate accounting for nearly 30,000 empty 
     munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.
       Where are these munitions?


                Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Programs

       Iraq denies any connection between UAV programs and 
     chemical or biological agent dispersal. Yet, Iraq admitted in 
     1995 that a MIG-21 remote-piloted vehicle tested in 1991 was 
     to carry a biological weapon spray system.
       Iraq already knows how to put these biological agents into 
     bombs and how to disperse biological agent using aircraft or 
     unmanned aerial vehicles.
       Why do they deny what they have already admitted? Why has 
     the Iraqi regime acquired the range and auto-flight 
     capabilities to spray biological weapons?


               Mobile Biological Weapon Agent Facilities

       The Iraqi declaration provides no information about its 
     mobile biological weapon agent facilities. Instead it insists 
     that these are ``refrigeration vehicles and food testing 
     laboratories.''
       What is the Iraqi regime trying to hide about their mobile 
     biological weapon facilities?


                                Summary

       None of these holes and gaps in Iraq's declaration are mere 
     accidents, editing oversights or technical mistakes: they are 
     material omissions.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let us make it clear that this is not a stunt. It is not an attack on 
an individual. It is a very legitimate question. Jack Murtha is a 
distinguished veteran. He is a good friend. We have joined together on 
many more defense issues than we have been apart on, and he has got an 
excellent background in defense, and he has every right to take the 
position that he has taken. We are all masters of our own opinion and 
our own position, and he studied this issue, and that is his position.
  The reason I think it is important for this House to speak now before 
we break for a couple of weeks is because the impression has gone out 
around the world, carried on international news agencies, U.S. news 
agencies to friends and foes alike. The impression has gone out that 
Congress is withdrawing its support of the mission in Iraq. And if we 
look at the Washington Post and look at the front page, that is 
precisely what we see. If we looked at the headline on CNN and many 
other of the electronic news media, that is what we see.
  But more importantly, it is not just important as to what our allies 
think or what our adversaries think. The most important people on this 
stage are the people wearing the uniform of the United States. And 
people who are reading the media, watching the media, those 140,000 
personnel presently stationed in Iraq are obviously getting an 
impression about the United States Congress and its position with 
respect to all of the publicity that has emanated not just from this 
body and statements that have gone out from this body but also from the 
other body that happened just a couple of days ago and the headline 
stories that emanated from that.
  Now, all of us, and I can just say as the chairman of my committee, 
we have held lots of hearings, lots of briefings. We held full House 
briefings for every Member of the House, Democrat and Republican, where 
they could ask our intelligence officers, with no handlers from the 
White House present, every single question that they wanted to have 
answered. We have had full briefings on armor, on troop deployments, on 
operations. Everybody here is competent to answer this question: Should 
we terminate our deployment in Iraq?
  Now, of all the issues that we have studied over the last year or so 
that we have been working on, this is certainly one that we all have a 
background in now. Nobody can complain now that they have been duped 
and therefore this is not a real question or a solid question or an 
important question to answer. So we are going to let every Member 
answer that, and I hope that the message that goes back to our troops 
in Iraq, and I know that the message that will go back to our troops in 
Iraq, is that we do not support a precipitous pullout from Iraq, and 
that will do more to restore their morale than anything else this 
Congress could do.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Can I inquire of the gentleman from California how he intends to vote 
on the resolution that he has introduced that does not provide for the 
protection of our troops?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against a precipitous 
termination of our deployment in Iraq.
  Mr. McGOVERN. You are going to vote against the Hunter amendment. 
Thank you for voting against your own amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. But I am going to allow you to vote ``yes.''


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members 
that it is improper to walk in front of a Member speaking in the well.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the troops in this country are going to be 
surprised to find out that the Republican chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee filed a resolution saying that it is the sense of 
the House of Representatives, apparently as he sees it, that the 
deployment of the United States forces in Iraq be terminated 
immediately. Apparently, the Republican chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee thinks that we should not have an orderly withdrawal 
of the troops, thinks that we should not provide for their safety and 
protection on the withdrawal, thinks that we should not do the things 
that Mr. Murtha suggested that we do.
  It is either that, sir, or they are going to think that this is some 
sort of a trick, that you filed this so that we would have been looking 
at something that Mr. Murtha did not want us to look at. Because if you 
are concerned about what the message is that the troops are getting in 
Iraq, you would, in fact, have a full-fledged debate here so that Mr. 
Murtha and other Members of both parties could express clearly and 
succinctly what it is they believe ought to happen in terms of policy.
  But that is not what we are seeing here. You should have a chance for 
Mr. Murtha to discuss his idea on protecting the troops when there is a 
redeployment or redeploying to over the horizon so that there will not 
be a spread of terrorism, of making sure that any redeployment is made 
with the protection and the safety of the troops. But I do not think 
that is what is going on here.
  You talk about your respect for Mr. Murtha. You talk about his known 
knowledge for the military, and yet it is you, sir, who comes down here 
and says that the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services 
Committee proposes that the House of Representatives put their 
statement and their resolve that we should deploy immediately from Iraq 
and not protect our troops, apparently, because it does not say that, 
and not provide for their safety, not provide for redeployment 
somewhere over the horizon so that we will be sure that terrorism does 
not spread there and we will be ready for any emergency.
  If instead you want the troops to get the message that that is not 
what we want, then why did you not work with your delegation over there 
to make sure that Mr. Murtha's resolution could be proposed and debated 
and explained fully and then this country could have the benefit of a 
full discussion of where the policy is going, because this 
administration, apparently, has no clue and has no idea. They 
politicized the lead-up going into the

[[Page 27427]]

area, and now you are politicizing how it is we are going to get this 
country back in order and out of there.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would also advise Members to 
address their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  And let me make this point: that the resolution is written in 
precisely the way that I think describes the essence of the publicity 
that has emanated from Washington, D.C. This is a message that has been 
sent to our troops; and if you look at the e-mails coming in, I think 
the question is well described, and I think that it manifests what a 
lot of people now think, especially uniformed people in the Iraq 
theater, and it is precisely the question before the House that the 
gentleman will have an absolute right to vote on; and I would hope that 
this is not Mr. Murtha's position. He will have a chance to vote ``no'' 
on it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand it to ever be the habit 
of this institution for a Member on one side taking it upon himself to 
interpret the meaning of a resolution of a Member on the other side 
without giving that Member the courtesy and the respect of allowing 
them to put forward what the meaning and intention of their own 
resolution is. I think, sir, you are playing games.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate to my friend, he said 
this should not be about Mr. Murtha, and it is not about Mr. Murtha. It 
is about the message that has been sent around the world, as evidenced 
by e-mails coming back in from our troops now who think that the 
Congress is pulling the rug out from under the mission.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask Members to respect the 
gavel and the time yielded.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know a single Democrat who supports the Hunter 
resolution that would basically provide for the immediate withdrawal 
without the protection for our troops. This is a counterfeit. This is 
an insult to this institution. And to not allow us to have a real 
debate, to not allow us to bring up different proposals, I think, 
undercuts the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
California why he introduced a counterfeit Murtha resolution rather 
than allowing us to vote on the real Murtha resolution, if he wanted us 
to vote at all.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me answer my friend.
  This is a letter from an army captain in Iraq. He says in this e-
mail: ``I am a U.S. Army captain currently serving in Iraq, and I am 
shocked and appalled by Rep Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal. 
Please, please, please convince your colleague to let us finish this 
critical job. He is correct that the deployments and service and 
casualties are hard on all of us. He is wrong about what is 
demoralizing to us. What is demoralizing is a Congress which no longer 
stands behind our mission.''
  That is why we are offering this resolution. That is obviously the 
message that is going out to thousands of servicemen around the world.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For 24 hours you maligned a great Member of this House, a decorated 
Vietnam War veteran. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in response to the speech of one decorated 
veteran of this institution, the Republican chairman of the Committee 
on Armed Services has taken this position of that Member, and he has 
written this abbreviated, interpreted version which mischaracterizes 
the position of Mr. Murtha. This is signed by Mr. Hunter, and it has a 
number on it. Just think of the mischief al-Zarqawi can do with this 
when he puts it on the Internet. We have a signed document from the 
Chair of the--chairman of the Committee on Armed Services asking for 
immediate withdrawal.
  Now, I have an e-mail, too. We all get them. This is from the 
president of the Oregon War Veterans Association, who did disagree with 
Mr. Murtha and knows my position against the war. He said, ``I am 
writing not only to thank you for your service, but also to ask you to 
be cautious about politicizing the war effort in Iraq. It is our 
determination to keep our servicemembers safe from injury that may come 
from pure partisan political sabotage,'' and if a fabricated document 
fabricating the position of the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee with his signature on it which is now winging its way around 
the world is not pure partisan political sabotage, I do not know what 
is.
  If you have good sense, you will withdraw this resolution. We will 
even give you unanimous consent to do it, Mr. Hunter. But if you will 
not, maybe you can start doing your job: Hold a few hearings and a 
little bit of oversight in what is going on in Iraq, and maybe we can 
even act like the bipartisan Senate and ask that the President report 
to us on his goals, objectives and progress in Iraq. But none of this 
has happened in this House. This is the only substantive action you 
have taken on Iraq since we went in there, and you should be awfully 
ashamed.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to make it clear on my part 
that it is impossible to impugn the character of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania because we could not do it if we so intended. Like so many 
of our citizen soldiers, their service did not end with their military 
career, and they continue to serve our country.
  But I would hope that this rule would be adopted because this is a 
question that we have all had to answer. My constituents have asked it. 
It is incumbent upon me to respond, and I would think it would be no 
different today.
  But I would hope the consequence of this rule being passed and this 
resolution being debated with free vote of conscience on either side of 
the aisle is that should it fail, is that we then strive to find a 
bipartisan plan for victory in Iraq, and an articulation of our war 
aims that can motivate the American people to galvanize behind it. For 
if we do not, whatever happens to this resolution, our resolution to 
prevail in this cause will be gone, and our cause will be nil, and the 
sacrifice will be in vain. Vote for adoption of the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am confused. When I came 
here, I was told that the Republicans had put the Murtha resolution on 
for debate, and then I saw what they put on. I was just wondering and I 
have a question where they got this. Did they, by any chance, get it 
from CBS and Dan Rather?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, today's debate should be about one thing, 
whether or not we believe that this administration and this President 
are pursuing sound and competent policy in Iraq. Instead, the 
Republican leadership has orchestrated a pathetic, partisan political 
ploy in an effort to distract the American people from this 
administration's failure in Iraq. The Republican leadership is making a 
mockery of Jack Murtha's able and selfless service to his country in a 
blatant abuse of power.

[[Page 27428]]

  This leadership has rushed a resolution to the floor that bears no 
resemblance to Jack Murtha's considered position on Iraq. The war is a 
matter of life and death for our servicemen and for the people of Iraq, 
and this Republican leadership has instead decided to make it a 
political power play. This is a disgusting offense to Jack Murtha, to 
every one of our veterans, and, most importantly, to all of our brave 
men and women serving today.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), our newest Member.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I stood at Arlington National 
Cemetery attending the funeral of a young Marine from my district. He 
believed what we are doing is the right thing, and had the courage to 
lay his life on the line to do it.
  A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio 
Representative from the 88th District in the House of Representatives. 
He asked me to send Congress a message: ``Stay the course.'' * * *
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) be taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will report the 
words.

                              {time}  1730

  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed at any Member 
of the House, and I did not intend to suggest that they applied to any 
Member, most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. 
I therefore ask for unanimous consent that my words be withdrawn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
  Mr. SNYDER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate 
the gentlewoman's words. And I accept, as one Member, her offer to have 
her words withdrawn. But I encourage all of us here tonight to 
recognize the seriousness of what we are about and to choose our words 
carefully. Our side is greatly offended by this process. I suspect that 
you have a fair number of Members that are not very satisfied with it, 
either. My suggestion would be that the resolution be withdrawn and we 
come back and discuss it another day.
  However, I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman's words 
will be stricken.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, in the heart of the spirit of discussion, 
I have received many telephone calls and e-mails asking us to show the 
world that we do support this effort. That is what we are here about. 
That is the debate that is at hand, whether we support this war or that 
we do not support this war. My constituents, the world, expect us to 
stay the course.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from 
Georgia how many more speakers he has on his side.
  Mr. GINGREY. I have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my 
time for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close for our side here.
  Mr. Speaker, sadly, this Republican resolution is consistent with the 
dishonest political way the Republican leadership has acted over the 
past 3\1/2\ years. This Congress has not served as a check. It has not 
served as a coequal branch of government. This Republican Congress is 
only interested in covering up for this administration. We have lost 
over 2,000 American men and women in Iraq. Thousands more are wounded. 
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in this war effort, our 
credibility around the world is at an all-time low, and this is the 
best that you can do for our soldiers, this resolution? This is it? 
This is our debate on Iraq? This is what the American people get for 
all of what they have gone through, all the sacrifices they have made?
  As for this legislation by the gentleman from California, which 
hasn't had a hearing and hasn't had a markup, if it comes up, I am 
going to vote against it. I think all of us are going to vote against 
it because it does not provide for the safe and the orderly withdrawal 
of our forces. Nobody on this side has said anything other than that.
  Let me close with this: to my Republican friends, Jack Murtha isn't 
afraid of you. He has faced down a lot worse than some of the pathetic 
smears that we have heard from the other side today. And let me be 
clear to all of you. If you truly oppose this resolution, if you want 
to honor our soldiers, if you want to do your job and hold this 
administration accountable, which we are supposed to do, then you 
should oppose this rule.
  If you oppose the rule, we are not going to have to deal with this 
lousy bill. We will come back and do it right. To vote for this rule is 
to politicize a war and that is a mistake. All of us whether we are for 
this war or against this war, whether Republican or Democrat or liberal 
or conservative, we should not want to politicize this war. To do so is 
tragic.
  Mr. Speaker, by moving ahead with this resolution, we demean the 
service of our soldiers. We demean the families who have lost loved 
ones in this war. We demean this institution. We need to do our job. 
This is not about a game of political gotcha. This is about doing the 
right thing, making sure we are on the right course, that we can 
disagree about that, but we can respect each other's opinion without 
trying to smear one another.
  And so I would urge all my colleagues for the sake of collegiality, 
for the sake of civility in this House, for the sake of doing the right 
thing for the people of this country and especially for our troops 
overseas vote down this rule. Vote down this rule. Let's end this right 
now, and let's come back and let's do it right and let's get the 
American people what they deserve: a real, thorough, honest debate and 
discussion on the war in Iraq.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I close this debate by thanking the various 
Members of this body from the chairmen who have shepherded these 
legislative initiatives to the conferees whose hard work has given this 
House the opportunity to move our legislative agenda forward. While 
this process may not be perfect, Mr. Speaker, it is at the end of the 
day a process in which Members can work together through compromise and 
long hours to complete the work of the American people.
  This is good governance; and, Mr. Speaker, good governance is never 
easy, but it never should be. This is serious work and the American 
people deserve every ounce of our attention and every ounce of our 
labor to see their agenda realized. Again, I would like to urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the misguided Hunter 
troop withdrawal resolution. How irresponsible this is.
  Instead, let me thank Congressman and Marine Jack Murtha.
  Thank you for your patriotism.
  Thank you for your honorable discernment of duty . . . to America . . 
. to our troops . . . to the cause of victory and freedom in Iraq. Your 
judicious resolution deserves hearing by the American people, our 
troops and this House.
  Yesterday, you stood high on this Hill. Your message reached the 
American people. And it reached our troops and their commanders. Unlike 
the Bush Administration, you have a plan for Iraq. Your plan is real. 
It says:
  Within six months, redeploy our troops consistent with their safety.
  Create a quick reaction force in the region.
  Back that up with an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
  Push the diplomacy button hard to secure and stabilize Iraq.
  You don't want America's soldiers to be viewed as the enemy of 
freedom. For indeed they are its champions.
  You spoke the truth when you said our soldiers have been made the 
victims of freedom in a growing counterinsurgency movement inside Iraq 
caused by the Bush-Cheney Administration's bungling, misleading, 
distorting and propagandizing of this war.

[[Page 27429]]

  You were right in letting the American people know that since Abu 
Gharib the Bush-Cheney Administration has lost U.S. moral authority in 
the Middle East. Since Abu Gharib, American casualties have doubled. 
Since last year, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per 
week to over 700 last year.
  Yes, winning means winning the hearts and minds of the people, over 
there, not just here. Victory means political victory as well as 
military victory. Our military has done everything asked of them. Our 
diplomats have been missing in action. Our troops were not led to 
believe that their lives would be lost in a counterinsurgency movement. 
Our troops are trained to fight force on force. The challenge America 
faces in the Islamic and Arab world is being made worse every day by 
the Bush Administration's miscalculations and misreading of the enemy. 
Every day, we see the Bush Administration wins us fewer friends.
  America will win when the people we are trying to liberate believe we 
are their friends, not their enemies. 80% of Iraqis are strongly 
opposed to the presence of coalition troops and nearly half of the 
Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. 
This is not a prescription for victory. The time for the Murtha Plan to 
begin is now.
  Thank you Jack Murtha for placing your life in the line of fire for 
our troops and for freedom. Your resolution has a right to be heard and 
debated as a way forward to freedom.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia:
       Add at the end the following:
       (5) A resolution relating to U.S. forces in Iraq.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think a number of people on this side of 
the aisle and maybe on the other side of the aisle did not hear what 
the amendment is. Could it be repeated, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Clerk will re-report 
the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk re-reported the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous----
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has offered an amendment to 
the resolution. A vote will occur on the amendment to the resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may state her inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. My inquiry is if this amendment is voted 
on, does this mean that the underlying resolution could not be 
withdrawn as we would like for it to be so that we can debate in a 
civil manner the discussion of our troops in Iraq?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is debating a rule that would 
enable the debate of a resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I might restate, if this 
resolution is voted on and it succeeds, is there then an opportunity to 
have by unanimous consent the resolution itself withdrawn? Does this 
block the withdrawal of the resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is uncertain what the gentlewoman 
is asking. The rule is under consideration.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate the indulgence of the Speaker. 
We have now had an amended rule. My question is----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule has not yet been amended. An 
amendment has been proposed.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We may ultimately have it. My question is, 
if the rule passes, can we still have the opportunity to have the 
actual bill withdrawn?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A measure may be withdrawn from 
consideration at any time before the House has acted thereon by 
decision or amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is my 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the amendment and on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, 
nays 204, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 606]

                               YEAS--211

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch

[[Page 27430]]


     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Beauprez
     Berman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Cunningham
     Flake
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Hall
     Jindal
     Kind
     LaHood
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Shadegg
     Towns

                              {time}  1805

  Mr. FORTENBERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable 
to vote on H. Res. 563. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________