[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27453-27465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 571, EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE 
      THAT DEPLOYMENT OF FORCES IN IRAQ BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY

  Mr. Gingrey, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 109-312) on the resolution (H. Res. 572) providing 
for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 571) expressing the sense 
of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States 
forces in Iraq be terminated immediately and providing for 
consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 308) directing 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical 
correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3058, which was referred to the 
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 572 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 572

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 571) 
     expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
     deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated 
     immediately. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on International Relations; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     which may not contain instructions.
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, House Concurrent 
     Resolution 308 is hereby adopted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, given that the subject of this issue deals 
with the solemn subject of war, my question is, would I be in order to 
ask for unanimous consent that each Member of the House be allowed up 
to 5 minutes to speak his or her conscience on this war-related 
resolution?

                              {time}  2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Chair has recognized the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for 1 hour. He controls the time. 
He may yield for a unanimous consent request if he so chooses.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 572 provides for the consideration of 
House Resolution 571, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the deployment of the United States forces in Iraq 
be terminated immediately. Section 2 of the rule provides that upon 
adoption of the rule House Concurrent Resolution 308 is hereby adopted.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, this House, the people's House, stands at a 
crossroads. In one direction lies the forced retreat and dishonor for 
our troops who have placed their lives on the line for the defense of 
this country; and in the other direction, Mr. Speaker, we can stand 
together as one Nation, as one

[[Page 27454]]

Congress, in celebration of those who have made an unparalleled 
commitment to their country.
  For this Member of Congress who represents the eleventh district of 
Georgia, I know which direction I will choose. I know which course I 
will take. I will stand here tonight with our servicemen and -women who 
spend their days and nights fighting in the desert of Iraq to secure 
the freedom of a new democracy. Their Nation called them to arms. Their 
Nation called upon them for help in time of war. And, Mr. Speaker, they 
answered that call. They departed their country. They left their homes, 
their families to fight a war on foreign soil against an enemy that 
despises everything they and everything their country stands for.
  They went to fight a tyrant by the name of Saddam Hussein who had 
murdered his own people, sought to conquer the Middle East for his own 
empire, and would have sought the destruction of the West and the 
values that we hold so dear. This tyrant was and is an enemy of 
liberty, and he had to be stopped.
  Mr. Speaker, nightly on the floor of this House, some Members imply 
that the President misled our Nation, and they demand an immediate 
withdrawal of troops from Iraq, ceding victory to the enemy. And now we 
have to answer the call of those who would besmirch their mission, who 
would besmirch their sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand prepared, along with my colleagues, to debate 
this rule and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the speed with which the majority has 
sought to challenge the frank and honest appraisal of the war in Iraq 
offered yesterday by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), proves that what he said resonated with the American people.
  Over 60 percent of our Nation no longer believes that we are headed 
in the right direction in Iraq. When Mr. Murtha spoke yesterday, he 
spoke for the majority of our country. Concerns such as those voiced by 
Mr. Murtha are not a sign of weakness, nor are they the product of a 
failure of resolve or willingness to cower before adversity as many 
administration apologists have suggested.
  Rather, they follow from a logical assessment of one of the most 
respected military affairs in international relations experts that we 
have in all of these United States, and that is exactly what has this 
congressional leadership and this White House so concerned.
  That is why they have gone out of their way in the last 24 hours to 
attack the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). It amounts to 
nothing more than another swift boat attack on an American hero.
  After all, attacking those who have the temerity to challenge this 
White House is what Republicans in Congress do best. But they have 
chosen a formidable target in Jack Murtha.
  Unlike our President, our Vice President, our Secretary of Defense, 
the Secretary of State or the vast, vast majority of the Members in 
this House, Jack Murtha knows combat. At the age of 34, he did not have 
to go and fight in Vietnam, but he did. He is a decorated veteran and 
an American hero at a time when many others were shirking any 
possibility of going to Vietnam.
  He knows our troops and he cares for them deeply and he has regularly 
visited them in the hospitals. There he has seen their wounds. He has 
stood by them during their time of need and listened to their hopes and 
fears. He has been to Iraq and seen the state of the nation with his 
own eyes. He is a true patriot and wants only the success of the United 
States and the Iraqi people, and that is why he spoke with such passion 
yesterday.
  Representative Murtha spoke for the American people when he said that 
the time has come for a change in direction, and everyone in this 
Chamber knows that because Jack Murtha is one of the most widely 
respected Members in this House. No matter the attack that this 
majority chooses to employ against those who would question them, the 
reality on the ground is obvious to all who wish to see it.
  America's continued military occupation of that nation will not bring 
stability. Our forces are drawing fire, not suppressing it; and their 
presence on foreign soil is serving as a catalyst for all of those who 
wish to do us and Iraq harm. Insurgent attacks are on the rise, and 
more American and Iraqi lives are lost every single day. We can no 
longer continue on this failing path, unwavering with no end in sight.
  We can no longer ask Americans and Iraqis to give up their lives for 
a goal which we are making less sustainable by the hour. We must chart 
a new course.
  Mr. Murtha's redeployment plan comes from an experienced statesman 
and soldier who has and will continue to do whatever he thinks is best 
for this Nation.
  I implore my colleagues across this aisle to realize that continued 
Republican attacks which seek to dismiss and to discredit the valuable 
critiques of knowledgeable legislators, as well as the heartfelt will 
of the American people, will succeed in silencing neither. Nor will 
they change the reality on the ground in Iraq.
  More Republican assaults will not hide the gross management and 
corruption which has plagued the administration's attempt to prosecute 
the war, and they will not mollify America's growing concerns over 
flawed intelligence, broken trust, subverted values, and shameful acts 
of torture, all forced by the hand of an administration that answers in 
half-truths and obfuscations.
  These cynical and all-too-typical Republican attempts to silence 
dissension, stifle debate, and discredit those who would dare to hold 
them accountable will only serve to elevate the power of the message 
that Mr. Murtha is delivering to this government and to the American 
people and to our troops. The Republicans today by attacking him 
succeed only in betraying themselves.
  The dramatic nature of their panicked response has clearly 
demonstrated how incredibly valued Mr. Murtha's judgement is to 
military experts at the Pentagon, to Members of Congress, and to the 
American intelligence community.
  And the strangest thing that I shall ever see is the people who 
believed that they were rewriting Mr. Murtha's resolution. Mr. Murtha, 
with a reasoned withdrawal, had nothing even remotely like the 
resolution we are debating this evening, which is the Republican 
resolution written by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) which 
calls for the immediate withdrawal of the troops in Iraq.
  I believe they have got some explaining to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong 
opposition to the underlying resolution.
  I too am a Vietnam veteran. I flew 116 combat missions in B-52s in 
Vietnam, and I was deeply troubled to hear my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, a fellow Vietnam veteran, yesterday call for the 
immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. It brought to my mind the 
outrage that I and so many of my fellow veterans felt so many years ago 
as a young Air Force officer in Vietnam when we would hear the 
politicians in Washington undermining the war effort for political 
purposes.
  For the past few weeks, much of the criticism of the war in Iraq, Mr. 
Speaker, has been nothing more than an attempt to undermine our 
Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of our 
troops in the field. How do you think this call to immediately withdraw 
will affect our brave soldiers fighting on the ground overseas and 
their families at home awaiting their return?
  I will just say it is demoralizing and insulting to them. It 
emboldens the terrorists.

[[Page 27455]]

  We should not misrepresent the mission in Iraq. Our troops are not 
occupiers. They are liberators. They are there serving the cause of 
freedom and freedom is not free. It is costly.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and opposition to 
the underlying resolution.
  I am a Vietnam veteran. I flew 116 combat missions in B-52's in 
Vietnam. I was deeply troubled to hear my colleague from Pennsylvania, 
a fellow Vietnam veteran, yesterday call for our immediate withdrawal 
from Iraq.
  It brought to mind the outrage I, and so many of my fellow veterans, 
felt so many years ago, as a young Air Force Officer in Vietnam, when 
we would hear the politicians in Washington undermining the war effort 
for political purposes.
  For the past few weeks, much of the criticism of the war in Iraq, Mr. 
Speaker, has been nothing more than an attempt to undermine our 
Commander in Chief.
  Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of our troops in the field.
  How do you think this call to immediately withdraw will affect our 
brave soldiers fighting on the ground overseas and their families at 
home awaiting their return? It is demoralizing and insulting to them.
  And what do you think such comments like those made yesterday do for 
our terrorist enemies in Iraq? It emboldens them and puts our troops at 
greater risk, Mr. Speaker.
  How dare some of my colleagues on the left misrepresent our mission 
in Iraq. They call our troops occupiers rather than liberators, and it 
seems they're more interested in demonizing Bush than defeating 
terrorists and defending freedom.
  History has some lessons to teach us. One is written in words on the 
mall. It says ``freedom is not free.''
  While we respect those who disagree with us and who may even protest, 
we should always remember that our freedoms were not won with poster 
paint. They were won by the blood of patriots.
  Winning and protecting freedom is costly. That's what our troops are 
doing in Iraq.
  As a combat veteran who served in an unpopular conflict during 
another painful time in our history, I can tell you that our troops 
will always remember which politicians supported them, and which 
undermined their efforts.
  Walking away from Iraq before the job is done would be surrendering 
Iraq to terrorism and an incredible insult to the many brave men and 
women who have sacrificed so much.
  If the war against terrorism is lost, it will not be lost by our 
magnificent troops on the battlefield. It will be lost right here at 
home in the halls of Congress by politicians who lose their resolve.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  In the rush to the floor, the resolution before us, any country 
lawyer across the country could say it is flawed in the way it is 
written. It makes no reference whatsoever to the redeployment. It is a 
sad mistake when you rush to judgment to get something to the floor.
  One thing that really concerns me a great deal is our friend, our 
colleague, the recipient of the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts from 
Vietnam, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) being attacked as 
he has.
  I remember in 1978 Congressman Sonny Montgomery who led a group of us 
to Vietnam to bring back remains of those who had died in combat. I 
remember the reverence with which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) treated those 14 coffins of his former colleagues who were 
killed in action in Vietnam.
  I have seen in the 29 years I have been in Congress his supporting 
our troops, supporting under the Constitution our duty to raise and 
maintain those wonderful young people who protect our freedoms. He has 
a resolution. He introduced it. He represents the people of 
Pennsylvania.
  I admire his assessment of the war. We disagree on the outcome. I 
have a proposal myself. I sent a letter to the President on October 20 
setting forth, the only person that has set a formula, for three Iraqi 
brigades of level number one, one American brigade may be redeployed.
  It is interesting to note that there has been no hearing on this 
resolution, no hearing on similar issues that are of utmost importance 
to our country. Now, though mistakes have been made, and they have, 
such as allowing the looting and disbanding the Iraqi Army rather than 
giving them a pick and shovel and a small paycheck, and as a result 
many of them became insurgents against the Americans, no one here as 
spoken of the success that is needed in Iraq.
  If we are not successful, if the Iraqi military is not successful, 
Iraq will be a snake pit for terrorists, every bit as bad as the 
Taliban had in Afghanistan, and lo and behold the problems it may raise 
in stability for Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is important that we have 
success.
  But it is also important that we have fair and full debate. It is 
important that we have hearings in the Committee on Armed Services on 
issues such as this, which we have not had. Hearings yes, but not on 
the war issues as we need them discussed in a full hearing with proper 
witnesses as we can ask questions of them.
  At least, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have wonderful young people 
in uniform representing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the 
globe. I am so proud of them. I am so proud of what they do in bringing 
the fight to a successful conclusion.
  And the issue of redeployment, whether I agree with the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) or not, and I do not, because my formula 
I think is the best and I have had positive results in my home State 
with positive unsolicited newspaper articles saying that it was a good 
and reasonable method of redeployment, we must do our best to have 
success there and proper redeployment of our troops from Iraq.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule, H. Res. 572, and we have talked a lot about exit strategy, about 
withdrawal. If I can say one thing tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to say 
do not believe all the crap that you see on the TV. Do not believe all 
the crap that you hear in the news.
  I have had an opportunity to go to Iraq. I have seen the soldiers. I 
have seen the leaders. I have seen the people, and I look at the faces 
out here tonight, Mr. Speaker, and the faces that I see, the biggest 
majority, are not the faces like myself, gray-haired and receding 
hairline.
  They are 18- and 19- and 20-year-old heroes a couple of years older 
than my oldest son; soldiers that are getting on Blackhawks with faces 
painted and M-16s getting ready to go on a mission at 120 knots above 
the tree level, 18- and 19- and 20-year-old heroes; soldiers that are 
kicking in doors with NVGs, and scared to death, but they are rooting 
out terrorists, 18- and 19- and 20-year-old heroes; guys that are 
humping rucks. They are tired, and they are cold, and they miss their 
mama and their wife and their family and everything they know and 
everything they love, 18- and 19- and 20-year-old heroes.
  When I was sworn in as a United States Congressman, I raised my right 
hand, put my left hand on the Bible and said I would support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States. I will support and defend this 
country. I will support and defend my soldiers. As long as I am a 
United States Congressman, I will not cut and run on the people of 
Iraq. I will not cut and run on the soldiers fighting the battle. I 
will not cut and run on the United States of America.
  Let us not talk about an exit strategy. Let us talk about freedom. 
Let us talk about democracy. Let us talk about victory.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the 42 
members of the Congressional Black Caucus. By doing so, we wish to make 
clear positions the Congressional Black Caucus has consistently taken 
from before the time the war in Iraq commenced

[[Page 27456]]

and to put those positions in the Record. Our votes tonight will not be 
misinterpreted or mischaracterized.
  As early as July 27, 2005, the top United States commander in Iraq 
stated that a transition of U.S. troops from Iraq could begin as early 
as this spring. Iraq's interim Prime Minister echoed General Casey's 
sentiments and added that ``the time has arrived to plan a coordinated 
transition from American to Iraqi military control throughout the 
country.''
  The members of the Congressional Black Caucus reaffirm our Statement 
of Principles as to War against Iraq, issued in October 2002, which I 
would place in the Record at this point.

 Congressional Black Caucus Statement of Principles as to War Against 
                           Iraq, October 2002

       We oppose a unilateral, first-strike action by the United 
     States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of 
     attack on the United States.
       Only Congress has the authority to declare war.
       Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted.
       A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral 
     authority of the United States, destabilize the Middle East 
     region and undermine the ability of our Nation to address 
     unmet domestic priorities.
       Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in 
     the region would be costly and require a long-term 
     commitment.

  Mr. Speaker, we reaffirm our Further Statement of Principles as to 
President's Request for Appropriations for Efforts in Iraq issued in 
September 2003, which I ask to insert into the Record at this point.

   Congressional Black Caucus Further Statement of Principles as to 
 President's Request for Appropriations for Efforts in Iraq, September 
                                  2003

       In October 2002, before the President made the decision to 
     proceed to war, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) issued a 
     ``Statement of Principles as to the War Against Iraq.''
       In light of the President's request for $87 billion to 
     pursue continuing operations in Iraq, the CBC believes that 
     it is desirable to issue these Further Principles that will 
     guide our evaluation of the President's request for 
     additional funding:
       1. We reaffirm our Statement of Principles issued in 
     October 2002 (copy attached).
       2. Despite the President's failure to follow our original 
     Statement of Principles in his decisions leading to the war, 
     we express our full resolve to support and protect our troops 
     and their families.
       3. The Administration should provide an accounting of all 
     funds expended to date that were previously appropriated by 
     the Congress, including details about all contracts for work 
     in or related to Iraq.
       4. The President should provide sufficient details about 
     how the proposed funding will be spent to enable Congress and 
     its Committees to evaluate separately funding proposed for 
     the protection and maintenance of our troops and funding 
     proposed for rebuilding Iraq. Congress should vote on these 
     funding proposals separately.
       5. The President should provide full details about how the 
     efforts will be paid for, including a full accounting of 
     Iraqi resources (recovered and anticipated) and how the 
     President proposes to use those resources to reduce or 
     reimburse the U.S. obligation.
       6. The President should provide full details about the 
     future obligations of the United States (personnel, funding 
     and decision making) and about how responsibility and 
     authority for these obligations will be shared with the 
     United Nations and/or other nations going forward.
       7. The Administration should provide to Congress full 
     details of information relied on by the President in his 
     decision to go to war.
       8. The President should provide details of the criteria he 
     will expect to be met before bringing U.S. troops home and of 
     his exit strategy.

  The members of the Congressional Black Caucus further urge President 
Bush to end the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq expeditiously 
by submitting to Congress a detailed plan to withdraw U.S. forces from 
Iraq and redeploy those forces at the earliest practicable date;
  To accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces to prepare them 
to accept full responsibility for maintaining internal security in Iraq 
and transfer responsibility for internal security to the Iraqi 
Government;
  To incorporate the United Nations and other international 
organizations in the transition and reconstruction process;
  To pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomatic and 
economic means;
  To assure that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq;
  And to ensure full support of our military families and our veterans, 
particularly with respect to service benefits and health care.
  Our vote tonight, our votes, 42 of us, will not be misinterpreted and 
not be mischaracterized. This is our position. We have submitted it for 
the Record. That is what we stand on, and that is what we say to this 
House and to the President of the United States of America.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the distinguished vice chairman of 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for the time.
  Sometimes subtleties are lost, especially when we are dealing with 
very difficult, critical issues, such as war and peace, and 
unfortunately, the message has gone out quite clearly to the world 
press, as recorded throughout the world today by the media, that there 
is a serious diminution in support for the mission that the United 
States of America is engaged in in Iraq here in Congress.
  So I think that this resolution today is very important to eliminate 
any confusion that may exist by virtue of a very clear message that has 
spread around the world today of a serious diminution of the mission of 
our troops, and that this resolution will clear up that confusion.
  Let us say very clearly with this resolution, with the overwhelming 
defeat of the message of diminution of support, that we stand with the 
troops and that we stand with the mission of the troops; of being in 
Iraq until there is a stable, democratic government there. That is 
critical for the security not only of the Iraqi people, but of all of 
the neighborhood in that area and of the United States.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from New 
York for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, bringing this resolution to the floor this evening, it 
is not about the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. It is about the 
Republicans playing politics and questioning the patriotism of one of 
Congress' most decorated veterans.
  The Republicans are doing what they do best, creating a smoke screen 
to hide the fact that this administration has misled our country into 
war.
  This resolution was rushed to the floor in the Republicans' hopes of 
dividing Democrats, but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what it has proven 
to be is a device to divide Americans.
  I will not stand here and let Republicans question the patriotism of 
Mr. Murtha or any Democrat.
  In America, it is not unpatriotic to question a war in which almost 
2,100 Americans have lost their lives and some 25,000 Americans have 
been gravely injured.
  When a mother who has lost her son camps out in Crawford, Texas, 
wanting only to speak to the President, she was called unpatriotic. 
When a POW GOP Senator offered an amendment to ban the use of torture, 
he was called unpatriotic. Now, when one of the most decorated veterans 
in America questions the planning and the direction of this war, what 
is he called? Unpatriotic.
  I do not believe the Republican Caucus is unpatriotic, but I do 
believe this evening they are pathetic. Our country demands answers 
about how to win this war and to get our troops home safely.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, what we have before us 
tonight is not an attack on any one Member. It is not about politics, 
but it is about whether or not you support our troops who are in harm's 
way.
  When I was in Iraq, I will never forget a nurse coming up to me in a 
hospital that had been pretty darn damaged and neglected by Saddam 
Hussein, and she said, please do not leave. I thought she was talking 
about me not

[[Page 27457]]

leaving the hospital, and I said to her, I have to go. She said, no, I 
do not mean you; I want your troops to stay until our country is safe, 
until our country is secure. I will never forget that woman.
  That message has been relayed time and time again from the troops who 
come home, who say we cannot leave prematurely. We do have an exit 
strategy. It is when the Iraqi people can control their own country. 
When the Iraqi people stand up, we will stand down. That nurse I will 
never disappoint.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I spent 3 years making the case against 
the war in Iraq, working with other Members leading a nationwide 
opposition to the war, developing an exit strategy once we got in, 
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on plans to withdraw 
from Iraq, to bring our troops home, but I will vote against this 
resolution because it is a fraud.
  What more does anyone need to know but that the sponsor himself has 
called for defeat of his own proposition? If his real intention is to 
bring the troops home right now, why would he vote against his own 
resolution?
  Wake up, America. The American people are fed up with politicians who 
say one thing and do another. Everyone of conscience and intelligence 
knows the magnitude of withdrawing 150,000 troops requires a plan.
  The American people deserve a real debate on Iraq. Where are the 
WMDs? Where is Osama bin Laden? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
  This Congress, which is a coequal branch of government, which has the 
war power, has the oversight responsibility and has a moral obligation 
to find out why almost everything of significance we were told about 
the war turned out to be false. Instead, those who raise questions have 
their military service or their honor impugned.
  They took John Kerry on a swift boat. We are not going to let them 
take Jack Murtha on a swift boat, nor are the American people. We have 
to stand up and expose the fakery when we see it.

       Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq by Dennis J. Kucinich

       The following is an analysis of the resolution which took 
     America to war in Iraq.
       October 2, 2002. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war 
     of aggression against an illegal occupation of Kuwait, the 
     United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate 
     Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national 
     security of the United States and enforce United Nations 
     Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
       Key issue: In the Persian Gulf war there was an 
     international coalition. World support was for protecting 
     Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.
       Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq 
     entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement 
     pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other 
     things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical 
     weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, 
     and to end its support for international terrorism;
       Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, 
     United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led 
     to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical 
     weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and 
     that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program 
     that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than 
     intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
       Key issue: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed 
     nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said 
     that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were 
     destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a 
     published report in the Washington Post, the Central 
     Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on 
     Iraq's WMD capabilities.
       Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the 
     cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons 
     inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which 
     finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on 
     October 31, 1998;
       Key issues: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors 
     always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United 
     States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the 
     United States then launched a cruise missile attack against 
     Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a 
     military strike, the U.S. continues to thwart (the 
     Administration's word) weapons inspections.
       Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing 
     weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United 
     States interests and international peace and security, 
     declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of 
     its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to 
     take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution 
     and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into 
     compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law 
     105-235);
       Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national 
     security of the United States and international peace and 
     security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material 
     and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, 
     among other things, continuing to possess and develop a 
     significant chemical and biological weapons capability, 
     actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting 
     and harboring terrorist organizations;
       Key issues: There is no proof that Iraq represents an 
     imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A 
     ``continuing'' threat does not constitute a sufficient cause 
     for war. The Administration has refused to provide the 
     Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is 
     a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to 
     possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear 
     weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence 
     connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.
       Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the 
     United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in 
     brutal repression of its civilian population thereby 
     threatening international peace and security in the region, 
     by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi 
     citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American 
     serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully 
     seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
       Key issues: This language is so broad that it would allow 
     the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there 
     is no material threat to the United States. Since this 
     resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related 
     violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since 
     the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi 
     prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to 
     attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or 
     may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with 
     all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. 
     Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to 
     bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to 
     stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force 
     resolution enables the President to commit U.S. troops to 
     recover Kuwaiti property.
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction 
     against other nations and its own people;
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the 
     United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate 
     former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of 
     occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged 
     in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security 
     Council;
       Key issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it 
     have the capability to attack the United States. The ``no 
     fly'' zone was not the result of a UN Security Council 
     directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, 
     Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned 
     by any Security Council resolution.
       Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing 
     responsibility for attacks on the United States, its 
     citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred 
     on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
       Key issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects 
     Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those 
     events by assisting Al Qaida.
       Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other 
     international terrorist organizations, including 
     organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American 
     citizens;
       Key issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist 
     groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great 
     resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the 
     Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to 
     launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.
       Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 
     2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the 
     acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international 
     terrorist organizations;
       Key issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the 
     events of 9/11.
       Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to 
     use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current 
     Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a 
     surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces 
     or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, 
     and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the 
     United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine 
     to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[[Page 27458]]

       Key issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq 
     possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has 
     successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 
     1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the 
     capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In 
     the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of 
     biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the 
     willingness to use them against the United States Armed 
     Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible 
     information, which proves that Iraq has provided 
     international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent 
     relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain 
     activities that threaten international peace and security, 
     including the development of weapons of mass destruction and 
     refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections 
     in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     687, repression of its civilian population in violation of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and 
     threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in 
     Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 949;
       Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, 
     including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN 
     resolutions.
       Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has 
     authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces 
     pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council 
     Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 
     and 677'';
       Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, 
     including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN 
     resolutions with military force.
       Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that 
     it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the 
     goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as 
     being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), `` that 
     Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a 
     continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of 
     the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the 
     use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
       Key issue: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology 
     of the international process, and contrasts the current march 
     to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution 
     asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries 
     authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition 
     to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking 
     Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN 
     Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN 
     resolutions.
       Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) 
     expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy 
     of the United States to support efforts to remove from power 
     the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a 
     democratic government to replace that regime;
       Key issue: This ``Sense of Congress'' resolution was not 
     binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic 
     means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse 
     the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it 
     endorse assassination as a policy.
       Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the 
     United States to ``work with the United Nations Security 
     Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to 
     ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making 
     clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be 
     enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be 
     met, or action will be unavoidable'';
       Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the 
     war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international 
     terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of 
     mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under 
     the 1991 ceasefire and other United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions make clear that it is in the national security 
     interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war 
     on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of 
     force if necessary;
       Key issue: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the 
     United States the support of the world community, adversely 
     affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence 
     exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those 
     terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the 
     United States does not have the authority to unilaterally 
     order military action to enforce UN Security Council 
     resolutions.
       Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the 
     war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and 
     funding requested by the President to take the necessary 
     actions against international terrorists and terrorist 
     organizations, including those nations, organizations or 
     persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 
     terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or 
     harbored such persons or organizations;
       Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress 
     with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the 
     events of 9/11.
       Whereas the President and Congress are determined to 
     continue to take all appropriate actions against 
     international terrorists and terrorist organizations, 
     including those nations, organizations or persons who 
     planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks 
     that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons 
     or organizations;
       Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress 
     with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the 
     events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence 
     that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for 
     planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.
       Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution 
     to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of 
     international terrorism against the United States, as 
     Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
       Key issue: This resolution was specific to 
     9/11. It was limited to a response to 9/11.
       Whereas it is in the national security of the United States 
     to restore international peace and security to the Persian 
     Gulf region;
       Key issue: If by the ``national security interests'' of the 
     United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to 
     communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq 
     by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the 
     region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the 
     world.

     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization 
     for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

       The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by 
     the President to--
       (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
     Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable 
     to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
       (b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
     Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
     evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
     with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
       Key issue: Congress can and should support this clause. 
     However Section 3 (which follows) undermines the 
     effectiveness of this section. Any peaceful settlement 
     requires Iraq compliance. The totality of this resolution 
     indicates the Administration will wage war against Iraq no 
     matter what. This undermines negotiations.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

       Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the 
     Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate in order to--
       (1) defend the national security of the United States 
     against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
       (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions regarding Iraq.
       Key issue: This clause is substantially similar to the 
     authorization that the President originally sought.
       It gives authority to the President to act prior to and 
     even without a UN resolution, and it authorizes the President 
     to use U.S. troops to enforce UN resolutions even without UN 
     request for it. This is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN 
     Charter, which reserves the ability to authorize force for 
     that purpose to the Security Council, alone.
       Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 
     ``The Security Council shall determine the existence of any 
     threat to the peace . . . and shall make recommendations to 
     maintain or restore international peace and security.'' 
     (Article 39). Only the Security Council can decide that 
     military force would be necessary, ``The Security Council may 
     decide what measures . . . are to be employed to give effect 
     to its decisions (Article 41) . . . [and] it may take such 
     action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to 
     maintain or restore international peace and security.'' 
     (Article 43). Furthermore, the resolution authorizes use of 
     force illegally, since the UN Security Council has not 
     requested it. According to the UN Charter, members of the UN, 
     such as the US, are required to ``make available to the 
     Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a 
     special agreement or agreements, armed forces . . .'' 
     (Article 43, emphasis added). The UN Security Council has not 
     called upon its members to use military force against Iraq at 
     the current time.
       Furthermore, changes to the language of the previous use-
     of-force resolution, drafted by the White House and objected 
     to by many members of Congress, are cosmetic:

[[Page 27459]]

       In section (1), the word ``continuing'' was added to ``the 
     threat posed by Iraq''.
       In section (2), the word ``relevant'' is added to ``United 
     Nations Security Council Resolutions'' and the words 
     ``regarding ``Iraq'' were added to the end.
       While these changes are represented as a compromise or a 
     new material development, the effects of this resolution are 
     largely the same as the previous White House proposal.
       The UN resolutions, which could be cited by the President 
     to justify sending U.S. troops to Iraq, go far beyond 
     addressing weapons of mass destruction. These could include, 
     at the President's discretion, such ``relevant'' resolutions 
     ``regarding Iraq'' including resolutions to enforce human 
     rights and the recovery of Kuwaiti property.
       Presidential Determination.--
       In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in 
     subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to 
     such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but 
     no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make 
     available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
     the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination 
     that--
       (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or 
     other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
     protect the national security of the United States against 
     the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to 
     lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
       (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with 
     the United States and other countries continuing to take the 
     necessary actions against international terrorists and 
     terrorist organizations, including those nations, 
     organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed 
     or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 
     11, 2001.
       (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
       (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with 
     section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
     declares that this section is intended to constitute specific 
     statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5 (b) 
     of the War Powers Resolution.
       (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers 
     Resolution.

     SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, 
     submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this 
     joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the 
     exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of 
     planning for efforts that are expected to be required after 
     such actions are completed, including those actions described 
     in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act 
     of 1998).
       (b) To the extent that the submission of any report 
     described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of 
     any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution 
     otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War 
     Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a 
     single consolidated report to the Congress.
       (c) To the extent that the information required by section 
     3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by 
     this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the 
     requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the goal of 
this Nation has been the same, to topple the dictatorship of Saddam 
Hussein and to bring freedom to the Iraqi people.
  Our coalition forces were successful in bringing down Saddam, and 
today he is facing the justice of the Iraqi people in a country that is 
beginning to understand and to live under the rule of law, not the rule 
of a barbaric and brutal dictator.
  Today the people of Iraq have elected an interim government that 
drafted a Constitution, subsequently approved by the Iraqi people, and 
on December 15 they will again go to the polls to elect a permanent 
Parliament. None of this could have been achieved without the sacrifice 
of the brave men and women who serve in our armed services.
  While we have been working to establish a democratic government, we 
have also been working to reestablish the Iraqi Army and security 
forces, and when the Iraqi forces are ready, our troops will come home, 
their mission accomplished.
  The question before the Congress today is shall we pull our troops 
out now before their mission is complete. Let us examine just for a 
second the consequences of such action.
  If our forces leave now, we would empower terrorists such as Zarqawi 
to spread violence against innocent civilians, unchecked. Iraq could 
then devolve into anarchy and become a base of terror operations. That 
is the question, and that is the risk, and I believe we must fight the 
terrorists at the heart of their power, not in the streets of America.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the same Members who voted in 2002 to support 
this effort now say that the President misled them. If they actually 
believe such an outrageous allegation, why did the President not just 
simply plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq while he was at it? 
This whole train of thought is absolutely nuts. They just looked at the 
same intelligence, and they cannot simply rewrite history.
  Mr. Speaker, with our assistance Iraq is making remarkable progress, 
and when our American forces do come home, they will come home as 
heroes, and our Nation will be more secure. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I represent over 40,000 patriotic Americans 
who have served in Iraq. Over 200 Army soldiers have given their lives 
there. I revere them, their service and their sacrifice, and that is 
exactly why I believe a vote on war is the single most solemn 
responsibility we ever have as a Member of Congress.

                              {time}  2030

  Yet tonight the House leadership, on a partisan basis, has given each 
Member of Congress on average 7.8 seconds. That is right, 7.8 seconds 
to speak his or her conscience on whether or not we should keep or 
remove our troops from Iraq.
  This process, especially without a single hearing, a single witness, 
on a resolution just introduced a few hours ago, does a disservice to 
the enormity of the issue of war and peace before us, to the integrity 
of this House, and to the sacrifice of our service men and women now in 
harm's way.
  In 1991, when this House debated whether to go to war in Iraq, and I 
was in that debate, Speaker Foley gave each Member of the House 5 
minutes, and the country was mesmerized by the voices of conscience on 
each side. What was the result? When the vote was cast, the country was 
united and the troops I represented knew their Nation was behind them.
  But this partisan process tonight does a disservice to our troops. It 
divides our Nation, and it divides this Congress. If we are going to 
debate the issue, the solemn issue of war and peace, let us do it the 
right way. Vote ``no'' on this resolution and let every Member of the 
House have the right to voice his or her conscience.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Renzi), a proud veteran.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to be honest with a lot of people in this House. My father 
served this Nation for 34 years. He has been friends with Jack Murtha 
for 20 years. Our families have known each other for over 20 years.
  Jack Murtha's resolution calls for a redeployment. Jack Murtha's Web 
site talks about redeployment. Duncan Hunter's resolution talks about 
immediate withdrawal. They are two separate issues. Both men do not 
impugn each other's character.
  The media may have taken Mr. Murtha's idea and spun it into immediate 
withdrawal, and that message may not be the message that our troops 
need to hear from this Congress. We need to be straight, and we need to 
be honest with each other.
  Leading up to this, there have been individuals who have come down 
here and have been insightful. We have got some tough guys in the House 
who want to say that this President manipulated prewar intelligence. 
Sandy Berger said, Saddam Hussein will use his weapons of mass 
destruction and he

[[Page 27460]]

will use them again probably 10 times. Madeleine Albright said, He 
jeopardizes stability in the region with weapons of mass destruction. 
The WMD Commission said they found no evidence of manipulation, and the 
9/11 Commission said they found no evidence of manipulation. Those are 
facts.
  Jack Murtha is a great man and a patriot. Duncan Hunter wants to send 
a message to our troops that says we are not saying we have to 
immediately withdraw. We need to come back after Thanksgiving, we need 
to think about it and go through what our strategy is in Iraq to best 
protect our boys and girls and to bring peace and stability to the 
region. And it needs to be thoughtful.
  But tough guys coming down here saying that this President 
manipulated evidence is a bald-faced deception.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, in the last week, two Vietnam veterans, one 
Democrat, one Republican, one in the House, one in the Senate, came to 
the same conclusion: the present course is not succeeding and is not 
working. Both have different solutions and different recommendations. 
Senator Hagel has his. Congressman Murtha has his. Senator McCain has 
his. Congressman Skelton has his. But what all of them have in common 
is that the present course is not succeeding. Doing more of the same 
and expecting a different result is failing our troops and failing our 
country.
  These policies and the policies the President has are not succeeding. 
But the reason each of these men has come forward with a recommendation 
is because all we are offered is more of the same. It is a policy void 
of leading us to a strategy of success and victory and departure. This 
is not a discussion about relitigating the past. It is a debate about 
how we succeed and exit, not about how we got in, but how we get out 
with victory.
  Now, I would think that after a series of the last 2\1/2\ years, what 
we can be criticized for here in this House is not for raising 
questions but for not having raised questions. We have given the 
administration an appropriated $450 billion, everything they have asked 
for. They have gotten everything from this Congress. Our role is to 
appropriate. We have appropriated. What we have not done is ask the 
questions, and we deserve criticism for not having had oversight, not 
having asked questions. That is where the fault lies in this House, 
because we did not ask the questions.
  What do we have? We appropriated $450 billion, 2,000 troops in Iraq, 
200 or more in Afghanistan, 15,000 fellow citizens wounded, and we have 
a single Iraqi battalion to show for it?
  We have a job to ask the questions in oversight. We abdicated our 
response. This is a course tonight to begin to ask and to begin debate 
because for 2\1/2\ years this Congress was silent in its role and the 
American people have asked us and demanded of us to speak up to the 
responsibility in our sworn oath and responsibilities.
  Whether it is Kevlar vests; whether it is Humvees; whether it is the 
Secretary of Defense, who originally said only 75,000 troops were 
needed; whether it was the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who said this 
would be 7 days and a short war, our men and women deserve a policy of 
success and victory and exit so they can come home to their families. 
And tonight we are having, finally, some debate, but we also need an 
overture of our responsibility and some oversight of what goes on. 
After $450 billion, 2,000 American lives, we have a responsibility.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Georgia for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here in the role of a parent. I am very proud that 
my oldest son served in the field artillery of the Army National Guard 
for a year in Iraq. He saw the progress of building a civil society in 
Iraq to protect American families. I am also grateful my second son is 
a doctor in the Navy, graduated from medical school this year. My third 
son graduated from signal school this year, just got back from serving 
a month in Egypt, again promoting democracy and freedom. My fourth son 
has indicated that next year he will be enlisting in the marines.
  My four sons understand September 11 was the beginning of a war, a 
global war against terrorism. I am very proud of their participation. 
We understand that we must face the enemy overseas, or we will be 
facing them here on the streets of America.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time. I appreciate the opportunity to address this 
House and the opportunity for us all to sit and listen to this debate.
  I hear a couple of different numbers, 25,000 wounded but 15,000 
wounded coming from the same side of the aisle. I am wondering if that 
is indicative of some of the other statistics that we have heard.
  But I ask this question: Why have I not heard any objections to our 
operations in Afghanistan? Twenty-five million people liberated and 
freed and standing on free soil, voting for their own freedom and their 
own national destiny, a cost of 200 American lives. Nobody set a value 
on that. How many is too many in Afghanistan?
  Twenty-five million Iraqis free, voting on free soil for the first 
time in their real lives, and what does this mean to America? It means 
that we have erased some of the habitat that breeds terror. Do we not 
understand this greater mission here is to eradicate that habitat so 
Arab people can breathe free and that free people do not go to war 
against free people? Could we look at this broader mission of 50 
million people freed? 2,200 American lives, tens of thousands of other 
lives. We have not been attacked in this country since that date for a 
lot of good reasons.
  You cannot separate the mission from the troops. You cannot sit here 
and say, I support the troops. Mr. President, we ought to bring the 
troops home. I do not support their mission. You cannot ask somebody to 
put their life on the line for your freedom and not support their 
mission, but tell them that you support the troops.
  Further more, I sat in Kuwait City and watched on television as 
Moqtada al-Sadr said, ``They will go home the same way they did from 
Vietnam, Lebanon, and Mogadishu.''
  We must stay the course.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for the 
consideration of House Resolution 571.
  But first I want to state for the record that I have a great deal of 
respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I do not believe that this 
resolution is about him or anyone else in this Chamber. This resolution 
is about our troops, our mission, and our commitment to finishing the 
job in Iraq. It is about communicating to the world where the Members 
of this Chamber stand on immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
  A number of my colleagues and I visited Iraq several times and met 
with the women who had run for office in elections there. These women, 
Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, risked their lives to help build a better Iraq. 
One woman lost her son and her bodyguard to assassins. Another was 
kidnapped and finally returned after a ransom was paid for her. Still 
others told harrowing stories about the pressures brought upon them 
simply because they were exercising the kind of rights that we take for 
granted.
  Mr. Speaker, the one thing that these brave women told us repeatedly 
was this: do not leave us. Do not leave us until we have a stable 
government. Do not leave us like you did before in 1990 after the gulf 
war, and do not leave us until we have the security that a stable 
government will provide.

[[Page 27461]]

  Let us honor this commitment. Let us honor our troops. Let us be 
clear of our intentions. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
reject the underlying resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, please let us tonight think about what we 
have accomplished, not in terms of what we have up in front of us, but 
what we have accomplished so far.
  Did the Members know that 47 countries have reestablished embassies 
in Iraq? Did the Members know that 3,100 schools have been renovated? 
Did the Members know that Iraq's higher education structure consists of 
20 universities, 46 institutes or colleges, and four research centers, 
all operating? Did the Members know that 25 Iraq students departed for 
the United States in January to reestablish the Fulbright program? Did 
the Members know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? Did the Members 
know that the Iraqi Air Force consists of three operational squadrons? 
Did the Members know that Iraq has a counterterrorist unit and a 
commando battalion?
  Did the Members know that the Iraqi police service has over 55,000 
fully trained and equipped police officers? Did the Members know that 
there are five police academies in Iraq that produce over 3,500 new 
officers every 8 weeks? Did the Members know that Iraq has an 
independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers, 
10 television stations? Did the Members know that two candidates in the 
Iraq presidential election had a televised debate recently?
  We have accomplished a great deal. We are on the road to success.
  I, like every other American, I am sure everybody in this room, want 
every American home tomorrow. I want them home and safe. I voted for 
the resolution to put these people in harm's way; and, therefore, like 
everybody here who did the same thing, I know that you feel as I do, a 
knife goes through your heart every time you see something on 
television, every time you read a report of another American being 
killed in Iraq. I want them home.

                              {time}  2045

  I want them home as soon as that mission is completed, the mission we 
sent them on, and a mission that I do not want extended by 1 hour or 1 
minute because of what we may do here.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, it is not a secret to anybody in 
this body, I am not on the best terms with the President and the White 
House. Certainly I do not get invited over there any more than my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I have been in 
opposition to many of his plans and proposals. However, I ask my 
friends on the other side of the aisle to do this, and I beg them to do 
this: Please do not let your hatred for the President of the United 
States get in the way of what I know is your basic love for this 
country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today my heart has ached more than it has in 12 years in 
being in the United States Congress. It has ached not because of this 
debate, because we should be having this debate, but not at this time 
of day, it should happen after the recess, but because the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania who I think is a great American, and it has hurt my 
heart that he has been under attack unfairly.
  Surely anyone who has ever worn the uniform for this Nation should be 
able to express themselves. And if you have not worn the uniform, you 
should be able to express yourself. Our Armed Forces are in Iraq and 
Afghanistan tonight fighting for freedom.
  Let me share with Members what James Webb, Secretary of Navy under 
Ronald Reagan and Vietnam veteran, wrote me when I joined my colleagues 
on the other side and the Republican side in voting for the House 
Resolution 55, bipartisan, he wrote me this letter, and I will read 
three sentences. ``When American citizens are being asked to war, it is 
their most basic right that the strategic issues be explained in 
clearly understandable terms. And if the endpoint cannot be clearly 
explained, there is, in fact, no really strategy.''
  That is what Mr. Murtha is asking for. That is what Senator Feingold 
is asking for. That is what Walter Jones and Ron Paul and Dennis 
Kucinich and Neil Abercrombie are asking: Tell us what the strategy is.
  I close with this. It is so ironic that we are having this debate 
tonight because on April 9, 1999, Governor Bush criticized President 
Clinton for not having a strategy. This is his quote in the Houston 
Chronicle: ``Victory means exit strategy, and it is important for the 
President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.'' That is all we 
are asking for.
  My last quote is from the New York Times on June 6, 1999. ``I think 
it is also important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how 
long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.'' That is 
Governor Bush asking President Clinton. Tonight we are asking President 
Bush the same thing he asked President Clinton.
  God, please bless our men and women in uniform; and please, God, 
bless America.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from North Carolina that this 
resolution is not an attack on any Member of this body. This resolution 
is about an attack on those Islamic Fascist terrorists who would 
destroy the men and women who are defending this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, calling for the immediate withdrawal 
or even a phased, detailed plan for withdrawal from Iraq is a recipe 
for absolute disaster. It is the wrong message for our soldiers and 
marines who are truly doing the work of freedom in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Frankly, I am concerned, as we all should be, that such talk will 
only embolden the terrorists and demoralize our warfighters, those who 
literally put their lives on the line each and every day. Domestic 
politics should not trump our promises to the people of Iraq and 
Afghanistan that we would be loyal to their aspirations for freedom, 
that we would see them through the difficult steps of constituting new 
governments and laying the groundwork for free elections.
  Our only exit strategy from Iraq should be victory. Anything less 
than that virtually guarantees the next battleground may be closer to 
home. We need to support our troops, these young troops. We cannot cut 
their feet out from underneath them. They need our support, and they 
need it tonight.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Jack Murtha is a decorated 
Vietnam war veteran. He is a United States Marine, retired colonel. 
This debate is not about the Iraq war, it is about silencing the 
opinion of a respected veteran marine and Member of Congress.
  I supported the Iraq war resolution and voted for every defense 
appropriation for that effort, and I am voting against this resolution. 
But we know with each casualty from Iraq that something is wrong. Our 
men and women in uniform are fighting heroically, and I honor them and 
their families for their sacrifice.
  It is civilian leadership and this administration and the Department 
of Defense that did not prepare to fight this war with either material 
or enough troops. I may not totally agree with my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, but I know him as a respected, decorated war veteran and 
a Member of Congress, and he has earned that right to be able to give 
his opinion without having a resolution attack him or have the Members 
attack him personally.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

[[Page 27462]]


  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran of two wars, I know that our 
military men and women fighting overseas watch what we do right here 
all the time. They see this on TV, they hear it on the radio, and they 
read our words in the newspapers. I know our brave men and women want 
to see their brave leaders, us, those of us in Congress here at home, 
have the political fortitude, yes, indeed the political stomach, to 
support their actions abroad.
  Like many in this Chamber from both sides of the aisle, I have been 
to Iraq, I have been to Afghanistan, I have met with our troops there, 
and I have met with them as they have returned home to Nevada. They 
know, they see, and they hear. They read what we are doing in Congress, 
and they listen, and they are listening to us today.
  What message do you want to send to these soldiers on the front line, 
a message of surrender, or do you want to send a message of support, a 
message that we will bring them to victory?
  Some will call this vote symbolic or political. Well, call it what 
you want, but I want our troops overseas to read about this vote, and I 
want them to know that we support them.
  As a veteran of two wars, I know first hand that our military men and 
women fighting for our freedoms overseas watch our actions at home.
  They see this on TV, they hear it on radio, and they read it in the 
newspapers.
  I know our brave men and women watch to see whether their leaders at 
home have the political fortitude, and the stomach to support their 
actions abroad.
  Like many in this Chamber, from both sides of the aisle, I have been 
to Iraq.
  I have been to Afghanistan.
  I have met with our troops there, and I have met with them as they 
have returned home to Nevada.
  They know, see, hear and read what we are doing in Congress, and they 
are listening to us today.
  What message do you want to send these soldiers on the front line?
  A message of surrender or a message of strength and support, that 
will bring us victory.
  Some call this vote simply symbolic or political.
  Well, you call it what you want, but I want our troops overseas to 
read about this vote.
  To hear about this vote.
  And I hope we can demonstrate not through just words, but our 
actions, that we are with them in this hour.
  We will remain with them, and supply them, and support them, until 
the job is done, until we are victorious, and until we can proudly 
bring them home and applaud their victory.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, how do you withdraw from the war 
on terror when we have been attacked over and over and over again? We 
were attacked at the World Trade Centers, the first time by a bomb. 
Then our African embassies were attacked; the Khobar Towers in Saudi 
Arabia where our young men and women were killed; the Cole naval 
vessel; and then 9/11.
  How do you tell Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi that we do not want to 
participate, we do not want to fool with fighting against terror?
  The last administration tried that, and we felt the pain of death and 
destruction on 9/11 from terrorist murderers' hands. We have to win in 
Iraq. By the way, we won the war in Iraq. Now we are fighting with our 
allies in Iraq to defeat terror. If we do not win in Iraq, we will fail 
in the greater Middle East, and what happens if Pakistan falls? What 
happens if Saudi Arabia falls? Weapons of mass destruction in the hands 
of Islamic extremists will be a disaster for the world.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Member what 
the focus of our attention should be: David Branning, Dale Burger, 
Robert Guy, Jason Mileo, Adam Mooney, Bryan Nicholas Spry, William 
Allers, Samuel Bowen, Jarrett Thompson, Patrick Adle, Neil Prince, and 
Keith Mariotti.
  They are the dead,
  short days ago they lived,
  felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
  and now they lie in Flanders Field,
  from my district.
  What are they asking us with a sense of urgency for the living? What 
are the quick and the dead asking us to do: Know more than they did.
  Why are our troops successful in harm's way? Because our troops bond 
together with an integration of integrity bound with trust.
  Let us debate how to finish the war, not how to continue to fight the 
war.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, a little over 24 hours 
ago, an American military hero suggested to this country that this 
Congress should debate the policy, the current policy in Iraq. He had 
some suggestions on how that policy should be changed. He believed, as 
we believe him, that he was doing this for the sake of our troops, for 
the sake of our country, for security in the Middle East, and the 
security of this country.
  In those 24 hours, he has come under unrelenting attack, 
characterizing him as an individual, as a Member of Congress, as to his 
motives, as to what he proposed, as opposed to what he said he 
proposed. Those attacks came from the President of the United States, 
from the Vice President of the United States, from the Speaker of the 
House, and from so many Members of this body who challenged his 
patriotism, challenged his character and challenged his integrity 
because he simply dared to kick open the doors of Congress and suggest 
that we debate the pressing question of this Nation that the people of 
this Nation want us to debate. Not that he would win that debate, but 
that he wanted that debate to take place, and that for that, all of his 
years of service to this country were openly challenged and 
mischaracter-ized and slandered.
  I do not know where we went wrong. I do not know where we went wrong 
because I went through the debates in this Congress in Vietnam and 
Central America, and Mr. Murtha and I could not be on more opposite 
sides of those issues. And many people I served with in the history of 
this Congress, but never in those debates did people assassinate the 
character of one another. We challenged the evidence, we challenged the 
assumptions. We challenged what was said, but we never ever, ever, did 
this to one another because we respected one another, having differing 
views coming from different parts of the country with different 
backgrounds.

                              {time}  2100

  Where did we go wrong? Maybe tonight Mr. Murtha gave us another gift. 
Sometimes when you hit bottom, you change the ways you do business. 
Maybe Mr. Murtha gave us this. After all that he suffered over this 
last 48 hours, maybe this Congress will be a better place, because 
everyone sitting in this Congress knows who knows Jack Murtha what has 
been said about him in the last 24 hours could not be further from the 
truth. That man is a hero. That man is a hero to this Nation. You know 
it and the whole Nation knows it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. With all due respect to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, especially my friend who just finished, this is selective 
memory at its worst. I can remember the very people now crying these 
crocodile tears and the vilification that they put forward on Ronald 
Reagan for trying to stop the Communists in Latin America, trying to 
end the Cold War. He was vilified as a warmonger, et cetera, by the 
very people who now are making these statements.
  Let me note Jack Murtha. I have the greatest respect for him. He is a 
patriot. But let me thus note that how many times have the people who 
are saying this have been down here calling our President a liar and 
vilifying the President of the United States. Come on. Let's be fair to 
one another

[[Page 27463]]

here. The fact is there is a disagreement on the character. Our hearts 
break when we see in the newspaper that four or five more Americans 
have lost their lives. That does not mean the cause that they are 
fighting for is unjust.
  You had an opportunity tonight to discuss that cause if you were 
opposed to the war. But instead what we have heard is this type of 
rhetoric, getting around the issue of the discussion that we should be 
talking about, the war, and then, in partisan terms, trying to make it 
partisan saying that we are being personal. No, let's discuss the war, 
let's discuss it honestly, and let's not obfuscate the issue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the most profound issue that this Congress 
must consider is whether or not to declare and prosecute war, whether 
or not to send our Nation's sons and daughters into harm's way. A 
serious proposal has been made by the senior Member of this body, a 
Member who honorably served in the United States Marine Corps for 
nearly four decades, a Member who has served here for more than three 
decades, and a Member who has been one of our Nation's leaders on 
making our defenses the strongest they could be. That proposal raises 
legitimate and critical questions as to the prosecution of our Nation's 
war efforts in Iraq, efforts that I have always supported. It suggests 
an alternative course of action that deserves serious consideration and 
a full and fair debate. However, his proposal is not before us tonight. 
The Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee offers a 
resolution to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq. I don't 
support that. Mr. Hunter does not support it. He offers it to avoid 
serious consideration of the policy our country is pursuing and 
proposals for possible alternatives. The majority party's response 
seeks to deal with this issue in a way that trivializes our 
consideration of how to conduct this war effort in a manner best 
designed to attain success. As such, this resolution is beneath the 
dignity and responsibility of this institution and the Members of this 
body.
  All of us have sworn to defend the Constitution and protect this 
Nation and the American people. All of us, all 435, support our troops. 
This resolution is unworthy of our responsibility to our men and women 
who are now serving our Nation and who are deployed in harm's way. 
Unfortunately, today's process mirrors, I say to you, the superficial 
consideration of serious policy issues in this Congress and 
demonstrates a continuing unwillingness to subject policy proposals to 
oversight and serious and thoughtful deliberation.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not possess the eloquence or the 
vocabulary to express the magnitude of my contempt with which I view 
this shabby, petty political maneuver. Our responsibilities to our 
country and to our men and women in harm's way in the defense of 
freedom demands more of us. The majority leadership demonstrates today, 
I fear, its lack of respect for this institution and for its great 
responsibilities to our democracy. The American people will see this 
day's proceedings for what they are, the rankest of politics and the 
absence of a sense of shame.
  I hope that we reject this rule and this resolution.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. John Adams wrote to Abigail back in the summer of 1776, 
``The thing that philosophers up to now have only dreamed about is 
within our grasp, the concept of self-government.''
  And, folks, in the cradle of mankind there in Iraq, there is within 
their grasp because of what we have done in the name of liberty and 
destroying terrorism, it is so close. This is not about one Member of 
Congress who was a hero in Vietnam. This is about a message that is 
being sent to the world. Right after the minority leader's district 
that she represents and leads told the world, The military is beneath 
us. Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to defend this Nation and the 
liberty. San Francisco said no recruiters in our city, a terrible 
message. Followed by, let's get our troops out and not support them.
  Join with us as you did in singing a prayer, God Bless America. Let 
the terrorists know. We don't want to divide you. We want to unite you 
with us.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember roughly 4 years ago after 9/11 what the 
feeling was in this Chamber. Everyone was united. We had a common 
purpose. And it was truly a great time to be here. The other night we 
went out and rolled around in the mud together for a little bit, and we 
were united. We had a common purpose. We wanted to have a great team.
  As I listen to what is going on here tonight, I am really concerned 
about the acrimony and the general tenor of the discussion. I realize 
that there is plenty of blame to be laid at everyone's feet. I with 
many others am concerned about what the American public perceives and 
what our troops perceive in regard to this discussion tonight. We can 
do better. We are better than this.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Many people have 
said tonight, this is not the Murtha resolution. I agree. It is not the 
Murtha resolution. Unfortunately, it is my friend Jack Murtha's 
headline. In fact, Al-Jazeera today was what our troops, our 
constituents in Iraq woke up to today saying that a leading Member of 
Congress has called for the immediate withdrawal. That is what Al-
Jazeera said. That is why sometimes the media that gets in the way 
injects itself and it brings down the morale of our troops. That is why 
I am going to vote ``no'' on this resolution tonight, because I think 
it is important to send them another message and a very clear message 
that we do not support immediate withdrawal.
  My friend, General Webster, who leads the Third Infantry Division 
over there, spoke very strongly about it. He said, ``Setting a date 
would mean the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, that their lives will 
have been lost in vain. I think it's a recipe for disaster. Setting a 
date is a loser.'' General Webster is a soldier, not a politician. I 
think he would appreciate tomorrow morning reading in the paper that 
Congress clearly rejected an immediate withdrawal.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Army Captain Joel Cahill was buried in Arlington 
Cemetery today. Captain Cahill was killed in Iraq by an improvised 
explosive device. He grew up near Omaha. He leaves behind Mary his wife 
and their two little girls.
  Army Specialist Darren Howe was laid to rest in Beatrice, Nebraska 
last week. He died of wounds from an explosive device that hit his 
personnel carrier. Badly burned, Specialist Howe drove to safety, then 
helped his men out of the rear. He was 21 and left behind his wife 
Nakia and their two small children.
  I spoke with JoDee, Darren's mom, in what had to be some of her most 
difficult hours following Darren's death. She had the gentleness of 
spirit, humility of heart and pride of her son's work to thank me and 
the Congress for the decisions that have been made, saying: We support 
what you are doing. Iraq is a faraway land remote from the traditions 
and culture of the Great Plains, the boyhood homes of Joel and Darren. 
Yet I am certain that in that isolated place where they gave their 
lives, these men understood what was at stake. That they fought for 
something bigger than themselves, something that transcends the 
snapshot of a political debate. They fought out of duty to country, 
they fought to defend, they fought for the soul of the free world.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the minority leader the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi).

[[Page 27464]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as the very proud representative of the city 
of San Francisco in the Congress of the United States, from northern 
California where we have more veterans than any other part of the 
country per capita and we treat them with respect as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is not being treated as a distinguished veteran with 
respect here.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day for the House of Representatives. 
Just when you think you have seen it all, the Republicans have stooped 
to a new low, even for them. They have engaged in an act of deception 
that undermines any shred of dignity that might be left in this 
Republican Congress. But deception has been the order of the day 
throughout the entire Iraq engagement.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. Hunter's resolution is a continuation of that deception. It is a 
political stunt, and it should be rejected by this House.
  The Republican deception today is a disgrace. It is a disservice to 
our country and to our men and women in uniform. They and the American 
people deserve better. It is an insult to the integrity of Jack Murtha, 
one of the most distinguished Members to ever serve in this House of 
Representatives.
  As has been said, Jack Murtha is a decorated war veteran: two Purple 
Hearts, the Bronze Star for his combat service, the Vietnam Cross of 
Gallantry, 37 years of active and reserve duty in the marines. His 
lifetime motto has been Semper Fi; and yet our Republican colleagues 
call him a coward and accuse him of cooperating with the enemy.
  As a senior Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Committee, he is 
known and respected for his bipartisanship. That is why this Republican 
attack on him is so dishonest.
  Mr. Murtha has dealt the mighty blow of truth to the President's 
failed Iraq policy. The American people have rallied to Jack Murtha's 
message of truth. But you cannot handle the truth. Why are the 
Republicans so afraid of the facts?
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Senator from Ohio, Robert Taft, who would 
become the Republican leader of the Senate said, ``Criticism in a time 
of war is essential to the maintenance of any democratic government.'' 
Indeed, Mr. Murtha's courageous action to speak truth to power is a 
great act of patriotism.
  As one who has always had the interests of America's men and women in 
uniform as his top priority, Mr. Murtha has acted as he always does: in 
their interests. Let us all join him in saluting our troops for their 
courage, their patriotism, and the sacrifice that they are willing to 
make, and thank Jack Murtha for his loyalty to them.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is important to restate for 
the morale of our troops that this Congress and this country remain 
resolved in the war against terrorism. From the streets of Iraq to the 
mountains of Afghanistan, America will leave no spider hole, no palace, 
no bunker overlooked as we help freedom-loving people fight the 
terrorist insurgencies of Islamo-
fascists and protect democracy worldwide.
  Our greatest loss would be to withdraw our troops, thereby ceding 
victory to cowardly terrorists who murder and hide under the cover of 
shadows.
  Mr. Speaker, over 2,000 of our best and bravest have fought and 
sacrificed their lives in defense of democracy and in the face of these 
terrorists. These individuals deserve our thanks and their families 
need to know that they did not die in vain.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot of words have been thrown about in this Chamber 
tonight, but talk is often cheap. And while cheap talk abounds, 
unfortunately, cheap talk is not bounded, it is not insulated by oceans 
or mountains, and certainly not by the media.
  The words of this Congress and its Members echo out beyond this 
hallowed Chamber, beyond these hallowed Halls to every household and to 
every foreign shore.
  Our troops are listening, Mr. Speaker. They hear those who denigrate 
their mission. They hear those who rely on the false pillar of 
semantics, seeking to divide the American people.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, our troops are listening tonight, and while talk 
is cheap, our vote is sacrosanct. So I call on my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to put their vote on the Record and put the rhetoric 
aside.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Let us have 
this debate for the sake of our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 210, 
nays 202, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 607]

                               YEAS--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     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
     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
     Hastert
     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
     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 (FL)

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     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 (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

[[Page 27465]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--22

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. SIMMONS, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, House 
Concurrent Resolution 308 is adopted.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 308

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3058) 
     making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, 
     Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 
     District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 
     following correction:
       In the second paragraph (relating to the Economic 
     Development Initiative) under the heading ``Community 
     Development Fund'' in title III of division A, strike 
     ``statement of managers accompanying this Act'' and insert 
     ``statement of managers correction relating to the Economic 
     Development Initiative, dated November 18, 2005, and 
     submitted by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives for printing in the House 
     section of the Congressional Record on such date''.

                          ____________________