[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27465-27488]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE THAT DEPLOYMENT OF FORCES IN IRAQ BE 
                         TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up 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 ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 571

       Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the deployment of United States forces 
     in Iraq be terminated immediately.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  On October 15 of this year, 63 percent of Iraq's eligible voters 
stood in the suffocating heat for hours risking their lives to suicide 
bombers and guns. And why? Because they dared to vote.
  Do we honor their bravery by abandoning them?
  Nobody wants war. War has been truly described as hell. But at the 
same time, things are worth fighting for and even dying for. And among 
those things is precious freedom. Our own freedom was born in the 
crucible of a 9-year war to the sounds of muskets well described as the 
``shots heard round the world.''
  We can argue endlessly about the wisdom of getting into this war, but 
there should be no argument about how

[[Page 27466]]

this war should end. The consequences of our retreat have not been 
discussed here tonight, but they deserve consideration.
  This debate has been a report card on Jack Murtha, and I give him an 
A-plus as a truly great American. But among his many fine qualities, 
infallibility is not one. And on Iraq I prefer my country not to 
retreat, not to run to the high grass.
  I prefer the counsel of John McCain who said last week, ``If we leave 
Iraq prematurely, the jihadists will interpret the withdrawal as their 
great victory against our great power. Osama bin Laden and his 
followers believe that America is weak, unwilling to suffer casualties 
in battle. They drew this lesson from Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia 
in the 1990s, and today they have their sights set squarely on Iraq.''
  The recently released letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's 
lieutenant, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, draws out the implications.
  The Zawahiri letter is predicated on the assumption that the United 
States will leave Iraq and that al Qaeda's real game begins as soon as 
we abandon the country.
  In his missive, Zawahiri lays out a four-stage plan: establish a 
caliphate in Iraq, extend the ``jihad wave'' to the secular countries 
neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel, none of which shall commence until 
the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq.
  Zawahiri observes that the collapse of American power in Vietnam 
``and how they ran and left their agents,'' suggests that ``we must be 
ready starting now.''
  We cannot let them start, now or ever.
  We must stay in Iraq until the government there has a fully 
functioning security apparatus that can keep Zarqawi and his terrorists 
at bay and ultimately defeat them.
  I prefer the counsel of another war hero, my personal hero, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who stands with the President, 
the Iraqi people, and freedom fighters everywhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for purposes of control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution and in 
defense of a military hero of this Nation, our distinguished colleague, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  In a few moments I will ask unanimous consent to yield to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) the balance of the time on the 
Democratic side, but I would like to put this debate in its proper 
framework.
  This is not the finest moment of the House of Representatives. We 
have all sat through interminable debates on inconsequential issues, 
but tonight we are talking about war and peace.
  Fifteen years ago when we debated the first gulf war, every single 
Member of this body got 5 minutes to present his views. This time we 
are getting less than 8 seconds. What we are debating is not a serious 
proposal, but a cheap political ploy beneath the dignity of this body.

                              {time}  2200

  The subject of the war in Iraq deserves serious and thoughtful 
discussion and debate, and we are surely not having it tonight. There 
is no Member of this House for whom I have more respect and affection 
than the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the epitome of patriotism, not of 
the oratorical type, but patriotism on the field of battle.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) the balance of the time for him to control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we are doing tonight is sending a very 
valuable message. It is not necessarily a message to diplomats or to 
the President or even to our adversaries; although I am sure that they 
will read about it. But it is a message to that specialist in Tikrit, 
to that lance corporal in Fallujah, to that sergeant in Baghdad who 
feels by looking at the mass of press over the last several days that 
somehow we are slipping away from our warfighters.
  We have an opportunity to do something tonight by very simply voting 
``no'' on this question of whether we should leave Iraq immediately to 
at least cut through that ambiguity, to at least cut through that 
confusion, and you know, words mean something. Wars have been started 
because we said the wrong words. Confusion is not something that is 
good to sow among your enemy or your friends.
  In this case, even those who may feel that somehow the troops are not 
confused by this mixed message that is coming out of the United States 
must agree that it is right now to send that specialist in Tikrit or 
that lance corporal in Fallujah or that sergeant in Baghdad a clear and 
convincing ``no'' vote on the question of whether we leave Iraq 
immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this 
resolution. I have been in this body 19 years, and I did not support 
setting artificial dates to remove our troops from Bosnia, Somalia, 
Kosovo, East Timor, Macedonia and all the other times that we have 
deployed our troops.
  In fact, even when we were told back in 1997, the year after we 
entered Bosnia, that our troops would be home by Christmas, I did not 
rise to bring them home. We were told in Christmas of 1998 they would 
be home and Christmas of 1999. The fact is we still have troops in the 
Balkans. They have been there 10 years, even though it was not part of 
the original plan.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us support our troops, but I want to tell my 
colleagues, in my 19 years I learned a lesson of supporting the troops 
from the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He took me under his wing when I 
came here as a freshman 19 years ago. I have traveled with him around 
the world. I have seen his personal dedication to the men and women who 
serve.
  Now, there are many others in this body on both sides of the aisle 
that we can say the same thing about, but I want to stand up as a 
Representative from the other side of Pennsylvania and tell the story 
of Jack Murtha who epitomizes what our military's all about. I wish I 
could say I have been to Landstuhl, a medical facility in Germany, as 
many times as Jack Murtha has been there.
  I wish I could say that weekly I would go over to Walter Reed 
Hospital and meet with the troops as Jack Murtha has done week after 
week after week.
  I wish I could say I have gone and held the hands of the wives and 
the children of the sailors at Bethesda as Jack Murtha has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I have done all that, but I 
cannot. Jack Murtha is one of a kind. He is an example for all of us in 
this body, and none of us should ever think of questioning his motives, 
his desires or support for our American troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say I have been here 19 years. I have 
been here with Republican and Democrat Presidents. Yes, Jack Murtha's 
been there. He stood up when Bill Clinton tried to cut the funding for 
our troops, and he stood with us on some very tough votes. He stood up 
with us on the tough policy questions. He was with us on missile 
defense. He was with us when others in his party would not be with us 
on defense and security issues. On some very tough leadership spots 
Jack Murtha was there, and for the 5 years that President Bush has been 
President, I cannot count on my hands the number of times Jack Murtha 
has stood with our President in supporting our troops in supporting 
more money, in supporting the policies that give us the kind of 
capability that we need.

[[Page 27467]]

  Mr. Speaker, we are in a sad state today. We are in a tough time with 
our troops. They are wondering what is going on back here. It is not 
about Jack Murtha trying to undermine anyone, just as I and others 
would not have tried to do that in the other 40 deployments in the 19 
years that I have been here, but it is wrong, Mr. Speaker, that a 
gentleman with the reputation and leadership of Jack Murtha should have 
to wait 5 months to get a response to a letter expressing his concerns 
to the administration. That is not right.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would all come together, and I would 
hope that our Commander in Chief would invite the good gentleman from 
Pennsylvania down to the White House to have a discussion about how we 
can move forward together to support the troops and win the day in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Somebody walked by not long ago, and they said, I do not have to go 
to your funeral because I paid my dues today with all these people 
giving these accolades.
  I have to tell you this story. When you start getting all these 
accolades, you think you are a big shot. I remember one time President 
Carter asked me to go to the seventh game of the World Series with him. 
Tip O'Neill and I went down, and there were only 4 of us and 15 Secret 
Service people in the plane.
  We got in this helicopter and, of course, flew over all these other 
people going to the ballgame. Well, Carter was not the most pleasant 
guy to be with. He wanted to talk all business, and Tip O'Neill wanted 
to talk nothing but baseball.
  So we get about halfway there, and it is not a very long trip to 
Baltimore. Tip finally got him warmed up. We land, and we only land a 
block away from the stadium, but we had to have an armored car drive us 
in. So the President said, you sit in the middle there, Murtha, and Tip 
sat on the left side, and the President sat on the right side. Some guy 
yelled out some obscenities. He said, My God, they must have recognized 
Murtha in the car.
  Let me say, this resolution today is not what I envisioned, not what 
I introduced, and let me read what I introduced on November 17.
  ``Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, 
measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving 
security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of 
which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic 
government';
  ``Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces 
cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of 
additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a 
military draft.''
  Now, let me say this. There were two of us who voted for a military 
draft, so I do not think that is an option. When you go to the high 
schools, they say, you are for a draft. I said, yes, but there is not 
too many of us, and I do not think you have to worry about it.
  ``Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United 
States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and 
Afghanistan;
  ``Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops 
have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
  ``Whereas U.S. forces become the target of the insurgency;
  ``Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi 
people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;
  ``Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent,'' this is a British 
poll, but the Defense Department support this British poll or confirm 
this British poll, ``of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. 
forces are justified.''
  Hear what I am saying. Forty-five percent of the Iraqi people feel it 
is justified to attack Americans.
  ``Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that 
continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of 
the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf 
Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for 
undertaking such action.''
  I did not say anything about intelligence. I did not say anything 
about the President. All these statements that have been made vilifying 
me today did not say anything like that.
  ``Therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the 
deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, 
is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at 
the earliest practicable date.
  ``Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon 
presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.
  ``The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in 
Iraq through diplomacy.''
  That is what I said. I have never had in the 32 years that I have 
been in Congress such an outpouring from this country, four to one in 
my office. You cannot even call my office if you tried, an outpouring 
of people crying. People are thirsting for some direction. They are 
thirsting for a solution to this problem. They want to support the 
President. I want to support the President. Everybody does.
  We put into place in the Appropriations Committee a criteria for 
success because we were so unhappy. This was in May. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and I put a criteria for success in the bill, it 
was a Moran amendment, because we were not happy with the results. 
Nobody was talking to us. Nobody would tell us what was going on, and 
we felt it was absolutely necessary that we put this into writing.
  I went to Iraq about 2 months ago, and I talked to the commanders, 
and all of you know the commanders are very hesitant to say anything 
that is not in the policy of the White House, and I agree, that is the 
way it is run by the civilians. That is the way it should be, but I 
could tell how discouraged the commanders were.
  The one Marine commander said, I do not have troops to put on the 
border, the Syrian border. Now, why did they not have enough troops? 
Because of the deployment, because of the small number of people that 
are serving in our Armed Forces today.
  We told them, the Armed Services Committee, under Duncan Hunter's 
leadership, said you can take 30,000 more people. They cannot recruit 
to that. They have fallen 10,000 short; and not only have they fallen 
10,000 short, they are now taking 20 percent category 4s, which they 
said in the voluntary Army would never happen.
  The war's not going as advertised. The American public is way ahead 
of us. If you heard the World War II veterans, if you heard the Vietnam 
veterans, the wives and the widows on the phone crying to my staff and 
myself when I am talking to them, if you heard them reaching out and 
asking for a policy, a bipartisan policy. When I introduced this 
resolution, I did not introduce this as a partisan resolution.
  I go by Arlington Cemetery every day, and the Vice President, he 
criticizes Democrats. Let me tell you, those gravestones do not say 
Democrat or Republican. They say American, and Dick Cheney's a good 
friend of mine. He was a good Secretary of Defense.
  Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We 
cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued 
military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United 
States of America, the Iraqi people and the Persian Gulf region. That 
is my opinion.
  General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, the perception of 
occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. Hear 
what I am saying. General Abizaid said on the same date, reducing the 
size of visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our 
counterinsurgency strategy.
  For 2\1/2\ years I have been concerned about our policy and the plan 
in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns to the administration and the 
Pentagon.

                              {time}  2215

  I have spoken out in public about my concerns in going to war.
  A few days before the start of the war, I was in Kuwait. They drew a 
red line around Baghdad; and they said

[[Page 27468]]

when the American forces cross the red line, they will attack us with 
weapons of mass destruction, meaning biological and chemical weapons. I 
believed that. They believed it. The military commanders believed it. 
And when they went in, though, they felt they had sufficient protective 
gear that they could overcome it. The heat would dissipate some of the 
gas and so forth, and it would be no problem for our forces, they felt. 
They even thought they had cell phones monitored so they could tell 
that it was there. It turned out not to be true.
  Let me tell the Members this: Bill Young and I have been on the 
Defense Subcommittee for 25 years. We spend more money on intelligence 
than all the countries in the world put together and more on 
intelligence than most countries' GDP. But the intelligence concerning 
Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. 
intelligence failure.
  I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda, and only two 
people, I think, visit any more than I do, and that is Bill Young's 
wife and Bill Young. They go there as often as I do, and Beverly goes 
more often.
  Now, let me tell the Members what demoralizes the troops. Going to 
war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to 
peace, the devastation caused by IEDs, being deployed to Iraq when 
their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes, being under second and 
third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of 
support.
  The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that 
cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to meet all these threats. The 
future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are 
stretched thin. A very small percentage of people in this country are 
serving this country at this stage in this war. Many say the Army is 
broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment 
is down. Defense budgets are being cut, $5 billion this year, $5 
billion cut from the defense budget; and the chairman and I are 
concerned they are going to cut another percentage point, which is $4 
billion more, from the defense budget.
  Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. And 
choices have to be made. We cannot allow a promise that we have made to 
our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their 
health care to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our 
military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared.
  The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls in our bases in the United 
States. I visited four bases, four Southern bases, premier bases. Every 
one of them was short, short radios, short mortars, short ammunition 
even. Our troops were C-4, which means the lowest state of readiness, 
because they did not have the equipment to train right before they are 
deployed to Iraq. And much of our ground equipment is worn out and in 
need of serious overhaul.
  I have said to all these CEOs that come to see me, Folks, do not 
think about procurement. We about bought, what, five or six ships this 
year, something like that. They said they are going to build 12 next 
year. Do not believe that. But I will tell the Members one thing we 
have to do is rehabilitate this equipment. A $50 billion bill, in my 
estimation, and I do not know where the money is going to come from.
  George Washington said: ``To be prepared for war is one of the most 
effective means of preserving peace.'' I do not know what the threat 
is, but I will tell you it takes 18 years to get a weapons system out 
there, and we had better well get those systems put together now. We 
had better start them right now because we do not have them. They have 
a system right now they are thinking of cutting back. The Europeans 
invested a lot of money in it. Billions of dollars have been invested 
in this weapon system, JSF. If they cut back the buy, the cost to 
increase, the Europeans will cut back on their buy, and it will 
skyrocket the price; and we will have to reduce the number of airplanes 
that we buy. We must rebuild our Army.
  Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being ``terrified'' 
about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first 
prolonged war we have fought with 3 years of tax cuts, without full 
mobilization of American industry, and without a draft. The burden of 
war has not been shared equally, and the military and their families 
are shouldering this burden.
  Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over 2\1/2\ years. 
Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our 
military captured Saddam Hussein, captured or killed his closest 
associates. But the war continues to intensify. And you know the deaths 
and you know they estimate that not only do we have 15,500 that have 
been wounded, but we have 50,000 that we think may suffer from what I 
call battle fatigue.
  I just recently visited Anbar Province, as I said, and I became 
convinced that we had to take some action. I became convinced that I 
needed to say something about what was going on. I needed to introduce 
a resolution which would bring this to a head so we could come to a 
bipartisan resolution to fight this war together, to show our troops 
how we support them, and that resolution calls for a redeployment of 
our troops. I said over a year ago now, the military and the 
administration agree, Iraq cannot be won militarily.
  We can say it here in these air conditioned offices, but let me tell 
you something. It cannot be won militarily. It has got to be won 
politically, and we have to turn it over to the Iraqis and give them 
the incentive to take back their own country.
  Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are 
united against U.S. forces. We have become the catalyst for violence. 
U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists, and the 
foreign jihadists. I believe with U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi 
security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently 
conducted shows 80 percent of the Iraqis oppose the presence of 
coalition troops. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I 
believe the Iraqi election scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people 
in the emerging government must be put on notice: the United States 
will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, 
free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal 
to the Sunnis to join the political process for a good and free Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
gentleman who spends so much of his time with our Nation's wounded.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Americans can sleep well tonight 
because our soldiers are out there on the front line against terror 
making sure that we can do that. And we owe them a lot. We owe them our 
thanks. We owe them our appreciation. We owe them the necessary 
equipment to carry out their mission, to protect themselves while they 
are doing that, and we owe them our support. And it is important that 
we let them know without any doubt that we support them, that this 
Congress supports them. And that is why, in case there is any confusion 
about how we would like Members to vote on this resolution tonight, we 
want them to vote ``no.'' This is not a good resolution.
  Incidentally, in case the Members have not noticed, Jack Murtha spent 
more time tonight speaking on the floor than he has in the last 20 
years combined presenting the appropriations bills.
  Jack and I have been friends for a long time, as he suggested, and we 
have worked together. He was my chairman for a long time. I have been 
his chairman for a long time. We work together for the best interest of 
our Nation and for those who protect our Nation. And he has received 
many accolades tonight and properly so.
  Chairman Hunter, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also

[[Page 27469]]

deserves accolades. He was willing to offer this resolution, which we 
all are going to vote against, I hope. Chairman Hunter was an airborne 
soldier in Vietnam, and he led a platoon of Rangers in Vietnam. 
Chairman Hunter deserves an awful lot of thanks and appreciation for 
the work that he did then and the work that he is doing tonight here on 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about Jack Murtha tonight, and it is not 
about Duncan Hunter. This is about 296 of us who voted to support the 
President going into Iraq to fight terror, to fight Saddam Hussein and 
his vicious armies. Once you have committed to a war or to a battle, it 
is like some other things in life, once you are committed, you are 
committed, like it or not. And we got committed when we voted to send 
troops to Iraq.
  Now, how do you get out of a commitment like that? Well, you can win. 
That is the preferred way. Or you can lose. We do not like that. You 
could retreat, or you could surrender. I do not think we like either 
one of those two.
  Or there is another way: we could negotiate our way out. But in a 
case of global terrorists, whom do you negotiate with? They hide. They 
sneak. Would you negotiate with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Al-
Zarqawi? Whom do you negotiate with? You do not have anybody to 
negotiate with because they are pure and simple terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many things that have been said tonight on 
both sides of the aisle that are very important. There has been a 
little bit of spin here and there, but that is not unusual for a 
legislative body like this. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no place, when 
we are dealing with the security of our Nation and the security of the 
American people, there is no place for politics on either side.
  So tonight, Mr. Speaker, we need to send a strong message to our 
troops and to their families. For those families who are dealing with 
the loss of a loved one, for those families who are dealing with a 
seriously wounded soldier or marine who might be at Walter Reed 
Hospital or at Bethesda Hospital or at Landsthul in Germany, we need to 
let them know that we are here to support them.
  In a few short days when we will be back to legislative business, 
there is another issue that we have to deal with, and I am going to 
take advantage of this extra minute to tell the Members what it is. 
Somebody in the Pentagon has ruled that if Jack Murtha and I go to 
hospital with my wife, Beverly, which we do on occasion, and she makes 
us empty our wallets to help a family that is struggling to meet their 
expenses, some regulation at the Pentagon says that is illegal, that is 
bribery. What can I bribe a wounded soldier to do? He has already done 
everything that he can do for me. So we need to change that.

                              {time}  2230

  So we need to change that. Chairman Hunter and I and Mr. Murtha and I 
have worked together with our counterparts in the Senate, and we intend 
to fix this on the first legislative or appropriations bills we have 
access to. So that is what this is about tonight, to let our soldiers 
win this war against terror not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and 
anywhere else that terrorists raise their ugly heads. This is not 
limited to Iraq. Iraq is one of the major battlefields. Afghanistan is 
one of the major battlefields.
  My friends, we are in it for the long haul against the threat of 
terrorism, and it is important that we prevail and support those on the 
front line against terror and vote ``no'' tonight on this resolution 
that does not do any of what I just said.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee and 
does so much for the quality of life for our troops.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from two giants of this 
body, men that we are all very, very proud of. If we had any sense, we 
would all sit down right now and take the vote; and I will give up my 
time if everybody else will give up theirs, and we will vote. I am told 
no, that is not going to work.
  So let me try to be brief. Both of these gentlemen expressed the 
conflicting views in a most sincere way, and I think we respect both of 
them.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in opposition to H. Res. 571. I 
want us to withdraw the moment the job is done, and that is what our 
troops are telling us, too. They want to stay there until it is done. 
That is what most of the Iraqi people tell us, do not leave us until it 
is done.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some out there insisting that the mission on 
Iraq has been a failure, and our presence in Iraq has not been properly 
run, and we are not winning the peace. Frankly, I do not think that is 
true, and it only serves to lower the morale of the men and women 
fighting in Iraq while encouraging the terrorists who hate America.
  The fact is those who assert that the Iraq policy is failing frankly 
fail to recognize the many successes that have occurred on a daily 
basis over there. What we are talking about is fighting terror and 
liberating a people. Look at just the political successes. They have 
had two elections, and those two elections, most of those people had 
never voted in a free election in their entire lives. On October 15, 
they adopted a Constitution. They did not know what a Constitution was, 
and 78 percent of the voters backed the charter of the Constitution.
  We are making enormous progress toward liberty and democracy for the 
Iraqi people, and by extension the people of the Middle East. I say 
thank you, troops, for what you are doing. We love you, and we are 
going to be with you until the job is done.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Normally the soldiers cannot speak for themselves. I do not believe 
we are making the progress that is articulated in many cases. 
Everything I see, oil production is below prewar level; electricity 
production is below prewar level; incidents have increased from 150 a 
week to 770 a week in Iraq.
  But let me read a letter from a young soldier at Walter Reed. 
Everybody says when you go to Walter Reed, they all want to go right 
back, and they usually do not complain. Let me read this letter.
  ``I am sure you are extremely busy today with the announcement of 
your support for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We have been 
trying unsuccessfully to reach you by phone.
  ``My husband is an injured Iraq soldier who so highly commends you 
for speaking out about this disastrous war and its aftermath on U.S. 
troops. Though we are now living in Washington, D.C., on the Walter 
Reed campus, we are originally from your 12th District in Pennsylvania.
  ``Congressman Murtha actually pinned my husband's Purple Heart. We 
are so proud that he was the man to honor my husband for what he did in 
Iraq. It may serve Mr. Murtha more to remind him that my husband is the 
24-year-old guardsman who lost part of a leg in a suicide car bomb 
attack in April of this year.
  ``We were shocked and overjoyed that Murtha spoke out against the 
Bush administration's handling of the war. Unlike what many say is a 
blow to troop morale by questioning the war, his frank call for 
attention to the subject brought nods and applause from the injured 
soldiers at Walter Reed's Mologne House. It is the first that my 
husband and I feel that a politician has truly stuck up for the 
soldiers most personally affected by the war in Iraq.''
  We send the soldiers to the war. We are the ones that make that 
decision. We also have to speak out when we do not think the war is 
going in the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), who served multiple tours in Vietnam.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I 
am proud to be a Vietnam veteran. I am proud to have spent almost 4 
years in that country with the U.S. Army and

[[Page 27470]]

the Central Intelligence Agency, but I was not proud when Members of 
Congress, Members of this body, criticized us in the course of that war 
publicly back here at home. Their critical comments were demoralizing 
and undercut our efforts. It encouraged our enemy, and it placed us at 
risk.
  At some point in the 1970s, our national will broke down, we cut and 
ran. We left our friends behind, my colleagues, my counterparts. And we 
abandoned Southeast Asia to unprecedented slaughter and destruction.
  Now 30 years later I find myself on this same floor talking about the 
``immediate redeployment'' of our troops from a foreign battlefield 
where they are fully engaged in a difficult and dangerous mission.
  More than anyone else, this Vietnam veteran wants to see our troops 
come home safely, successfully and soon. But now is not the time for 
immediate withdrawal. Now is the time to support our troops and the 
values they fight for.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me read another letter.
  ``We are Gold Star parents. Our son was killed October 18, 2003, 
south of Kirkuk with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. You and I talked for 
about 90 minutes on the phone in early 2004. I have spent the better 
part of 2 years lobbying for improved body armor.''
  Do Members remember, we sent the troops to war without body armor? We 
found the body armor. We found the shortage and up-armored the Humvees. 
Congress found it, and we put the money in the bill.
  ``We believe the best way to support the troops is through a 
responsible and well-thought-out foreign policy.''
  Not stay the course, but a thought out, and this is from a woman 
whose son was killed.
  ``We do not have that policy today in Iraq. By staying in Iraq, we 
have become occupiers instead of liberators.'' And 80 percent of the 
Iraqis think that.
  ``Today we are called un-American because we are obligated to 
disagree with the President. We want better for our son's comrades. It 
is our obligation to stand up and be counted to support the troops, to 
speak for those that are not free to speak for themselves, to use their 
bravery and sacrifice wisely. You, sir, are a man of our heart. God 
knows why the rest of the Democratic Party is not rallying around you, 
but we are. Even as we stand alone, it is the right thing to do. Our 
support is unequivocal for you on matter in this dangerous and lonely 
time.''
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and 
who is a colonel in the Army Reserve and a Gulf War veteran.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Mr. Murtha and Mr. 
Hunter. And I am uncomfortable when Mr. Murtha talks about one 
political party rallying round something. I do not want Republicans or 
Democrats rallying around anything. You moved me when I was in my 
office and you talked about going to Arlington. All of us have been 
there; all of us have been to our Nation's cemeteries and seen the 
white crosses and Stars of David.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) and I were privileged 
to represent our country this past May, and I am sure Mr. Murtha has 
been there, standing on the cliffs of Normandy at Omaha. We gave the 
Memorial Day address representing our Nation. I was there with my 20-
year-old son, and I could feel the envy of souls because I thought 
about what their last thoughts may have been. And then as I strained 
among these thousands of graves, if I permitted the eyes of my mind to 
have a vision I could actually see, if I permitted the ears of my heart 
to listen, I could hear.
  And what did they say? They said, What we did on this day was worthy. 
You see, they came to a continent to free it from tyranny on that day. 
They came to a land where they had never been to fight for a people 
they had never met. Does that not yet sound familiar?
  And we speak of the sacrifice of what we refer to as the greatest 
generation. How are we now yet defining ourselves when our men and 
women are faced with something very similar.
  We should be here tonight talking of our strategy of victory, defined 
by our perseverance to an enduring freedom throughout the world. To 
discuss withdrawal from Iraq tonight before our mission is complete is 
the wrong strategy at the wrong time. Why? Because freedom is on the 
move.
  We, the people of the United States, we are a great Nation with a 
great vision. We seek to preserve the blessings of liberty for our 
citizens and for all those around the world who recognize the God-given 
right of freedom.
  Today our Nation is truly engaged in an epic struggle for freedom in 
Iraq. Whether you believe how we got there is true, the struggle among 
us is evident here tonight. What we do not want is what Mr. Hyde 
referred to as our enemies to take advantage of our weaknesses. The 
painful lessons, whether it was Vietnam or Lebanon or Somalia, North 
Korea, Iran, al Qaeda, they watch, and it is part of what they want to 
do to envelope our weakness.
  You see, Clausewitz had it right. He said, The use of our military 
force is the instrumentality of a political decision. We then expect 
our military to act on the field of battle with great valor, courage 
and commitment. You see, they are an extension of us. And in return, 
our soldiers ask what of us? Loyalty. And they expect us to have the 
very same resolve that we expect of them; that in battle, they look at 
us and say, when it gets hard, when it gets tough, can you hang with 
us, Congress? That is a very pertinent question for a soldier to ask of 
us.
  So I respect Mr. Murtha, but this is the wrong time for your 
resolution, sir.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman may state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LANTOS. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are debating Mr. 
Murtha's resolution or Mr. Hunter's resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pending is House Resolution 571.
  Mr. LANTOS. The previous speaker referred to Mr. Murtha's resolution. 
That is not before the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is a matter for debate--a matter that 
may be addressed by debate.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LANTOS. We on this side of the House are under the impression 
that we are debating the Hunter resolution. Please correct us if we are 
wrong.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct and he may make 
that point by debate.
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Murtha, I apologize to you. I know you have a 
resolution. That is what I was referring to. I recognize we are 
debating Hunter, and I apologize to you, Mr. Murtha.
  Mr. MURTHA. Let me read another letter.
  ``In 2004, my youngest son graduated from college and was already 
enrolled in the Marines. He was ready to help our country and others in 
whatever was asked of him. It was with great distress that we have 
watched the administration mishandle this war. There was no plan.''
  What the gentleman from Indiana said about World War II, there was a 
plan. There was a plan when we went into Normandy. We landed 150,000 
people in 24 hours. There is the conception at home that there is no 
plan. I hear this over and over again. That is why there was such an 
outpouring when I offered a plan, when people called me and said they 
wanted a plan.
  ``It was with great distress that we have watched the administration 
mishandle this war. There was no plan, no push to go in and win the war 
in total. Mission Accomplished was a joke, and even we the uniformed 
knew then that it was a misnomer. Losing Colin Powell from the 
administration was a deep blow to us. We respected his honor and his 
professionalism. His soldier inside.

[[Page 27471]]

Our son has had one deployment to Iraq. He came home safely this time, 
and awaits his second deployment in July. Congressman Murtha, we are a 
patriotic family, but I cannot abide by sending my son back into a war 
where there is no goal, no plan, and a war being planned by Donald 
Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. We would feel differently if we 
felt our son was being used in the proper manner, and for a valiant 
effort. But we feel that they are clay pigeons in a carnival, just 
waiting for the next suicide bomber or IED. My husband and I did not 
feel this way 6 months ago. We thought the administration had realized 
their inadequacy and were making changes, and that we should stay the 
course. That has not happened. Things continue in disarray. This is not 
the best use of our military, nor respectful of the values and ideals 
of the servicemen and women within it. We support your views and we 
feel that there is a need for change.''
  That is what I am saying. We need to change direction in Iraq.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Davis) who served as an Army officer in the U.S. 
Airborne.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would point out first that the 
childish shouting from many who have not served dishonor those who 
serve on the front lines with quiet resolve at this time while we have 
a necessary debate on this war.
  I am here to represent some folks who cannot speak because they are 
serving on the front lines right now. I received a phone call in the 
well of the House this evening from one of the commanders of America's 
premier counterterrorism organization. He shared with me his great 
dismay at much of the rhetoric that had emanated from this body today, 
making them the pawns in a political battle over what they clearly see 
as they are making success on the front lines. Please, your shouting 
and your rhetoric sends echoes to our enemies as well as to our 
soldiers and our friends.
  It is honest to have a debate, my friends, but when I am asked on the 
floor of this house, why are you doing to us what was done to so many 
veterans here by Members of this body during Vietnam, when I am told 
repeatedly of their successes, my friends who I served with over nearly 
30 years ago and who are serving now on the front lines commanding the 
units, leading the units and who are serving as junior enlisted 
soldiers, hundreds of soldiers whose opinions fly in the face of the 
rhetoric shared tonight.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, here we are in America's 
House, having a debate that is altogether appropriate, because as our 
founders stated the goal, it was to form a more perfect union. And 
because we are human beings, there is always a gulf between the real 
and the ideal. This is not a personal debate to be personalized about 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He offered a point of view yesterday. 
Whatever his intent, here is how it was reported. The Washington Post 
called it immediate withdrawal. The New York Times called it immediate 
withdrawal. More ominously and sadly, Al-Jazeera called it immediate 
withdrawal.
  The problem is this, ladies and gentlemen, as has been articulated. 
Another e-mail, my colleagues:
  ``I am a U.S. Army captain currently serving in Iraq and I am shocked 
and appalled by Representative Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal. 
Please, please, please convince your colleagues to let us finish this 
critical job.''
  That is what is at stake. Vote ``no'' on immediate withdrawal.
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me ask, Mr. Speaker, we have the right to close on 
this side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Yes.
  Mr. HUNTER. We have got only one speaker left, so I would ask my 
colleague from Pennsylvania to close on his side if he could.
  Mr. MURTHA. Who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has the right 
to close.
  Mr. MURTHA. This is his resolution.
  The first encounter with the casualties in this war, I had two young 
widows come to my office. They wanted to go to Walter Reed because they 
had lost their husband and they wanted to talk to the soldiers and tell 
them how lucky they were that they were still alive. One was 23 with 
two children. One was 19 without any children. I thought how proud I 
was of them. Another young man from my district was blinded and lost 
his foot. They did everything they could do for him in Walter Reed. And 
then he went home and his father was in jail. His mother had not seen 
him. There was no one at home and he was by himself. The VA has done 
everything they could to help him. They sent him to Johns Hopkins to 
see if there is a possibility for him to see and found out that he 
could not see. And then they started sending bills. Collection agencies 
sent him bills. Imagine. He is by himself in his own home and a 
collection agency from Johns Hopkins sends him a bill. Obviously we 
straightened it out, but that is the kind of thing that happens when 
you forget about the veteran.
  I had a soldier that lost both legs and an arm. Bill has seen the 
young fellow from Micronesia. We visited a mental health ward. You know 
what they said to me? Fifty thousand of them are going to have some 
kind of battle fatigue. They said that we don't get Purple Hearts. We 
don't get any recognition at all. We get shunned aside as if we were 
cowards.
  A young woman from Notre Dame lost her arm and she was worried about 
her husband losing weight. She was the one that lost her arm. It makes 
me so proud. A Seabee was lying in intensive care with his three 
children and his mother and his wife in tears because he was paralyzed 
from the neck down. This young Marine, his father had been a Marine. 
His father was there. His father was rubbing his hand. He says, please 
get my son's brother home. He wants to see his brother. I called the 
Marine Corps. The Marine Corps said, he doesn't want to come home. So I 
went back and told his father. He said, please get him home. So I told 
the Marine Corps and they got him home. I said, you get him out of that 
country blank-blank right now, and they did.
  Another Marine lost both his hands, blinded. I went to the hospital. 
After I talked to him, I said how proud, as I do to all of them, how 
proud I was of them. Is there anything you can do for them, I said? He 
said, yeah, get him a Purple Heart. Why wouldn't he get a Purple Heart? 
Because he was demobilizing from the friendly bomblets that had been 
dropped and hadn't exploded, thousands of them. Finally one of them 
blew up, blew his hands off and killed the guy behind him and blinded 
him. The Marine Corps said, we have regulations about Purple Hearts. It 
was friendly fire so he can't get a Purple Heart.
  I told the commandant, If you don't give him the Purple Heart, I'm 
going to give him one of mine. I was going to go out on Thursday, the 
commandant went out on Wednesday and he got his Purple Heart. Our 
troops have become the enemy.
  Folks, it is easy to sit here in your air-conditioned offices and 
say, send them into battle. It is easy to sit here in the Capitol of 
the United States and say, stay the course. But when there is not a 
plan, when the families write to me and say there is not a plan, when 
they don't understand, when they believe that Captain Fishback came to 
see me, he says, You're complicit with the administration in torture, 
Congress is, because you're looking the other way. I said, We didn't 
know a thing about it.
  And one of the things that turned the Iraqis against us was the 
tragedy that happened at Abu Ghraib. Because we in Congress are charged 
with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our 
responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them and that is why I 
am speaking out.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 27472]]


  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes we are going to send a 
message to our troops. And for our last speaker, we have a gentleman 
who knows a lot about freedom. He knows a lot about a lack of freedom. 
He knows a lot about American resolve and sometimes the lack of 
American resolve. He has been awarded two Silver Stars, two Legions of 
Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star with valor, two 
Purple Hearts, four air medals and three outstanding unit awards. He is 
one of our real heroes, Sam Johnson of Texas.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. You are a great man 
yourself.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American men and women in 
uniform and their families. I did spend 29 years in the Air Force, and 
I served in Korea and Vietnam and spent 7 years as a POW in Vietnam and 
more than half of that in solitary confinement. I know what it is like 
to be far from home, serving your country, risking your life, hearing 
that America doesn't care about you as happened in Vietnam.

                              {time}  2300

  Your Congress does not care about you. Your Congress just cut off all 
the funding for your war. They are packing up, going home, and leaving 
you here.
  When I was a POW, I was scared to death when our Congress talked 
about pulling the plug that I would be left there forever. I know what 
it does to morale, I know what it does to the mission, and so help me 
God, I will never, ever let our Nation make that mistake again.
  Our men and women in uniform need our full support. They need to know 
that when they are in Iraq driving from Camp Blue Diamond to Camp 
Victory that the Congress is behind them, to give them the best armored 
trucks they can drive, the best weapons they can fire, and the best 
ammunition they can use. They need to have full faith that a few nay-
sayers in Washington will not cut and run and leave them high and dry. 
They need to know these things because that is mandatory for mission 
success and troop morale.
  America, and the Congress, must stand behind our men and women in 
uniform because they stand up for us every minute of every day.
  Any talk, even so much as a murmur, of leaving now just emboldens the 
enemy and weakens the resolve of our troops in the field. That is 
dangerous. If you do not believe me, check out al Jazeera. The 
withdrawal story is on the front page. We cannot do that to our fellow 
Americans over there.
  Mr. Speaker, we are making great progress in Iraq. Remember in 
January how we saw pictures from Iraq of that first election. For 
weeks, the media predicted gloom and doom. Remember that? What did we 
see? We watched people as they waited in line for hours, defying death 
threats just to cast their vote for democracy.
  Remember the picture of the woman in the black hair cover flashing 
her purple finger in the ``V'' after voting in the first Iraqi 
elections? It was a breakthrough for democracy, and it was just the 
beginning.
  Remember the recent vote on the referendum when people came out in 
droves to make their voices heard? You would not have known about it 
because there was so little mention of it in our press, but the people 
got out there and they voted and they showed their support for 
democracy, a new government, hope, and a future.
  These people are thirsting for something more. They are risking their 
lives in the name of a new government, and we must stay the course if 
we want to foster a stable Iraq and create hope for millions in the 
Middle East.
  Our work is paying off, not just at the ballot box. Remember when we 
were waking up that Sunday morning in shock as we caught Saddam Hussein 
cowering in a rathole? He is gone. And you know what? At least 46 of 
Hussein's 55 most-wanted regime members are either dead or 
incarcerated. Nationwide, thousands and thousands of police officers 
have been hired, and nearly 200,000 Iraqi soldiers are trained and 
serving their country. It is going to take time, but our guys on the 
ground are working with other nations to make inroads to create 
leadership and inspire democracy in a country that has only known hate, 
fear, and death from a ruler.
  However, sadly, some here want to embolden the enemy by saying we 
just cut and run. That is just irresponsible and unconscionable.
  I have to ask, what would Iraq be like if the United States pulled 
out, allowing dangerous people like the head of al Qaeda, Zarqawi, to 
run the country? What would that mean for the region, the world? Al 
Qaeda rules with death, fear, terror, and blood. Al Qaeda takes 
innocent people hostage, and then beheads them, and then brags about it 
on the Internet. Al Qaeda has no respect for human life. They prey on 
innocent people to do their dirty work, because they know we do not 
target schools and hospitals and mosques; yet those are the exact 
places they run for cover.
  Al Qaeda will kidnap loved ones, especially very young children, of 
people trying to build democracy, to scare them out of helping the 
country. They are taking kids hostage because parents want a new life 
and a better life for their children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) be allowed to have 3 more minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson) is 
recognized for 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask, What part of al Qaeda 
do you want operating here in America? Al Qaeda is a worldwide 
organization and a worldwide threat. I do not want any part of this. 
Americans do not want, need, or deserve al Qaeda. Our troops are over 
in Iraq fighting not just for our freedom and protection, but the 
freedom of the world.
  We must fight the bad guys over there, not over here. We must support 
our troops to the hilt so they do not go to bed at night covered in 
talcum-powder-thin white sand wondering, Does America really support 
me?
  In case people have forgotten, this is the same thing that happened 
in Vietnam. Peaceniks and people in Congress, and America, started 
saying bad things about what was going on in Vietnam, and it did a 
terrible thing to troop morale.
  I just pray that our troops and their families can block this noise 
out and know that we will all fight like mad to make sure our troops 
have everything they need for as long as they need it to win the global 
war on terrorism.
  Withdrawal is not an option. To our men and women in uniform, I 
simply say, God bless you. I salute you. All of America salutes our 
troops.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of 
H.J. Res. 73, To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq. However, I must also 
speak to and oppose the cynical resolution offered by Mr. Hunter. Mr. 
Hunter's resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a 
political stunt and an outrageous politicization of a serious proposal 
offered by Congressman Jack Murtha, a respected leader in the Congress. 
Mr. Hunter's resolution shows great disrespect to someone of Mr. 
Murtha's stature and is a discredit to his years of service.
  From the beginning, this war has been conducted without oversight. 
Democrats have repeatedly asked for substantive hearings on the war in 
Iraq. In addition, we have requested investigations on the misuse of 
intelligence by the Bush administration. War is too important of an 
issue to politicize the lives of our soldiers. Despite Democrats 
request for hearings on torture, contract fraud, and the leak of 
confidential national security information.
  It goes without saying that the war in Iraq is not going as 
advertised. Our troops have become the primary target of the 
insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a 
catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, 
Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with U.S. troop 
redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take 
control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80

[[Page 27473]]

percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition 
troops, about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks 
against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq 
over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for 
mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put 
on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq 
must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I 
believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political 
process for the good of a ``free'' Iraq.
  The U.S. needs to vacate Iraq both to splinter the insurgent factions 
that have united against us and to create incentives for the Iraqis to 
take on their own security. Not surprising is the fact that the 
American people have realized this for months. It is just now that some 
Democrats and Republicans alike are beginning to express grave concerns 
about the need for a course change in Iraq. With the administration so 
unwilling to reconsider its disastrous policies in Iraq, it was only a 
matter of time that Congress would begin to assert itself. Sadly, in 
the past week the President and the Vice President have restored to 
questioning people's patriotism to hide their own mistakes. The 
administration has no idea as to how to proceed in Iraq and they are 
wrong to use these ``McCarthy-type'' tactics.
  I strongly support the Murtha Resolution. H.J. Res. 73 gives 
Americans a moment to pause so we can seriously discuss the future of 
America and our troops. This is what a democracy stands for. In 
addition, H.J. Res 73 calls for the:
  Immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of 
U.S. forces, creation of a quick reaction force in the region, creation 
of an over-the-horizon presence of marines, diplomatic pursuit of 
security and stability in Iraq.
  Let me close by saying that the Republican cover-up Congress has 
refused to exercise its oversight responsibilities to protect our 
troops, the American taxpayers and our national security H. Res. 571 is 
not a serious response to the serious question of saving the lives of 
our soldiers. It is time to get serious and support Mr. Murtha's 
proposal now for disengagement in Iraq.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in this House have done a 
heinous thing: they have insulted one of the deans of this House in an 
unthinkable and unconscionable way.
  They took his words and contorted them; they took his heartfelt 
sentiments and spun them. They took his resolution and deformed it: in 
a cheap effort to silence dissent in the House of Representatives.
  The Republicans should be roundly criticized for this reprehensible 
act. They have perpetrated a fraud on the House of Representatives just 
as they have defrauded the American people.
  By twisting the issue around, the Republicans are trying to set a 
trap for the Democrats. A ``no'' vote for this Resolution will obscure 
the fact that there is strong support for withdrawal of U.S. forces 
from Iraq. I am voting ``yes'' on this Resolution for an orderly 
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq despite the convoluted motives 
behind the Republican Resolution. I am voting to support our troops by 
bringing them home now in an orderly withdrawal.
  Sadly, If we call for an end to the occupation, some say that we have 
no love for the Iraqi people, that we would abandon them to tyrants and 
thugs.
  Let us consider some history. The Republicans make great hay about 
Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and the 
Kurds. But when that attack was made in 1988, it was Democrats who 
moved a resolution to condemn those attacks, and the Reagan White House 
quashed the bill in the Senate, because at that time the Republicans 
considered Saddam one of our own. So in 1988, who abandoned the Iraqi 
people to tyrants and thugs?
  In voting for this bill, let me be perfectly clear that I am not 
saying the United States should exit Iraq without a plan. I agree with 
Mr. Murtha that security and stability in Iraq should be pursued 
through diplomacy. I simply want to vote yes to an orderly withdrawal 
from Iraq. And let me explain why.
  Prior to its invasion, Iraq had not one (not one!) instance of 
suicide attacks in its history. Research shows a 100 percent 
correlation between suicide attacks and the presence of foreign combat 
troops in a host country. And experience also shows that suicide 
attacks abate when foreign occupation troops are withdrawn. The U.S. 
invasion and occupation has destabilized Iraq and Iraq will only return 
to stability once this occupation ends.
  We must be willing to face the fact that the presence of U.S. combat 
troops is itself a major inspiration to the forces attacking our 
troops. Moreover, we must be willing to acknowledge that the forces 
attacking our troops are able to recruit suicide attackers because 
suicide attacks are largely motivated by revenge for the loss of loved 
ones. And Iraqis have lost so many loved ones as a result of America's 
two wars against Iraq.
  In 1996, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on CBS that the 
lives of 500,000 children dead from sanctions were ``worth the price'' 
of containing Saddam Hussein. When pressed to defend this reprehensible 
position she went on to explain that she did not want U.S. Troops to 
have to fight the Gulf War again. Nor did I. But what happened? We 
fought a second Gulf War. And now over 2,000 American soldiers lie 
dead. And I expect the voices of concern for Iraqi civilian casualties, 
whose deaths the Pentagon likes to brush aside as ``collateral damage'' 
are too few, indeed. A report from Johns Hopkins suggests that over 
100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, most 
of them violent deaths and most as ``collateral damage'' from U.S. 
forces. The accuracy of the 100,000 can and should be debated. Yet our 
media, while quick to cover attacks on civilians by insurgent forces in 
Iraq, have given us a blackout on Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of 
U.S. combat forces.
  Yet let us remember that the United States and its allies imposed a 
severe policy of sanctions on the people of Iraq from 1990 to 2003. 
UNICEF and World Health Organization studies based on infant mortality 
studies showed a 500,000 increase in mortality of Iraqi children under 
5 over trends that existed before sanctions. From this, it was widely 
assumed that over 1 million Iraqi deaths for all age groups could be 
attributed to sanctions between 1990 and 1998. And not only were there 
5 more years of sanctions before the invasion, but the war since the 
invasion caused most aid groups to leave Iraq. So for areas not touched 
by reconstruction efforts, the humanitarian situation has deteriorated 
further. How many more Iraqi lives have been lost through hunger and 
deprivation since the occupation?
  And what kind of an occupier have we been? We have all seen the 
photos of victims of U.S. torture in Abu Ghraib prison. That's where 
Saddam used to send his political enemies to be tortured, and now many 
Iraqis quietly, cautiously ask: ``So what has changed?''
  A recent video documentary confirms that U.S. forces used white 
phosphorous against civilian neighborhoods in the U.S. attack on 
Fallujah. Civilians and insurgents were burned alive by these weapons. 
We also now know that U.S. forces have used MK77, a napalm-like 
incendiary weapon, even though napalm has been outlawed by the United 
Nations.
  With the images of tortured detainees, and the images of Iraqi 
civilians burned alive by U.S. incendiary weapons now circulating the 
globe, our reputation on the world stage has been severely damaged.
  If America wants to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, we 
as a people must be willing to face the pain and death and suffering we 
have brought to the Iraqi people with bombs, sanctions and occupation, 
even if we believe our actions were driven by the most altruistic of 
reasons. We must acknowledge our role in enforcing the policy of 
sanctions for 12 years after the extensive 1991 bombing in which we 
bombed infrastructure targets in direct violation of the Geneva 
Conventions.
  We must also be ready to face the fact that the United States once 
provided support for the tyrant we deposed in the name of liberating 
the Iraqi people. These are events that our soldiers are too young to 
remember. I believe our young men and women in uniform are very sincere 
in their belief that their sacrifice is made in the name of helping the 
Iraqi people. But it is not they who set the policy. They take orders 
from the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress. It is we who bear the 
responsibility of weighing our decisions in a historical context, and 
it is we who must consider the gravest decision of whether or not to go 
to war based upon the history, the facts, and the truth.
  Sadly, however, our country is at war in Iraq based on a lie told to 
the American people. The entire war was based premised on a sales 
pitch--that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction menacing the United 
States--that turned out to be a lie.
  I have too many dead soldiers in my district; too many from my home 
state. Too many homeless veterans on our streets and in our 
neighborhoods.
  America has sacrificed too many young soldiers' lives, too many young 
soldiers' mangled bodies, to the Bush war machine.
  I will not vote to give one more soldier to the George W. Bush/Dick 
Cheney war machine. I will not give one more dollar for a war riddled 
with conspicuous profiteering.

[[Page 27474]]

  Tonight I speak as one who has at times been the only Member of this 
Body at antiwar demonstrations calling for withdrawal. And I won't stop 
calling for withdrawal.
  I was opposed to this war before there was a war; I was opposed to 
the war during the war; and I am opposed to this war now--even though 
it's supposed to be over.
  A vote on war is the single most important vote we can make in this 
House. I understand the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle who might be severely conflicted by the decision we have to make 
here tonight. But the facts of U.S. occupation of Iraq are also very 
clear. The occupation is headed down a dead end because so long as U.S. 
combat forces patrol Iraq, there will be an Iraqi insurgency against 
it.
  I urge that we pursue an orderly withdrawal from Iraq and pursue, 
along with our allies, a diplomatic solution to the situation in Iraq, 
supporting the aspirations of the Iraqi people through support for 
democratic processes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there is concern on the floor tonight about 
the way in which this resolution was brought up. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, is one of the finest members of this body and 
has given his heart to our nation and his wisdom to this Congress. But 
underlying concerns about the process tonight, is the critically 
important issue regarding the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. The 
United States' commitment to a stable and democratic Iraq is essential 
for the future of the region, for the larger war on terrorism and for 
the Iraqi people.
  In my ten trips to Iraq, four times outside the umbrella of the 
military, I've had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of Iraqis and 
can tell you with some certainty about their greatest fear . . . It is 
not the suicide bombs and other terrorist attacks brought against their 
countrymen. It is the concern that the United States, which has helped 
give them a taste of freedom and democracy, will leave them before they 
are ready to fend for themselves.
  Tonight we have the opportunity to proclaim, ``We will not leave 
you.'' When I hear the critics on this floor or in the news media say 
our policy is a disaster, that we are in a mess in Iraq, I think of the 
transfer of power in June 2004, the election in January 2005, the 
referendum this past October and what I believe will be a huge success 
in December with the election of a permanent Iraqi government. I am in 
awe of what the Iraqis have accomplished in such a short period of 
time.
  Regretfully, the administration has done a very poor job explaining 
to the American people why we are there and when and how we intend to 
leave, but this does not mean we don't have an exit strategy. We have a 
strategy but regretfully it has had to be amended more than once.
  The United States' strategy is to assist the Iraqis in creating a 
secure environment so they can develop their new democratic government 
with a competent police, border patrol and army to defend that 
government. American forces will be reduced when enough Iraqi security 
forces can take our place and their new government is fully 
functioning.
  Haven't we learned from the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in 
Beirut that if we leave without finishing the job those that wish us 
harm will come at us again?
  Didn't we learn any lessons from the attacks against our military 
personnel in Saudi Arabia and our diplomats in Africa and our sailors 
on the USS Cole? And didn't we learn that the Islamist extremists would 
come at us again when they attacked the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and 
attempted to attack our Capitol on September 11, 2001 ?
  Yes they will be back again and again and again.
  If we leave Iraq without completing our mission, what type of message 
will this send to the people who need our help? To them and the rest of 
the world the message will be clear . . . if you put up a strong enough 
resistance, the United States will eventually tire of its efforts and 
leave before its mission is accomplished.
  John McCain was correct when he asked the same questions during 
debate of the Defense Authorization bill: ``Are these the messages we 
wish to send? Do we wish to respond to the millions who braved bombs 
and threats to vote, who have put their faith and trust in American and 
the Iraqi Government, that our number one priority is now bringing our 
people home?''
  Mr. Speaker, although some may feel otherwise, this is a serious 
debate about a serious issue. I strongly urge all members to vote 
against this resolution and against the premature withdrawal of our 
troops from Iraq.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, today's debate should not be about the 
character of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, whose service 
to his country is above reproach. It should also not be about a 
resolution introduced by one member ascribing it to the position of 
another. It should be about the profoundness of the dilemma we face in 
our Iraqi policy.
  All wars evoke analogies to prior conflicts. Vietnam is on everyone's 
mind. My sense is that references to our Southeast Asian experience are 
somewhat oblique, but important to ponder. Of particular relevance is 
the advice of a former Vermont Senator, George Aiken, who suggested we 
just declare victory and get out of Vietnam. Aiken's advice was rooted 
in frustration, but wise as it was, represented more spin than reality. 
Given the strategies in play, victory wasn't close at hand.
  For may Americans, including me, the war in Iraq has been difficult 
to justify. But all Americans, except perhaps a few who may be 
partisanly vindictive, should want as positive a result as possible, 
given the circumstances we now face. The decision to go to war may have 
been misguided and strategies involved in conducting it mistake-ridden; 
nonetheless there should be clarity of purpose in ending the conflict, 
with the goal neither to cut and run, nor simply to cut losses. At this 
junction of involvement we should define cogently our purposes and by 
so doing create a basis both for a viable future for Iraq and for a 
U.S. disengagement that respects the sacrifices of those who have 
served so valiantly in our armed forces and those of our coalition 
allies.
  The key at this point is to recognize the WMD threat proved not to be 
a compelling rationalization for the war and emphasize instead the 
moral and philosophical case for overturning a repressive and cruel 
regime and replacing it with a constitutional democracy. This latter 
emphasis need not suggest or imply that all repressive regimes are fair 
game for intervention, nor that regime change is the principal American 
way, nor that other rationales for intervention don't exist. But it is 
the case for intervention that shows the most concern for the Iraqi 
people as they look both to their past and to the new challenges of Al 
Qaeda.
  Accordingly, in today's circumstances, my advice, as one who voted 
against authorizing military intervention in Iraq, is for the 
Administration to emphasize its commentment to democracy, not as a 
rationale for continuing the war, but as the reason for disengagement.
  Let me amplify.
  All Americans, however wary they may be of the political judgments 
that have to date been made, should concur that the world is better off 
without Saddam Hussein and that it is positive that a dictatorial 
regime is being replaced with a democratically elected government. The 
cost of the undertaking may have been too high and the results counter-
productive in many ways, but before the international situation worsens 
further, the administration would be wise, perhaps noting with pride 
the elections to be held under a constitution this December, to 
announce that a new sovereign circumstance allows for comprehensive 
troop drawdowns next year. The more definitive and forthright the plan 
the better, but announcing a precise time table is less important than 
making a firm commitment to leave, with articulation of a clear 
rationale for so doing. If we don't get out of Iraq at a time of our 
own choosing and on our own terms, we will eventually be asked to 
leave, possibly ignominiously, by the Iraqi government, or be seen as 
forced to leave because of terrorist acts, which can be expected to 
continue as long as we maintain a military presence in the heart of the 
Muslim world. The key is that we must control and be seen as 
controlling our own fate.
  All Americans should be respectful of the sacrifices of our men and 
women in uniform. They have been placed in an untenable situation. If 
they had not been so heroic and in many cases so helpful in rebuilding 
neighborhoods and schools, the U.S. would face a far more difficult 
dilemma today.
  But we have no choice except to assess whether Osama Bin Laden and 
his movement have not been given added momentum by our intervention in 
Iraq, and whether the ideologically advocated policy of establishing 
long-term bases or one of returning our troops home is likely to be the 
more effective strategy in prevailing in the world-wide war on terror.
  Here, it should not be hard to understand that prolonged occupation 
of a country which encompasses an area of land where one of the world's 
oldest civilizations prospered is humiliating to a proud people and 
those elsewhere who share its great religion. It should also not be 
hard to understand that the neo-con strategy of establishing a long-
term military presence in Iraq with semi-permanent bases raises the 
risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks at home and abroad.
  Indeed, according to the University of Chicago scholar, Robert Pape, 
in his definitive book on suicide bombers, Dying to Win, the

[[Page 27475]]

principal reason anarchists choose to wrap themselves in explosives and 
kill innocent civilians is to register martyred objection to the 
occupation of countries or territories by the armed forces of Western 
or other Democratic governments. Suicide bombing, by implication, will 
exist as long as occupations continue.
  In this regard, a note about Al Qaeda is in order. Just as neither 
Iraq with its secular leanings nor any Iraqis were responsible for 9/
11, so Saddam Hussein apparently considered Osama Bin Laden as much a 
rival as a soul brother. It is Western military intervention that has 
precipitated Al Qaeda's rapid growth in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a 
``cause celebre'' for its singularly malevolent actions. If American 
withdrawal policy comes to turn on the question of anarchy--i.e., 
troops can't be drawn down as long as suicide bombers continue to wreak 
havoc--we place ourselves in a catch 22 and, in effect, hand over 
decision-making discretion to those who wantonly kill. We allow the 
radical few to use our presence as the reason for their actions and at 
the same time cause our involvement to be held hostage to their 
villainy. The irony is that as conflicted as the Iraqi police and army 
appear to be, we are fast reaching a stage where the anarchists may be 
more credibly dealth with by Iraqis themselves, particularly if the 
principal rationale for violence--i.e., the American presence--
disappears.
  Hence, the case for a change in strategy is compelling, not as the 
resolution under consideration tonight envisions, but in an orderly 
manner, protecting our troops, our values and the gains we have helped 
make for the Iraqi people.
  Sometimes it is as difficult to know when to end as it is when to 
start a war. In this context I am hard pressed to believe anything 
except that a mistake of historical proportions will occur if the 
administration fails to recognize the opportunity presented by next 
month's elections to effectively bring our involvement in this war to a 
close. It may be true as the Secretary of State told the Senate several 
weeks ago, that democratic elections alone don't create a viable 
government. But the assertion of the Secretary, however valid, should 
not be used as a rationale for an unending American occupation.
  It is possible, of course that civil strife will ensue when we 
withdraw, but this is just as likely to be the case in 2026 as 2006. In 
any regard, civil union is for the Iraqi people to manage. It's not for 
American troops to sustain. The authorization this Congress gave to the 
Executive to use force contemplated the clear prospect of military 
intervention in Iraq. It did not, however, contemplate prolonged 
occupation. If this is not understood by the Executive branch, the 
current overwhelming Iraqi polling sentiment favoring American troop 
withdrawal will be more than matched by shared American sentiment. In a 
democracy no one can be a leader without followers.
  The issue is no longer, as is so frequently asserted, the need ``to 
stay the course;'' it is to avoid ``overstaying'' our presence.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, just last month, the Iraqi 
people, including large numbers of Sunni Iraqis, voted in a referendum 
on their Constitution. The Iraqi people are choosing to participate in 
the political process that can eventually undermine support for the 
indigenous insurgency in Iraq.
  The next step in building Iraq's political future is elections in 
December under this new, completely Iraqi Constitution. Broad 
participation in these elections will continue to build political 
momentum for a new self-governing Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
  While the political process moves forward, the United States and its 
allies must continue to train Iraqi police and security forces so that 
week by week, month by month, more neighborhoods, towns and provinces 
are patrolled and controlled by Iraqis.
  We must also continue to conduct military operations against 
insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq, particularly al Qaeda in Iraq. 
There are still difficult days ahead and much work to be done--much of 
it done by our men and women in the military.
  I expect U.S. forces will continue to stay in Iraq through December's 
elections at roughly their current level. But as I've said, if 
political and security progress continues on roughly the course we are 
on, American forces should be able to start being drawn down in 
significant numbers during the course of next year. These redeployments 
should be based on conditions in the field. As the Iraqis stand up, we 
can stand down.
  After September 11, 2001, we made a decision to play offense in 
fighting the war on terror, to track down enemies who would kill 
Americans and give them no place to hide. Our troops are doing a 
fantastic job, and terrorists know they have no hope of defeating our 
troops in the field. They know that the center of gravity in their 
fight is to undermine the will of the American people.
  I would rather have American soldiers hunting down terrorists over 
there, than have American firefighters and police officers responding 
to attacks here at home.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, our military men and women are 
doing a tremendous job in Iraq, as they work with Iraqis to secure 
their country and combat the terrorists who want so desperately to 
prevent freedom from taking root there. Our troops deserve to hear 
messages of strong support and thanks from us--not calls for withdrawal 
that merely give hope to the enemy. Given a chance, the Iraqi military 
and political system will become strong enough to defend the Iraqi 
people on its own. But pulling our troops out now would undermine this 
goal and provide an opening for al Qaeda and its terrorist brethren.
  I disagree wholeheartedly with those who claim our presence there is 
counterproductive and those who argue that it would be best to bring 
America's troops home before their mission is completed. Iraq and its 
people have made great strides, most recently with their free vote on a 
constitution. But all their progress and our troops' blood and sweat 
will be for nothing if our forces withdrawal before Iraq's own forces 
are ready to defend the country.
  All of us want to see our soldiers come home, but it would be a huge 
mistake to make their withdrawal based on an arbitrary date, rather 
than conditions-based. So many of our servicemen and women have 
sacrificed so much to ensure that Iraq does not become a haven for 
terrorists, and we have to make sure that mission is accomplished and 
that their sacrifice has not been in vain. Pulling our troops out now 
is akin to surrender and would be a fateful blunder.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, the debate over this fraudulent resolution is 
a sad comment on the level of debate in the House of Representatives 
and an insult to a colleague of ours who has dedicated his career in 
the House to improving our national defense and supporting American 
soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel. No one in this body can or 
should challenge the patriotism of Congressman Jack Murtha, who is a 
decorated veteran who spent 37 years in the United States Marine Corps 
and whose experience in uniform has helped to shape his informed views 
on national security here in Congress. When he expressed his personal 
and thoughtful views on the future of our Nation's involvement in the 
war in Iraq he was subjected to a barrage of personal criticism that 
was truly excessive, including an official statement from the 
President's Press Secretary that trivialized the very nature of our 
congressional debate over a very important subject.
  Today the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, usually a 
thoughtful Member himself, took it upon himself to introduce a 
caricature of a resolution that totally ignores many of the important 
points that Mr. Murtha originally suggested, and it makes a mockery of 
the process of honest and open debate in the House of Representatives. 
It is difficult for me to remember a time when serious issues of 
national security have ever been treated with such disdain here in the 
House, and I am extremely disappointed in the Republican leadership of 
the House that has allowed this circus atmosphere to take place today.
  Even more astounding to me is that the House is rushing through a 
rule to consider this Resolution today with the explanation that it is 
ostensibly a debate over the war in Iraq. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. We have not had an honest debate on the war in Iraq here in 
the House even as we have seen more than 2,000 young American die in 
battle. We have not had an honest debate over the quality of 
information that we were given before the start of the war, or about 
the inability of Secretary Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration to give 
us any serious indication of our current objectives or a time line for 
the ultimate re-deployment of American troops out of Iraq. I would 
welcome such an honest and thorough debate, as I am sure all of my 
colleagues in the Democratic party would. But what we are doing today 
is a politically motivated exercise that insults that integrity and 
cheapens the reputation of the House itself.
  There are many troubling aspects of our involvement in Iraq that we 
should be debating, including the discovery just this week that some of 
the Iraqi security forces that we are training--paying for--were 
engaged in the same type of torture of Iraqi citizens that 
characterized the reign of Saddam Hussein himself.
  What we should not be doing is considering a disingenuous resolution 
that is merely intended to elicit sound bites for conservative talk 
radio shows and which is a thinly-veiled attempt to insult one of the 
most courageous

[[Page 27476]]

and dedicated members of the House, Mr. Murtha. We can do better, Mr. 
Speaker, and we should resoundingly reject this measure.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha 
said yesterday that ``our military has done everything that has been 
asked of them, the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq 
militarily. It is time to bring them home.'' I know Mr. Murtha to be a 
man of honor and integrity and I am sure he is sincere in his belief 
that there is not more to accomplish and we must immediately withdraw 
our troops. I could not disagree more with his assessment.
  We must stay in Iraq to finish the job and leave with honor. To cut 
and run now and leave with our tail between our legs would send the 
message to terrorists around the world that America has lost its will 
to win the War on Terrorism. This would merely embolden our terrorist 
enemies and lead to open season on America and our allies. We cannot 
allow this to happen. We must stay the course in Iraq and finish the 
job. The stakes are too high to fail.
  Throughout American history, we have been tested in times of war many 
times. But virtually every time, we stayed the course and prevailed.
  We did not experience quick victory in the American Revolution. In 
fact, it took our Founding Fathers years to win our hard-fought 
independence. We were defeated at the Battles of Long Island, Harlem 
Heights, White Plains and others, and we will never forget the dark 
days at Valley Forge, yet we did not give up our desire for freedom.
  And let's not forget in WorId War II, where we suffered rapid and 
repeated defeats at Guam, Wake Island, the Philippines and Kasserine 
Pass.
  But when General Douglas Macarthur was forced to leave the 
Philippines, he did not say, ``We should have an immediate withdraw of 
all American troops.'' Instead, he uttered the immortal words: ``I 
shall return.''
  And we aren't even losing in Iraq! We are winning, and making a 
difference. Because of our intervention in Iraq, a murderous dictator 
and a totalitarian regime have been overthrown, free elections have 
been held, and a new constitution has been drafted and ratified.
  This is an important and emotional debate. When to send our 
servicemen and women to war and when to bring them home is perhaps the 
most difficult decision we as Member face. I have been to Iraq and 
everybody I met was enthusiastic, about doing their job and helping the 
Iraqi people.
  We must fight this temptation to set an artificial timetable as to 
when we bring our troops home. All this will do is allow the terrorists 
time to regroup and lay in wait until we leave. But do not take my word 
for it. Take the word of a top American commander in Iraq who called 
setting a deadline for troop withdrawal ``a recipe for disaster.''
  Army Maj. Gen. William Webster, whose 3rd Infantry Division is 
responsible for security in three-fourths of Iraq's capital said 
``Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, 
that their lives will have been lost in vain. Iraq's armed factions 
would likely take a cue from a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal to lie 
low, gathering their strength and laying plans for renewed conflict 
when the Americans leave.''
  Gen. Webster went on to say ``They believe they're doing the right 
thing. The soldiers believe they're helping.''
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying that 
the war in Iraq has been a dismal failure and a mistake. Let me ask 
them, is it a sign failure that our troops have vaccinated over 3 
million children under 5 to help these children fight polio. Or that we 
screened more than 1.3 million children under age 5 for malnutrition.
  Was it a mistake to rehabilitate almost 3,000 schools? What about the 
36,000 secondary school teachers and administrators, including 1000 
master trainers, that have been trained by the Iraqis with the United 
States' help? These teachers are going to start teaching in a way that 
gives freedom to the children.
  I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle once again, would you 
say accomplishing all of this constitutes failure? The millions of 
Iraqi men, women and children who no longer live under a brutal 
dictator would not think so.
  We must continue to fight the terrorists and secure Iraq as a stable, 
secure democracy. We are making a great deal of progress on the 
democracy front as well. The approval of Iraq's constitution on October 
15 was a historic day for Iraq and a bad day for terrorists. Millions 
of Iraqis turned out to vote, embracing the democratic process. Iraq 
now has a constitution.
  On the day of the referendum, there were no suicide bombings, and 
attacks on polling stations were down from 108 in January to 19 in 
October. Sixty percent of registered voters took part in the 
referendum. Significantly higher turnout in Sunni a further indication 
that Sunnis are joining the political process.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at a crossroads in Iraq. Do we cut and run or do 
we stay and finish the job? There is too much at stake to immediately 
pull out. All we would be doing is strengthening the terrorists. We 
must finish the job. We must stay the course and leave with honor. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the unspoken inevitability we 
face is that U.S. troops will eventually leave Iraq.
  Eighty percent of Iraqis want us to leave now. They now see us as 
occupiers, not liberators.
  American politicians say we must save Iraqis from an even more 
violent civil war.
  But that civil war is underway because of the American presence. It 
is fueling Sunni hostility toward Shia collaborators.
  If the American forces weren't there, Iraqi Shia security forces 
would no longer be serving the interests of foreign infidels against 
other fellow Iraqis. It would open the door to the reenlistments of 
many of the best trained and experienced former Iraqi military and 
police professionals.
  The preponderance of power now lies with the Shia and the Kurds. The 
Sunni fighters have only small arms and make-shift explosive devices. 
The insurgents don't have access to Saddam's tanks and helicopters.
  Furthermore, we have equipped the Shia and Kurds with much superior 
weaponry and they are vastly superior in number.
  If the Americans end their occupation, the insurgents' resistance 
will lose its purpose.
  The foreign jihadi element in Iraq is numerically insignificant. The 
vast bulk of the resistance has little connection to al-Qaeda or its 
offshoots. The colonel in charge of cleaning out the insurgency in Tall 
Afar said they were fighting foreign jihadi fighters coming in from 
Syria. Yet, when they interrogated the more than a thousand captives, 
not one--not one was a foreigner--all were native Iraqi insurgents.
  But al Zarqawi and his followers have benefited mightily from this 
misguided war because he is being given credit by American politicians 
for heading the resistance. We, in America, have been his best 
recruiting aid.
  But what Zarqawi and al-Qaeda want is wholly different from what the 
Sunni insurgents want. Zarqawi wants to see a Muslim caliphate and a 
violent struggle against Christian and Jewish infidels around the world 
until Judgment Day.
  The Sunni insurgents want an independent Iraq that will enable them 
to regain the wealth and power they experienced under Saddam.
  Foreign fighters will be harshly treated by Iraqis once American 
troops leave. The jihadists need a failed state to function. That's why 
they were not in Iraq until we entered Iraq and broke up the effective, 
albeit horribly repressive government of Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H. 
Res. 571, and to urge my colleagues--in the strongest possible terms--
to vote against this resolution. As with other members who have risen 
here today, I also served in our military. I'm a veteran of the United 
States Navy, and served one year in the Vietnam War on swift boats. 
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not stand before you tonight and suggest that 
past military service is a requirement for one to have a credible 
opinion on this important issue. All Americans have a right to be heard 
on this matter--and should be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, with all my heart and with all my mind, I believe that 
to pull our troops from Iraq immediately would send a clear and 
unmistakable message to every potential enemy worldwide that the United 
States has no backbone, no willingness to see a tough struggle through 
to the end. It would be a message to our allies that the United States 
does not honor its commitments. And it would send a message to the 
families of every member of the armed forces selflessly serving to 
defend our liberties, especially those who have paid the ultimate 
sacrifice that their service, their sacrifice, has been in vain.
  Look to our past history: In the face of relentless opposition from 
abroad and ever here at home, the United States honored its commitments 
to Germany, Japan, and South Korea after World War II and the Korean 
War. Today they are our strongest allies. On the other hand, Osama bin 
Laden himself wrote that evidence of the United States' weakness could 
be found in our departures from Vietnam, Beirut, and Mogadishu. ``The 
United States is a paper tiger,'' he was saying. ``Smack them in the 
face and they run.''
  To pull our troops from Iraq immediately would be an abrogation of 
our responsibilities in the world.

[[Page 27477]]

  History will not define this great nation by our decision to enter 
Iraq--it will define us by how we leave Iraq.
  Whether or not you supported the decision to go to war against Iraq 
in the first place, we have an obligation to leave Iraq a safer, freer 
country than it was under Sadam Hussein. Spreading freedom and liberty 
is not something America has ever avoided, nor should it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the definition of ``immediate termination of 
United States forces in Iraq'' must mean the following as set forth by 
Representative John Murtha:

       ``My plan calls:
       --To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the 
     safety of U.S. forces.
       --To create a quick reaction force in the region.
       --To create over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
       --To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

  You may call this a position, a program, or an exit strategy but this 
is the Murtha message which set in motion the current proceedings on 
the floor of the House of Representatives. This is the declaration 
heard from Representative Murtha by the American people and around the 
world. By all standards of decency and by popular decree the Republican 
leadership is mandated to respect the precedent setting language of 
this most detailed of all proposals for new and creative action in 
Iraq.
  For this reason I urge all of my colleagues to examine closely the 
resolution before us. ``That the deployment of United States forces in 
Iraq be terminated immediately.'' In view of the fact that the wording 
of this resolution distorts the plan set forth by Congressman Murtha, I 
urge all Members to condemn this dirty trick by voting ``present.''
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, there is nothing--
nothing--more serious that we will do in our lives as well as our 
careers than to send young American men and women to war. And there is 
no one in this body who understands the consequences of that decision 
more than Jack Murtha who served 37 years in the Marines, won two 
Purple Hearts in battle, and loves without reservation our soldiers in 
uniform.
  Over 2,070 Americans and tens of thousands of civilian Iraqis are 
dead, thousands more are horribly injured in this war that many of us 
believe to be completely unjustified. Yet the House Republicans are so 
morally bankrupt that they would turn to cheap political stunts in 
order to undercut Congressman Murtha's conscience-driven call for an 
end to the Iraq war, which he calls ``a flawed policy wrapped in 
illusion.''
  But there is not a person in this House who is man or woman enough to 
ever undercut the credibility of Jack Murtha, no matter how many 
accusations they may throw at him, no matter how many names they call 
him, and no matter how many ``clever'' tactics they try.
  Shame on the Republican leaders for thinking it's ok to turn this war 
into a game and Representative Murtha into a political football. Shame 
on the Speaker for accusing Jack Murtha of insulting and demoralizing 
our troops. Mr. Murtha, this decorated war hero, is right when he says 
``what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and 
equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by 
IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by 
hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their 
families behind without a network of support.''
  The Republicans don't demean Mr. Murtha, can't begin to demean Mr. 
Murtha, when they make baseless allegations and engage in pointless 
political stunts. They demean themselves and they demean the integrity 
of this House of Representatives. Shame on you.
  I support Jack Murtha's resolution to stop sending our soldiers to 
die in Iraq. I support him when he says, ``It is time to bring them 
home.'' The proper response from those who disagree with this revered 
Marine would be to have a serious discussion about how we got into 
Iraq, about the conduct of the war, and about how we get out. Instead 
we see the typical slash-and-burn personal attacks that are the 
mainstay of the Republicans, especially when they know they are wrong. 
And you are wrong.
  But you are no longer fooling the American people. In overwhelming 
numbers they think it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq; they think 
the Bush Administration mishandled the war; they don't trust the 
President to tell the truth; and they don't support this war. On the 
eve of Thanksgiving, even as our troops are doing their very best far 
from home and family, the Republicans have chosen to pull a cheap, 
demeaning political stunt. Shame on you.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we went to war in Iraq in an 
irresponsible way; we should leave Iraq in a responsible way.
  The Administration's slogan of ``stay the course'' is not a strategy. 
More of the same is unacceptable. We must change course. The Bush 
Administration has tried to stifle debate here at home by shamelessly 
challenging the patriotism of those who question their approach. The 
time has come for a serious debate on this issue of utmost importance 
to the American people. We should bring our troops home as quickly and 
safely as possible. But bringing our troops home is only part of a 
successful strategy for leaving Iraq. We must redeploy our troops in a 
way that does not unleash even more bloodshed and killing in Iraq, and 
does not create a vacuum that will be exploited by Al Queda and 
terrorist elements.
  Our nation went to war in Iraq based on false information and gross 
distortions of the facts made by President Bush and others in his 
Administration. Before the invasion, a number of us gave speeches on 
the floor of this House outlining the dangers of going to war in Iraq. 
The Bush Administration and the Congress chose to disregard the 
warnings that were raised by many people who had experience on foreign 
policy issues regarding the Persian Gulf region.
  We have made many mistakes during the war, but many of the results of 
our invasion were predictable. As I said on this floor prior to the 
war:
  ``The President has presented a utopian vision of democracy breaking 
out in the Middle East after we invade Iraq. It is just as easy to 
imagine a scenario where difficulties in Iraq and the American action 
there fuel resentment toward occupying American troops and inflame the 
region against us, strengthening the hands of radical Islamic 
fundamentalists and making it more difficult to promote democracy and 
other U.S. goals in the region.''
  Now, more than two and half years after the invasion of Iraq, those 
predictions have unfortunately proved true. The Administration utterly 
failed to understand the dynamics and history of Iraq. They failed to 
understand the opening that Sunni grievances and old rivalries would 
give to our enemies, to Al Queda and others. The Administration built 
its actions on a foundation of sand--on rosy scenarios and wishful 
thinking. We never had a plan to deal with the forces we were 
unleashing in Iraq and we are dealing with the consequences now. There 
have been over 2,079 confirmed American deaths in Iraq. Over 15,500 
have been seriously injured. There have been reports of at least 30,000 
Iraqi civilian deaths.
  Having invaded Iraq, the United States has a moral and national 
security obligation to do everything possible to prevent the situation 
from spiraling even farther out of control. We must devise a plan to 
leave Iraq in a way that maximizes the chances for stability and 
minimizes the possibilities of a full scale civil war erupting.
  The insurgency today consists primarily of former Baathists who lost 
their grip on power and who fear for their future security in a country 
dominated by the Shia. They have resorted to a bloody campaign of 
terrorist attacks to prevent the establishment of a central government. 
The Bush Administration has failed to develop a political strategy that 
will end the violence.
  This conflict will not be resolved by military force. It requires a 
diplomatic and political solution. Any resolution must address the 
Sunni fears that are feeding much of the violence. At the same time, 
any resolution must recognize the facts on the ground--the Kurds will 
never again allow themselves to be victimized by a central government 
in Bagdhad and the Shia, by virtue of their majority status, will never 
again allow themselves to be dominated by others.
  The Bush Administration's efforts to achieve a political solution 
have been grossly inadequate. However, the prospects for a political 
and diplomatic resolution are less likely in the face of a total 
immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The more likely result 
would be a surge in killings of innocent Iraqis as different groups 
compete for power in the vacuum left by the immediate and total 
departure of American forces. That bloodshed would be a great stain on 
our nation and a terrible blow to our already shattered credibility. 
Moreover, just as the precipitous U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan 
following the Soviet withdrawal from that country opened the door to 
the Taliban regime, the immediate and total withdrawal of U.S. forces 
from Iraq--without a political plan in place--would most benefit 
extremist and terrorist groups.
  Our strategy for leaving Iraq must also recognize that Iraq's 
neighbors--Iran, Turkey and Syria--all have strong interests in the 
future of Iraq. Our plan must ensure that the United Nations and the 
international community will work to prevent others from exploiting the 
situation in Iraq at the expense of the Iraqi people and

[[Page 27478]]

the security of the region and the United States.
  The Senate Democrats, under the leadership of Senators Harry Reid and 
Carl Levin have proposed a path for bringing our troops home in an 
orderly way that minimizes the likelihood of an outbreak of a full 
scale civil war in Iraq.
  In the aftermath of the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001, the 
world rallied to our side. The international community supported our 
decision to go into Afghanistan to root out Al Queda. The Bush 
Administration squandered that international good will. Instead, it 
began a war of choice against Iraq. As many predicted before the 
invasion, that war has fueled the ranks of Al Queda and strengthened 
the jihadists. We must not compound the blunders of the Bush 
Administration by creating the conditions for even more bloodshed in 
Iraq and allowing it to become a haven and launching pad for terrorist 
activities.
  This Congress has not had a serious debate on Iraq. Instead, the 
Republican leadership in this House has worked to hide from the 
American people the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration's 
policies on Iraq. The time is long overdue for us to have a serious 
discussion on this issue of the greatest importance to the American 
people. Our troops and their families deserve no less.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a 
colleague, a friend and someone whose judgment I respect. John Murtha 
had seen a lot of battles before he came to Congress. A decorated 
Vietnam Veteran with two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star in 37 years of 
service in the Marines.
  I did not know him then, but I know him now. He is a Member who 
carries with him a full life lived, a perspective shaped by experience 
and understanding. He has accrued wisdom, which is seldom seen in a 
person who carries it in such a dignified and unassuming manner.
  He was one of the first gentlemen of the House to support the ``Women 
In Military Service For America Memorial.'' I asked him for his support 
on this project, but I did not have to explain it. He understood the 
contributions women and other minorities have made in the military. He 
takes a comprehensive and inclusive view of situations. This man's 
actions define who he is. I find this refreshing. He speaks from a 
position of knowledge. I say this because tonight we are debating a 
severely amended version of the Murtha Resolution.
  If we are going to seriously debate the war in Iraq, we must do so in 
the scope that represents the full spectrum of the American people. 
This resolution tonight is not the debate the American people have 
asked for or need to hear. The American people want a comprehensive and 
inclusive debate that reflects the complexity of the situation our 
country finds itself in.
  While agreeing with the Murtha Resolution, I do so primarily because 
he has given this situation great thought and because I trust that the 
author had every intent of fully debating his resolution whether 
members agreed to it or not--and is willing to listen constructively. 
We should follow his lead on opening up this debate--not smothering it. 
Mr. Speaker, I ask that on this Friday night before we adjourn for the 
Thanksgiving season to be with family and mends to give thanks, let us 
give dignity to a true debate about this war in Iraq.
  The American people deserve better.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to enter 
into the Congressional Record my observations regarding the shameless 
acts of the Republicans who have hijacked the House of Representatives 
and have become so arrogant, so deaf to any voices but their own they 
do not hear the voices of the American people. My friend and colleague, 
John Murtha, a true American patriot and decorated Marine Corps veteran 
of Vietnam combat, spoke from his heart yesterday on behalf of those he 
cares most about: the men and women wearing the uniform of the United 
States of America and the people of this country he has served all his 
life.
  Congressman John Murtha, the leading Democrat on the House 
Appropriations Committee's defense committee, reached a point where he 
felt this country's continued occupation of Iraq was a source of the 
violence in Iraq. Congressman Murtha had the courage to do what few 
have been able to do. He faced the people at a press conference and 
described how he had come to the conclusion that: ``The United States 
and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for 
a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our 
country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is 
evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best 
interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the 
Persian Gulf Region.''
  Congressman Murtha supported his conclusions by the now familiar 
truths we know. The reasons we were given for going to war were all 
false. There were no weapons of mass destruction and no nuclear 
weapons; there was no imminent danger. We were not welcomed by flowers 
in Baghdad. We had not brought Democracy in Iraq. Congressman Murtha 
cited the key indicators in order to assess the ``progress'' of Iraq. 
According to reports recently submitted to his committee by the 
Secretary of Defense, Congressman Murtha learned some disturbing news. 
``Oil production and energy in Iraq are below prewar levels. Our 
reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. 
Only $9 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. 
Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only 
$500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has 
been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased 
from about 150 per week to over 700 per week in the last year.''
  Congressman Murtha pointed out that the American people do not want 
us in Iraq. A British poll found that 80 percent of Iraqis do not want 
us occupying their country. Of the 80 percent of the Iraqis who don't 
want us in Iraq, 44 percent felt attacks on Americans were justified. 
Drawing on his experience in Vietnam, Congressman Murtha said there is 
no way to win a war with insurgents when the people tell the insurgents 
what moves you are going to take.
  Congressman Murtha repeated what he has been saying. The war in Iraq 
cannot be won militarily. The administration is now saying the same 
thing. Congressman Murtha stated that our military has done its duty, 
but the war continues to intensify.
  Congressman Murtha's proposal was not to ``cut and run'' as the 
Republicans have said. His proposal provides for re-deployment from 
Iraq, the safety of our troops, and a rapid deployment force to deal 
with any genuine terrorist threat in the region.
  To equate a criticism of the President's failed policy with a lack of 
support of our troops is beneath contempt. It is appalling to see the 
President, the Vice President, and Secretary Rumsfeld smear John Murtha 
with accusations of cowardice.
  I think Congressman Murtha said it just right when he was asked at 
his press conference yesterday how he felt about Vice President 
Cheney's attempt to tell him what was good for the troops. He said he 
welcomed a man with five deferments attempting to tell him what was 
good for troops in battle. It was easy, Murtha said, to sit in air-
conditioned offices, and decide what the troops were going to do, but 
our soldiers have it very hard in Iraq. Very hard. When a man with the 
combat record of Congressman Murtha talks about men and women in 
battle, I think he deserves to be heard.
  Instead, the President blasted him from as far away as China. And 
today, the Republican House leadership pulled one of their dirtiest 
tricks. The Republicans introduced and put up for a vote a mockery of 
the Murtha Resolution, with no discussion, no consideration in 
committee and no input from the American people. It was a calculated 
move by Republicans designed to make it appear to the American people 
that Murtha's reasonable resolution was a proposal to undermine the 
troops.
  With this move, Republicans made a mockery of the people's House and 
the people's wishes. They smeared an American hero and a man who cares 
about the military and his country. The leadership of the Republican 
House of Representatives, acting in lock step with a failed President 
is perpetuating, in John Murtha's words, a ``failed policy wrapped in 
an illusion.''
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition to this 
resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from 
Iraq. It is a shame that some members of the House leadership have 
decided to turn one of the most pressing issues facing our Nation into 
a political stunt.
  This resolution is not offered in good faith; it is a blatant effort 
to confront, to embarrass, and to chide anyone who has legitimate 
questions about how this war is being prosecuted. It is cynical and 
mean-spirited, and most tragically, it is a disservice to our troops 
who are serving valiantly and sacrificing their lives every day to 
accomplish the mission they were given.
  Our Nation's future role in Iraq is a serious matter that affects the 
lives of all Americans. Consequently, the American public have 
legitimate questions--not necessarily about the value of our mission 
there, but about how we expect to achieve our goals. They want to know 
what victory will look like, the steps we will take to get there, and 
the appropriate time for our forces to leave safely. Our soldiers,

[[Page 27479]]

sailors, airmen and marines, their families here at home, and all 
Americans deserve those answers.
  Yesterday, my friend and colleague, Jack Murtha, a patriot and a 
decorated veteran, attempted to start that dialogue. However, instead 
of having a frank discussion about the potential consequences of 
immediate troop withdrawal or addressing the burning questions in the 
minds of most Americans, the Republican leadership disingenuously 
twisted Mr. Murtha's words, making a mockery of the democratic 
principles that we hope to instill throughout the world.
  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the right to 
oversee the operations of the military. As a member of the House Armed 
Services Committee, it is a responsibility I take very seriously. 
Instead of seeking a plan for victory, the Republican leadership has 
given the American people silence and the status quo. If we do not 
endeavor to provide the answers that so many demand, we will have 
failed in our responsibilities.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and to 
demonstrate that we will not play politics on an issue of such 
magnitude.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have been in Congress for nearly 20 
years. And in all that tie, I don't think I have ever been more ashamed 
of the House of Representatives than I am today.
  Deciding issues of war and peace should be one of the most solemn 
obligations we confront in Congress. Instead, what is going on today is 
pure political gamesmanship. Such gamesmanship demeans the sacrifice of 
our men and women in uniform, demeans our country's tradition of 
democratic debate, and is a total abdication of our responsibilities as 
Members of Congress. Rather than holding vigorous oversight hearings 
and having a full, open and honest discussion about the future of U.S. 
involvement in Iraq, the Republican leadership has rushed a resolution 
to the floor today that deliberately mischaracterizes the views of many 
Democrats, including the honorable Representative Jack Murtha, a 
decorated marine who served in both Korea and Vietnam, who have called 
for a safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops over the next six 
months to a year.
  Instead of debating the merits of the ongoing occupation of Iraq and 
the White House's lack of an exit strategy, the White House and the 
Republican leadership in Congress have viciously attacked the integrity 
of both Republican and Democratic critics of the administration's Iraq 
war policies. Senator Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, was so 
outraged by such character assassination that he said recently, ``The 
Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to 
question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for 
disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy 
is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this 
country has stood for, for over 200 years . . . Vietnam was a national 
tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, 
remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations 
in power until it was too late . . . To question your government is not 
unpatriotic--to not question your government is unpatriotic.''
  It is particularly galling when individuals like Dick Cheney, who has 
never served a day in the military, let alone been shot at by enemy 
soldiers on behalf of our country, questions the integrity of genuine 
heroes like Representative Murtha.
  Let me be clear, I have not supported an immediate withdrawal from 
Iraq. But, I do believe that in the wake of the December parliamentary 
elections in Iraq that the U.S. should negotiate a timeline with the 
new Iraqi government for the withdrawal of U.S. troops next year.
  I was heartened when millions of Iraqis, even at risk of life and 
limb, voted in late January to establish an interim government and 
constitutional assembly and again in October in support of a new 
Constitution. I wrote to President Bush just after the January 
election, suggesting that the U.S. negotiate a timeline for a phased 
withdrawal of U.S. troops with the newly elected government. I felt it 
would be an ideal time to signal to the Iraqi people in a concrete way 
that the U.S. has no long-term designs on their country. While the 
President ignored my advice earlier this year, I renew my call and ask 
that following the December elections in Iraq, the U.S. negotiate a 
timeline to withdraw from Iraq next year.
  While some have argued that announcing a timeline for withdrawal 
would undermine our troops and allow the insurgents to wait us out, I 
disagree.
  Negotiating a timeline for withdrawal with the Iraqi government 
elected next month would show that democracy ended the U.S. occupation 
of Iraq, not terrorist or insurgent violence, and would allow our 
troops to come home with honor.
  Announcing the termination of the open-ended U.S. military commitment 
in Iraq and providing a concrete plan, including a timeline negotiated 
with the Iraqi government, for withdrawal could also undermine support 
for insurgents who have stoked the wide variety of grievances of 
ordinary Iraqis arising from the occupation to generate popular support 
for their cause. Most importantly, establishing a withdrawal plan and 
timeline would remove one of the chief causes of instability in Iraq, 
the occupation itself, by separating nationalist Iraqi insurgents 
trying to end the occupation, both Sunni and Shia, from foreign 
elements in Iraq for their own reasons. To the extent that a specific 
withdrawal plan, with benchmarks for measuring success in stabilizing 
Iraq, would turn Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, against the foreign 
terrorists operating in Iraq, it could be a key turning point in 
stabilizing the country. Remember, the insurgency is made up of two 
primary camps--nationalist Sunnis and foreign terrorists. These two 
camps have different motivations and different goals.
  A timeline and withdrawal plan negotiated with the Iraqi government 
would also boost the Iraqi government's legitimacy and claim to self-
rule and would force the Iraqi government to take responsibility for 
itself and its citizens.
  Just as importantly, a specific plan and timeline for withdrawal 
would provide much needed relief to over-burdened military personnel 
and their families and provide some certainty to U.S. taxpayers 
regarding the ultimate financial burden they'll be forced to bear.
  A plan for withdrawal could also help the United States in our 
broader fight against Islamic extremists with global ambitions, most 
notably al-Qaeda, by taking away a recruiting tool and training ground. 
Porter Goss, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified 
to Congress earlier this year that, ``Islamic extremists are exploiting 
the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists. These jihadists 
who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban 
terrorism.'' He went on to say, ``The Iraq conflict, while not a cause 
of extremism, has become a cause for extremists.'' And, the Commander 
of U.S. forces in Iraq, General George Casey, testified to Congress 
earlier this year that ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a 
major driving force behind the insurgency. ``
  Finally, establishing a firm timeline for withdrawal could accelerate 
the development of Iraqi security forces and deepen their commitment to 
defending their own country and their own government by eliminating the 
conflicted feelings they now feel by working with an occupying force. 
It would allow them to be defending a sovereign Iraqi government, 
rather than fighting on the side of an occupation force.
  The House should be debating this important issue and strategies for 
moving forward in Iraq instead of politically motivated straw man 
resolutions.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want our troops home as soon as anyone 
here, but I will not let the sacrifices of those who will never come 
home from Iraq and Afghanistan be wasted or forgotten.
  Our brave men and women went to battle to bring freedom to Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and to take the fight to the terrorists so that we do not 
have to fight them here at home. This is a fight for the free world. It 
is a fight that we must win, and it is a fight that we will win only 
when we support our troops.
  Let us work across the aisle to help them succeed and get them home 
safely, and let us honor their sacrifice by continuing to support their 
vital mission.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in disgust at the level of cynicism 
that is represented by this resolution.
  This exercise by the House Republican leadership is about as un-
American and contemptuous as it gets.
  I support Mr. Murtha's resolution to bring about an end to U.S. 
operations in Iraq in--and I quote--``at the earliest practicable 
date.''
  The resolution before us is not about that.
  This resolution is a blatant political effort to make it look like 
the President's Iraq policy has broad support in Congress and among the 
public--which it obviously does not.
  Worse, it transforms the sacrifice of our brave troops into crass 
political exercise.
  Mr. Speaker, I have opposed this war from the beginning.
  I wasn't convinced of the need for it and deeply concerned about the 
potential fallout that it could precipitate.
  Sadly, many of my concerns have been borne out, as nearly 2,100 brave 
Americans have lost their lives and many thousands more have been 
wounded.
  Today, the insurgency continues unabated and now Iraq is a hotbed of 
terrorist activity.
  We are less secure today than before we invaded.

[[Page 27480]]

  As a result, America's position and influence in the world have 
suffered greatly in the process.
  I believe it is long past time that the administration produce an 
exit strategy for Iraq and am deeply disappointed that all we have seen 
is more of the same arrogance and incompetence that got us here in the 
first place.
  I am not surprised by Representative Murtha's statement yesterday.
  Mr. Murtha's distinguished military career, and his decades of public 
service, have given him a level of expertise on defense issues 
virtually unparalleled in today's Congress.
  He understands the troops and their leadership, and the challenges 
faced by the military in times of war and peace far better than most.
  I am sure his announcement is the result of long and careful 
consideration and demands the attention of all thinking Americans.
  I am shocked, but not surprised, by the shameful response of some of 
my Republican colleagues in Congress and by officials in the White 
House who have sought to besmirch Mr. Murtha's motivations and accumen.
  Today's action by the House leadership is more of the same--an 
attempt to smear a man of honor who commits the unpardonable sin of 
disagreeing with them.
  Fortunately, I know that as time goes on Mr. Murtha's call for a 
serious reassessment of our position in Iraq will be recognized as 
thoughtful analysis of a policy in deep trouble and need for change.
  I only hope that President Bush and his administration will discover 
that truth before more lives are lost in this very tragic situation.
  Speaker J. Dennis Hastert declared: ``Murtha and Democratic leaders 
have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United 
States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. 
To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign 
soil.''
  Majority Leader Roy Blunt informed Murtha that his views ``only 
embolden our enemies'' and lamented that ``Democrats undermine our 
troops in Iraq from the security of their Washington, DC, offices.''
  At a rival news conference called four hours after Murtha's 
appearance, Representative J.D. Hayworth, who like Hastert and Blunt 
does not have military service on his resume, alerted the 73-year-old 
Murtha that ``the American people are made of sterner stuff.'' And 
Representative John Carter said the likes of Murtha want to take ``the 
cowardly way out and say, `We're going to surrender.'''
  The White House accused a senior House Democrat--and a decorated 
Vietnam veteran--who called for a swift withdrawal from Iraq of 
advocating surrender, comparing him to anti-war filmmaker Michael 
Moore.
  In a broadside issued Thursday night, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan 
said that it is ``baffling that [Pennsylvania Representative John 
Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the 
extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.''
  Murtha, whose brand of hawkishness has never been qualified by the 
word ``chicken,'' was expecting the attacks. ``I like guys who've never 
been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that,'' the burly 
old marine said, hands in pocket. Referring to Vice President Cheney, 
he continued: ``I like guys who got five deferments and never been 
there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions 
about what needs to be done.''
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am disappointed by the limitation 
placed on debate on the U.S. role in Iraq.
  Congress needs to have a real and meaningful debate on the future 
role of the U.S. military in Iraq as we approach the third anniversary 
of our invasion of Iraq. Congress should take seriously its obligation 
to oversee our military forces.
  I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war in 
Iraq. I have been an outspoken critic of the President's handling and 
planning for the Iraq War, and have criticized both the pre-war 
intelligence used by the President and the failure of the President to 
plan a realistic transition from a dictatorship to a democracy in Iraq 
with our allies.
  I commend the Senate for the debate it had this week in which real 
policy options were reviewed in a serious and responsible manner. I 
agree that 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full 
Iraqi sovereignty, and that Iraqi security forces must take the lead in 
protecting its citizens. U.S. military forces should not stay in Iraq 
any longer than required, and Congress must insist on measurable 
benchmarks for bringing our troops home.
  Our soldiers have paid the heaviest price in Iraq: thousands are 
dead, and tens of thousands are wounded. The American taxpayer has 
already invested hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, our 
soldiers deserve better than the resolution we are considering this 
evening. The American people deserve a Congress that will give serious 
consideration to how we can safely bring our soldiers home.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, 
which is nothing more than an effort to politicize one of the most 
serious policy issues facing the United States today. It is nothing 
more than an effort to disguise--in a cloak of partisan rhetoric--the 
fact that our Iraq policy is failing.
  The facts are clear: Even as our brave men and women in uniform have 
done their best, the Administration has failed at every turn to execute 
the war in Iraq competently. The President rushed to war based on false 
and faulty intelligence against the protests of the vast majority of 
our allies. Warnings from U.S. commanders about troop levels and 
equipment went unheeded, haphazard decisions were made at the earliest 
stages which seriously damaged our efforts to restore peace and 
security in Iraq. Our troops have become targets of an ever-
strengthening insurgency. This Administration's horrendous judgment has 
put us in an untenable situation--damaging our ability to deal with 
other emerging threats around the world and threatening the stability 
of the Middle East.
  The solution to Iraq's problems will be political in nature, not 
military. The various factions in Iraq need to come together to decide 
what shape the future of their country will take and to execute that 
decision. Every diplomatic avenue must be pursued to engage the 
international community in bringing stability and security to Iraq and 
reconstructing critical infrastructure. We must assure the Iraqi people 
that we do not intend to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and that we will 
redeploy troops in a way that assures their safety and on a schedule 
pegged to successes in security force training and other criteria. 
Iraqi security forces must take control of their own country as soon as 
they are able.
  This redeployment must be carried out in a way that does not leave 
Iraq as a playground for Iran, Syria, and al-Qaeda. It must be carried 
out at the earliest possible time we are reasonably assured that the 
conditions exist to ensure redeployment will leave U.S. interests in 
the Middle East and around the world more, rather than less, secure.
  Mr. Speaker, hasty decision-making is what got us into this mess in 
the first place. The war in Iraq, and the men and women in uniform who 
are fighting the war, deserve more than ad hoc, 11th-hour debates over 
political power plays. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, this Republican withdrawal 
resolution was drafted in haste.
  No matter how you felt about getting into this war, our kids are 
there now. They're in the middle of harm's way, right now. As many 
thousands of families, friends and loved ones can tell you--they've 
been over there a long time.
  I'm a member of the Armed Services Committee. I voted against going 
to war with Iraq without exhausting all our diplomatic efforts. But 
here we are. We didn't do that.
  I've been to Iraq. I've sat through scores of hearings on Iraq. I've 
spoken to the Secretary of Defense. I've spoken with our military 
commanders. Like everyone here tonight, I've lost sleep over it. I've 
given it a lot of thought. I know my colleagues have too. I know that.
  Let's calm down for a second. Let's look at the choice before us 
tonight.
  On one hand, House Republican Duncan Hunter is asking us to withdraw 
our troops immediately without protection or support. On the other 
hand, the White House is asking us just to keep our troops on the same 
course.
  I can't choose either of these options in good conscience. Honestly, 
I don't see how any of us can.
  To put it simply, we have more options than ``all or nothing'' here 
tonight.
  We should be looking for the ``better course'' not the ``same 
course.''
  There is no military solution to Iraq. We've got to look to diplomacy 
and joint civilian-military efforts. This war has demonstrated the need 
for trained civilian professionals who can provide continuity and hand-
in-glove partnerships with Iraqi citizens.
  Everywhere I've gone and everyone I've talked to has cited the need 
for this.
  It was obvious early on that the future of Iraq depends on Iraqis. 
And yet, the administration is only now beginning to place an emphasis 
on training Iraq's own security forces.
  James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly wrote recently, ``an orderly 
exit from Iraq depends on the development of a viable Iraqi security 
force. But the Iraqis aren't even close. The Bush administration 
doesn't take the problem seriously--and it never has.''
  We have other options besides this draconian resolution. It's too bad 
we're not able to

[[Page 27481]]

have hearings on those. It's too bad we're not able to consider these 
other options tonight.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the men and women who are so bravely serving our country in 
Iraq and around the world.
  Our best and bravest continue to perform selflessly and admirably. We 
owe them our deepest respect and appreciation.
  We also have an obligation to provide them, and the American people, 
with a clear set of objectives, a comprehensive strategy to achieve 
these objectives, and a roadmap to return home once these objectives 
are achieved. But, the Bush Administration has not done this.
  My colleagues, people all across the country, Republicans and 
Democrats, want to know why our intelligence was wrong. They want to 
know why our troops don't have the necessary body armor. They want to 
know what our objectives are and what progress has been made in 
achieving them. And, they want to know what concrete steps must be 
taken to achieve troop withdrawals.
  Yet, the Administration's only response to these legitimate questions 
is to criticize those that ask them as unpatriotic and provide the 
empty rhetoric of ``stay the course''. This is irresponsible, morally 
reprehensible and shameful--to our troops, to the American people, and 
to our democracy. It demoralizes our mission and is a direct challenge 
to the freedom and liberty that so many of our troops have fought and 
died for.
  It is Congress's fundamental responsibility to investigate whether 
faulty intelligence led us to war; to provide our troops with the 
necessary training, equipment, and supplies; and to ensure that our 
nation has a clearly defined strategy to achieve success in Iraq and 
provide for the return of our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that Congress fulfills our obligations. Our 
troops have shown time and time again that when presented with a 
challenge, they will achieve it. They have done their part; it is time 
we do our part.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the sham piece 
of legislation before us. It is not designed to express the will of the 
House on Iraq. It is a political stunt intended to avoid a deeply 
serious, much-needed debate on the most pressing issue facing our 
country today.
  Yesterday, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, introduced a 
resolution calling for the redeployment of American forces from Iraq. 
The resolution would require us to maintain a sizeable quick reaction 
force in the region, and to reinvigorate our diplomatic efforts to 
bring about peace and security for the Iraqi people by truly 
internationalizing our efforts there.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, has correctly observed 
that at present, our policy in Iraq ``is a flawed policy wrapped in 
illusion,'' and that we cannot continue on this present course, because 
to do so is to court disaster. Based on visits to Iraq, discussion with 
military leaders there and in Washington, he said that the continued 
presence of our troops does not advance our security nor that of Iraq. 
He also said that the American people are way out in front of the 
Congress on this issue. In all of these things, he spoke the truth.
  But in the eyes of the majority and the Bush White House, the 
gentleman's resolution is, in the words of White House spokesman Scott 
McClellan ``a surrender to the terrorists.'' They have accused him--as 
they have others who dare to question their failed policy in Iraq--of 
being unpatriotic. Sadly, this is a tactic we have seen before. But it 
is deeply corrosive and it must stop. Every American has the right to 
question their leaders, period.
  There is a reason the majority and the President don't want to be 
questioned about Iraq. There are several reasons, in fact. This war was 
started based on faulty and misrepresented intelligence. It has been 
prosecuted without the number of troops or the amount of equipment that 
was known to be necessary before it started. And today, it continues 
without broad international cooperation or an exit strategy. Answering 
questions about any and all of these is admittedly difficult. But 
hiding from the answers is not only cowardly, it is irresponsible. I 
too have visited our troops in Iraq, and they are best served if we 
face the truth--with the humility that come from recognizing their 
valor, dedication, and sacrifice.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania has said, things are not going as 
advertised in Iraq, and the American people know it. Three years of 
mistakes and even falsehoods--about the threat Saddam posed, about the 
ease of total victory, about how Iraqi oil would pay for 
reconstruction, about the cost to America's military and budget, among 
others--have finally caught up with this Administration and the 
Congressional leadership. The gentleman from Pennsylvania offers a plan 
for getting us out of Iraq strategically, methodically, and 
successfully. It outlines a way forward for our country to deal with 
the number one moral and political issue confronting our nation today. 
We should be debating his proposal, not mocking it.
  Meeting the challenge that faces us in Iraq requires courage and 
honesty. The actions of the majority show neither today. I am sorely 
disappointed that they have chosen to act so irresponsibly.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, there has never been a time like this in 
America's history.
  Never before has a full-scale assault been launched on Americans who 
offer a different point of view about the policies of an 
administration, especially when it concerns a war on foreign soil.
  Almost 3 years ago, I went to Iraq as part of a humanitarian 
delegation. When I said in response to a media question that the 
President would mislead America into war, the White House immediately 
launched a relentless attack on me. They spared no political or public 
relations weapon, surrogate or ploy, in their attempt to silence me.
  Republicans, at the direction of the White House, launched a full-
scale assault on me, because they feared what might happen if the 
American people actually had an opportunity to consider an alternative 
point of view. If they could shout me down, they could silence anyone's 
question about the evidence before waging war.
  In the last 24 hours, a similar campaign has been launched against 
Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Here is an esteemed Member 
of Congress, a decorated combat veteran, a conservative known for his 
strong stand on defense, and the Republicans and their cronies launch 
an offensive that, itself, is offensive.
  Representative John Murtha stood up yesterday and spoke on behalf of 
the American people. He called for the deployment of U.S. soldiers out 
of Iraq, beginning immediately. He called for a diplomatic solution. 
And Republicans and their surrogates have called him every foul and 
offensive name imaginable.
  The conduct of the Republican Party and its surrogates is despicable, 
but it is out in the open for the first time. Now, the American people 
understand the lengths to which the Republican Party will go to silence 
dissent in America. Now, the American people know that there is a war 
being fought in America over the war in Iraq.
  The American people are demanding an end to the presence of U.S. 
soldiers in Iraq because the American people know there is no such 
thing as a military victory in an urban, guerilla warfare. There is 
only occupation, and the American people want no part of that flawed 
and futile mission.
  The American people overwhelming want a solution for Iraq that is 
negotiated by diplomats from the Arab world, not dictated by a 
President from the western world.
  Representative John Murtha has set forth a plan that resonates with 
the American people, and that's what frightens the White House. 
Therefore, the attacks will not stop unless and until Republicans can 
silence dissent in America.
  There is a plan now for winning the peace in Iraq. It may have been 
submitted by a Member of Congress, but it is the voice and will of the 
American people. The American people get it: You are not strong on 
defense, by strong arming a defenseless--and senseless--war.
  I support the Murtha plan to win the peace in Iraq.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, for over 2 years, the Bush 
administration has failed to offer the American people a truthful and 
meaningful dialogue on the war in Iraq. We have lost thousands of 
troops and we have spent billions of dollars, and yet the President 
refuses to offer a credible strategy for success. The President has 
misled the public and he refuses to acknowledge the truth of the 
reality in Iraq.
  Hundreds of Members of Congress and millions of Americans have voiced 
very serious and very real concerns with the decisions being made by 
the White House. Although I voted against the war, once the President 
took us to war, I have supported the men and women in uniform who are 
serving our Nation. However, I continue to believe that unless we have 
a clear strategy, we will continue to see the loss of American lives in 
Iraq with no end in sight.
  Unfortunately, today, instead of having a legitimate debate about 
strategy and consequences, the majority has chosen to waste the time of 
this body and the American people by bringing forth a blatantly 
political resolution that is difficult to take seriously. My colleague 
from Pennsylvania, a Vietnam veteran decorated with two Purple Hearts 
and a Member of

[[Page 27482]]

the House for three decades, Mr. Murtha, yesterday offered a well 
thought out, principled resolution calling for the redeployment of the 
forces in Iraq at the ``earliest practicable date.'' In addition, 
despite what some in the majority have characterized during today's 
debate as cutting and running, Mr. Murtha's resolution calls for a 
continued military presence in the region through the deployment of a 
quick-reaction force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines. 
Also, the resolution states that the U.S. shall continue to pursue 
security and stability in Iraq through diplomatic means.
  It is important to note that the word ``immediate'' does not appear 
anywhere in Mr. Murtha's resolution. Yet we find ourselves today 
debating a resolution introduced by the chair of the House Armed 
Services Committee that calls for the ``immediate withdrawal'' of 
American troops. The fact that this was introduced by the House Armed 
Services Committee and the fact that he along with colleagues in the 
majority will be voting against his own resolution demonstrates not 
only the lack of clear ideas from their side of the aisle but also a 
lack of willingness to have a true debate.
  Today, the majority once again shunned their responsibility in having 
an open debate on the war in Iraq, and instead they and the President 
continue to attack those who disagree with them by questioning their 
patriotism. Rather than engaging in an open dialogue to debate the 
issue, the majority chose to engage in personal destruction and 
politicized the issue by voicing empty rhetoric. They chose to question 
the patriotism of those who have served in uniform and who have 
honorably served their country. And they chose to continue to hide from 
the American public the facts of this war.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 
2005, my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, the 
ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--a 27 year 
Marine and a veteran of 3 tours in Vietnam--announced that he was 
introducing a resolution that was meant to stimulate a thoughtful and 
profound debate on how we salvage a failed policy in Iraq.
  Recently, a Texas soldier became the 2,000th member of the U.S. armed 
forces to die in Iraq since the conflict there began in March 2003. 
Like any milestone, the death of that soldier is an occasion to look 
back and see what lessons can be learned from our country's bitter 
sacrifice in Iraq over the past 2\1/2\ years. One such lesson, 
underlined anew by the continuing deaths of Americans and Iraqis, is 
the need to limit our country's commitment to Iraq.
  Instead of creating a significant dialogue on this issue, Republican 
leadership has chosen to divide this House by generating phony, 
cynical, political, outrageously tricky and sneaky maneuvers like this.
  Mr. Speaker, too often, so many of my colleagues are reluctant to 
challenge this Administration's policies in Iraq for fear that anything 
other than staying the course will somehow appear weak. But the 
President's course is misguided, and it is doing grave damage to our 
extraordinarily professional and globally admired all-volunteer United 
States Army. To stand by while this damage is done is not patriotic. It 
is not supportive. It is not tough on terrorism, or strong on national 
security.
  Because I am proud of our men and women in uniform, and because I am 
committed to working with all of my colleagues to make this country 
more secure, I am convinced that we must change our course and I 
commend Mr. Murtha for standing up for what is right.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans have done today is 
nothing more than a cheap political trick . . . a clever but 
appallingly undemocratic way for the Republican majority to trash an 
honorable American--and decorated war veteran--simply because he 
disagrees with them on the war in Iraq.
  Yet, no one should be surprised. My 5-year old grandson could have 
written this tired script: whenever a Democrat criticizes a Republican 
policy, they attack your character and question your patriotism.
  And while we're on the subject, let's just ask: what is more 
patriotic than opposing an unjust war? What is more patriotic than 
trying to save the lives of America's soldiers? What is more patriotic 
than questioning the Bush Administration's failed Iraq policy?
  The American people deserve better than this. They deserve a thorough 
and substantive debate on the war and a debate on the Murtha resolution 
. . . not a bill that can't be amended and has been brought to the 
House floor for purely political reasons.
  Mr. Speaker, a group of Democrats has written a discharge petition to 
bring the Homeward Bound legislation, H. J. Res. 55, to the House 
floor.
  The discharge petition will allow 17 hours of debate on this vitally 
important issue. And, in sharp contrast to the bill the Republicans 
introduced today, it would be brought up under an open rule that allows 
amendments to be introduced to the bill.
  The fact that the other party refuses to have this debate--and the 
insults that have been hurled at Mr. Murtha over the last 24 hours--are 
an affront to our very democracy. I urge my colleagues on the other 
side to repudiate these appalling tactics and hold a real debate on 
this issue.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and oppose the 
underlying resolution.
  Calling for an immediate withdrawal, or even a detailed planned 
phased withdrawal, from Iraq is a recipe for disaster, a dangerous 
defense policy, the wrong message for our soldiers and Marines who are 
truly doing the `work of freedom.'
  Frankly, I am concerned that such talk will only embolden the 
terrorists and demoralize our warfighters--those who put their lives on 
the line, literally 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 a new government, 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!''
  Mr. Speaker, we have to choose where we want to fight the global war 
on terrorism--in Iraq and Afghanistan or on Main Street in America.
  And we must never forget that it is our brave young warfighters--men 
and women of the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force--who are taking the 
fight to the terrorists overseas!
  They are all volunteers--doing the unheralded work of rebuilding 
shattered nations.
  If not for their service, Saddam Hussein would still be in power with 
all his trappings--the secret police, the torture chambers, the mass 
graveyards. God bless these young people.
  If not for their service, Iraq would be a nation engulfed in civil 
war or in the hands of fanatical terrorists.
  The targets of these terrorists are more often than not other 
Muslims--worshippers at Friday prayers inside their mosque slaughtered 
by suicide bombers--today--and moderate Muslims who reject their 
extremist views and work to provide for their families, run businesses 
or serve in the government. Indeed, the terrorists' victims include 
thousands of Muslims in Iraq--many killed simply because they've chosen 
to be free.
  Mr. Speaker, with our support, the Iraqis have made great progress. 
They established an interim government. They elected members of a 
constitutional conference. They've drafted a constitution and conducted 
a referendum to endorse that constitution. And in 3 weeks, they will 
hold a full-fledged parliamentary election.
  None of this would have been possible without the contribution of our 
young warfighters.
  Of course, at times like these, we are reminded that freedom is not 
free. America has paid a heavy price.
  Many of us visit soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the 
Bethesda Naval Medical Center on a regular basis. Many of us have 
attended painful funerals and comforted grieving families. Time and 
again, those families of wounded soldiers speak proudly of their loved 
ones' service in Iraq--their humanitarian efforts to protect the 
innocent, rebuild schools and hospitals, repair the infrastructure of a 
civil society.
  Let's support our troops--and their families. And let's applaud their 
service and heroism.
  I urge adoption of this rule and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership today demonstrates 
that they have no sense of decency left. No question before Congress 
requires a more measured, thoughtful discussion than matters of war and 
peace. Our national security and the lives of our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and marines depend on our ability to fulfill our constitutional 
responsibilities with dignity and respect.
  That measured, thoughtful discussion will not occur today, because 
the Republican leadership does not want it to occur. They want a quick 
vote, with limited debate, on a same-day resolution that they hope will 
divide Democrats. They have taken Representative Jack Murtha's 
proposal, rewritten to make it irresponsible, and brought it to the 
floor for a vote.
  Almost everything we were told by the advocates of invading Iraq 
before the war has turned out to be false. This administration and

[[Page 27483]]

its congressional allies hyped the threat and manipulated American 
intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program and its alleged connection to 
al Qaeda.
  Today, there is only one question about our occupation of Iraq. It 
weighs on the minds of almost all Americans, especially those with 
loved ones in the military. That question is, simply, when and under 
what conditions will we withdraw our troops and bring them home?
  Opinions differ. After 2\1/2\ years, over 2,000 deaths and 15,000 
wounded, millions of Americans and many Members of Congress believe it 
is time for us to start the process of withdrawal from Iraq. Some 
believe in a date certain for beginning or completing the withdrawal. 
Some believe our withdrawal should be tied to achievement of certain 
benchmarks of progress. President Bush appears to believe that only 
total ``victory over the terrorists,'' whatever that is, would justify 
withdrawal.
  The historic task of this Congress in foreign policy is to 
participate in a constructive debate that will inform the decisions of 
the administration and others.
  The Republican leadership has dishonored the people's House by 
foregoing debate on alternatives, not just debate but hearings, in 
favor of bringing one resolution to the floor in the hope of dividing 
critics of the administration's ``stay the course'' war strategy.
  I voted against giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq 
without building a broad international coalition and obtaining explicit 
U.N. authority. I did not believe he would do anything, given the 
authority from Congress, but rush to war. And that is what he did.
  No Member of Congress is more respected or more knowledgeable about 
the American military than Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. His statement 
yesterday calling for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, including his 
conviction that we cannot accomplish more militarily, deserves 
thoughtful consideration. He will not get that today.
  Instead, Jack Murtha, decorated Marine, distinguished Member of 
Congress, has been vilified by the Speaker of this House, who wrongly 
accused him of adopting ``a policy of cut and run'' and preferring that 
``the United States surrender to the terrorists.'' The White House 
spokesman accused Mr. Murtha of endorsing ``Michael Moore and the 
extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.''
  I doubt that Jack Murtha knows Michael Moore, and no one here that I 
know ever called him a liberal. We call him Mr. Murtha because he is 
one tough Marine.
  If I were the author of his resolution, I would have written it 
somewhat differently. I would have called for the withdrawal of 
American forces to begin next year and be concluded except for a very 
small training force of advisors in 2007. We cannot allow Iraq to 
become a failed state where al Qaeda forces can be trained with 
impunity. Therefore, some rapid reaction force in the region, as Jack 
Murtha suggested, should be available.
  But on the big picture, Jack Murtha is right. Our troops have become 
not only the targets of the insurgents, but the inspiration for the 
insurgency. Political success for the Iraqi government and people is 
still possible, but it will have to be won largely by political means. 
The Administration is, as he said, pursuing ``a flawed policy wrapped 
in illusion.''
  The Republican Leadership has rigged this debate to serve their own 
political interests. I believe that the Murtha resolution calling for 
withdrawal is the right policy going forward, though we should continue 
to debate timing and benchmarks. A vote against the Murtha resolution, 
if it were offered, could be interpreted as support for the 
Administration's flawed and failed ``stay the course'' policy.
  Jack Murtha is on the right track. The President is not. Our national 
security and the lives and well-being of our troops depend on changing 
course, not doing the same old thing in Iraq.
  If the Murtha Resolution had been brought to the floor today, I would 
have voted in favor of it.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I voted to give President Bush the 
authority to go into Iraq. I'm not on the left; I'm not on the right. 
I'm on the side of our country and I'm on the side of our troops. I 
can't imagine why the Republicans have brought this Bush-Hunter 
resolution to the floor. How does this help our troops serving in Iraq? 
How does this help make our Nation safer?
  For the past two years, the Republicans have taken any criticism of 
this war and labeled it as unpatriotic and as an attack on our troops. 
Criticizing the way the war has been prosecuted--criticizing the way it 
has been bungled--is not unpatriotic. It is the ultimate act of 
patriotism.
  John Murtha is a 37-year veteran of the Marine Corps. He served in 
Vietnam. He was awarded the bronze star. He received two purple hearts. 
Now Mr. Murtha has provoked an important debate--one we should be 
having in this body. Mr. Murtha has the right to have these ideas 
discussed. Our troops have the right to have these ideas discussed. The 
American public has the right to have these ideas discussed.
  We send young men and women to war. We are responsible for them. We 
must be diligent in our oversight. That's our duty.
  What we are doing here tonight is a waste of time and does a 
tremendous disservice to our troops. Talk about patriotism--this is not 
patriotism. This is a cheap political stunt and an affront to those 
serving our Nation so far from home.
  The President wants to stay the course. What does that mean? 700 
attacks a week against our troops; no winning strategy; no plan; no end 
in sight.
  Let us not embarrass ourselves any further, and vote against the 
Hunter resolution.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by the course of events today. 
As the daughter of a veteran of two wars I am offended and outraged by 
this personal assault on decorated war veteran Congressman John Murtha.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has lost any sense of decorum or 
decency. Their abuse of power is obscene. There will be a reckoning 
though. Because the American people want accountability, not more 
Republican cover-ups. The American people want honesty, not more 
misleading and manipulation. They want to end this unnecessary and 
senseless war, not a policy of `stay the course' that has no goals, no 
benchmarks, no plans, and no end.
  The Republican majority's effort in distorting and politicizing the 
resolution offered by a decorated war veteran is nothing short of 
despicable. The reality is that these are desperate actions by a 
desperate majority and a desperate administration. This last minute 
effort isn't about a debate on the issues the Murtha resolution raises. 
It isn't about how intelligence was misused by the administration. But 
it should be. It isn't about how we are going to bring our troops home. 
But it should be. This resolution is just about politics.
  I support the Murtha resolution and this is not the Murtha 
resolution. Reject this cynical and disgraceful stunt from a party 
devoid of ideas on ending the war in Iraq and how to safely bring our 
troops home. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' 
on the resolution.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, today's House debate on Iraq was sharply 
partisan and not what our soldiers deserve. Our future course in Iraq 
must be determined thoughtfully and strategically. The partisan 
shouting match that broke out was unnecessarily launched by House 
leaders who rushed to the floor a flawed resolution which was more of a 
political stunt than a serious reflection of views in the Congress.
  Our brave soldiers have put their lives on the line in serving in 
Iraq. Each of them deserves so much more from Congress by way of 
effective leadership than the shrill squabbling that broke out on the 
House floor today. We need to come together on an exit strategy for our 
soldiers based upon the transition of security to the Iraqis themselves 
in order to give the new democratic government of the people of Iraq a 
fair chance of success.
  It is my hope the partisan screamers holding forth on the House floor 
today would lower their voices, travel to the area, learn as much as 
possible and then participate constructively in the difficult decisions 
we face on Iraq.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives is sinking 
to a new low today. What is happening on the floor is not intended to 
be an open and honest debate on our policy in Iraq. It is about the 
politics of personal destruction--a swift-boat attack by Congressional 
Republicans on a 37-year veteran of the Marine Corps for giving his 
honest assessment about the situation in Iraq.
  Republicans will try to claim--falsely--that this is about an idea, 
not a person--but everyone here in this room--whether or not they will 
admit it--knows the truth of what is going on today. This is about 
changing the subject and dodging responsibility. House Republicans are 
exposed and embarrassed by the Senate's recent vote to demand 
benchmarks from the White House. The President refuses to level with 
the American people on Iraq, or present his ideas, and apparently House 
Republicans are of the same mind. They would rather tear someone down.
  Our troops--putting their lives on the line--deserve better from this 
country. Today is clearly not about these brave men and women. It is 
about political attacks.
  Jack Murtha is one of the most respected members of the U.S. Congress 
on U.S. military policy--an expertise he has built from his

[[Page 27484]]

first-hand knowledge of military and defense issues. He is a 37-year 
veteran of the Marine Corps, who retired at the rank of colonel in 
1990. He is one of the most respected members of the U.S. Congress on 
the U.S. military, on a bipartisan basis. To question Jack Murtha's 
commitment--his patriotism to this nation--or our troops is ludicrous. 
No one has been as devoted as Jack to our men and women in the 
military--he's made weekly visits to Walter Reed, visits to Iraq and 
has poured over the Defense Department's own assessments of the 
situation on the ground in Iraq.
  I will vote against the GOP's characterization of Congressman 
Murtha's opinions on Iraq, because I cannot support personal, political 
attacks and I believe that we should have a free and open debate on 
this issue.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
Republican stunt and their efforts to embarrass a decorated Vietnam War 
Veteran.
  Yesterday, Congressman John Murtha, a Democrat with impeccable 
military credentials and an honored military record, suggested that 
U.S. troops leave Iraq at the earliest practicable date. Today, I 
cosponsored that resolution. His knowledgeable and respected voice 
joins the loud and clear pleas of the Out of Iraq Caucus--of which I am 
a proud member. His voice joins former generals, intelligence officers, 
Presidents, and mothers and fathers across America who know that we are 
mired in a war that cannot be won and to truly honor our troops, we 
need to bring them home.
  Unfortunately, tonight the Republican leadership refused to bring Mr. 
Murtha's resolution to a vote. I can only presume because Mr. Murtha's 
resolution made too much sense. Instead, the Republican leadership is 
offering a sham-resolution in an attempt to embarrass and insult a 
member of Congress who has served his country nobly in uniform--
something most of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know 
nothing about.
  Perhaps the Republican Leadership's time would be better spent in an 
effort to finish the business of this country instead of wasting hours 
attempting to besmirch the record of a decorated Vietnam War Veteran 
and demagogue an issue that demands honest consideration.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I served in a war during 
which too many national leaders played too much politics. Tonight is a 
disgraceful period in the history of our great country and this House 
of Representatives.
  To wage a political war against one of the greatest military 
champions Congress has known is no less than unpatriotic. Advocates of 
this measure are cheapening the job our brave men and women serving in 
Iraq are doing; the men and women putting their lives on the line to 
serve our country.
  Mr. Speaker, those who dreamed up this strategy are derelict in their 
duties, absent without leave from their duty station; and people I 
wouldn't want to share a foxhole with.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 571 completely dishonors 
our troops by politicizing an issue that deserves careful deliberation. 
The GOP leadership of this body has brought this counterfeit 
legislation to the floor not to benefit our brave men and women in 
uniform, but to score cheap political points.
  I fully support legitimate initiatives which present a thoughtful 
strategy for withdrawing our troops from Iraq in a manner that secures 
their safety and Iraq's future. I am a cosponsor of two resolutions 
which would support this urgent objective. Yet this phony bill chooses 
politics over policy at the expense of real debate on a critical 
national issue.
  Over 2,000 troops have been killed and over 15,500 have been 
seriously wounded. Reports indicate that at least 30,000 Iraqi 
civilians have lost their lives due to this conflict. It is a sad day 
for this country when, in response to this crucial issue, the best the 
GOP leadership can do is resort to backhanded political stunts.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, three years ago, I argued against the 
Bush Administration's proposal to attack Iraq for the very reasons we 
have seen emerge from this troubled region. We were prepared to defeat 
Saddam Hussein's military but the administration and congressional 
leaders were never prepared to win the peace.
  Not only was the premise for the war flawed, but the administration 
has made the wrong military, political, and diplomatic choices at every 
turn. The members of our armed services make up the finest fighting 
force in the world and they have done their duty with great distinction 
and honor, yet the administration has failed them as well.
  I take no satisfaction in my worst fears having been proven correct. 
The administration's spectacular failures in executing this war have 
set back our efforts against terrorism and left America with no good 
options in Iraq. But, as our military is being not just frayed but 
damaged and Iraq faces increasingly difficult prospects for democracy 
and stability, staying the course is simply not an option.
  Until now, I have resisted advocating for an accelerated pullout 
because of my fear of the downward spiral that could occur in the 
aftermath. Yet this is a question that must be faced sooner rather than 
later, and it's hard to imagine a policy that would be more 
destabilizing than the administration's current mismanagement of the 
war effort and continued estrangement from reality.
  There is no longer any basis for the hope that a sustained American 
military occupation will stabilize Iraq. Instead, we continue to lose 
credibility and influence in the region and with our allies, as well as 
strengthen the hands of those extremists who wish to do us harm. Even 
many of those who initially supported military action have come to 
admit that the administration's strategy has failed and that a large 
United States military presence inhibits the development of a stable 
and democratic Iraq. Iraqis in key positions are arguing for at least 
some withdrawal of US. forces. Most telling is a recent poll of Iraqis 
themselves, commissioned by the British Ministry of Defense, which 
showed that 82 percent of Iraqis were ``strongly opposed'' to the 
presence of foreign troops and less than 1 percent believe the their 
presence is helping to improve security.
  Iraq's future depends on creating a secure space for politics and the 
rule of law to replace violence. This is a process at which only Iraqis 
themselves can succeed, with America and the international community 
playing a supporting role. Elections scheduled for December provide the 
perfect opportunity to begin the withdrawal of American troops, a 
refocused U.S. effort, and transfer of responsibility to Iraqis.
  American forces should be redeployed out of Iraq in two phases. 
First, let's bring the 46,000 National Guard and Reserve forces home 
immediately. These elements in our total force have been most 
overburdened by ever-increasing deployments and are most needed here in 
the United States.
  Continued U.S. aid and military support must be tied to performance 
objectives for the Iraqi government and military. On that basis, the 
rest of the American forces should be withdrawn over the next one to 
two years, based on a detailed plan for the sector by sector transfer 
of security responsibility. The majority of these troops should be 
brought home. Others should be redeployed to Afghanistan to create a 
larger security footprint and help prevent the reemergence of the 
Taliban. A small rapid-reaction force should be left in Kuwait that can 
protect against any destabilizing coups.
  The administration must reengage diplomatically by seeking a new 
United Nations resolution that supports international efforts to 
stabilize Iraq and by beginning a regional security dialogue with 
Iraq's neighbors. We should also work with the Arab League to 
facilitate a renewed effort towards a political solution within Iraq by 
engaging with nationalist faction leaders who might be a force for 
stability in that country if U.S. troops were withdrawn.
  We must also change the nature of our economic assistance. By 
shifting reconstruction aid to Iraq away from large projects undertaken 
by foreign contractors towards small, locally oriented projects run by 
Iraqis, we create jobs, give Iraqis a greater investment in their 
success, and minimize corruption and price-gouging.
  President Bush's model of ``go it alone, do it cheap, and put it on a 
credit card'' has not only led to grave instability in Iraq, it is 
crippling our ability to deal with the more serious strategic threats, 
from Iran and North Korea to a terrorist movement that we have 
inadvertently strengthened. We must now do our best to salvage what we 
still can of American credibility, military readiness, democratic 
ideals, and Iraqi stability through a change in strategy and the 
beginning of a responsible phase-down of American troops and the 
orderly transfer of authority to Iraqis.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the definition of ``immediate termination of 
United States forces in Iraq'' must mean the following as set forth by 
Representative John Murtha:
  ``My plan calls:
  --To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of 
U.S. forces.
  --To create a quick reaction force in the region.
  --To create over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
  --To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.''
  You may call this a position, a program, or an exit strategy but this 
is the Murtha message which set in motion the current proceedings on 
the floor of the House of Representatives. This is the declaration 
heard

[[Page 27485]]

from Representative Murtha by the American people and around the world. 
By all standards of decency and by popular decree the Republican 
leadership is mandated to respect the precedent setting language of 
this most detailed of all proposals for new and creative action in 
Iraq.
  For this reason I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
resolution before us. ``That the deployment of United States forces in 
Iraq be terminated immediately.''
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution 
and in the strongest possible opposition to the Republican smear 
campaign against my friend and colleague, Congressman Jack Murtha.
  Jack Murtha is a patriot. He has served this country in wartime and 
peacetime and has earned an unparalleled record as a champion for our 
troops and their families.
  Jack Murtha is a retired Marine Colonel with more than thirty years 
of distinguished military service. He earned two Purple Hearts and a 
Bronze Star for action under enemy fire in Vietnam. He served as a USMC 
drill instructor at Parris Island, South Carolina boot camp. And as a 
foremost Congressional expert on defense matters, he has spent more 
than three decades helping to build a military force that is second to 
none in the entire world. I have been proud to serve in Congress with 
Jack Murtha for nearly ten years, and I had the honor of hosting him in 
my Congressional District and of joining him in visiting wounded 
veterans of the Iraq war at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital.
  Yet despite his standing and stature, Congressman Murtha has been 
viciously attacked by the Republican partisans for having the temerity 
to raise important questions about this Administration's policies 
regarding Iraq. Yesterday, the Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, who 
never served in the military, called Jack Murtha a coward. Other 
Republicans in Congress and the White House have called Jack Murtha a 
traitor and accused him of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican attack machine has gone too far. 
Regardless of one's view of the Administration's Iraq policies, Members 
of this Congress deserve to offer their viewpoints without having their 
patriotism questioned. Indeed, the American people deserve the benefit 
of vigorous debate about a war that has cost us more than 2,000 
soldiers killed, thousands more maimed and several hundred billion 
dollars of public treasure expended.
  The Hunter Resolution is a cheap political trick. It is not a serious 
attempt at crafting public policy since Mr. Hunter has said he intends 
to vote against his own resolution. Rather than engage in this petty 
and deceitful charade, the American people deserve a Congress that 
conducts the people's business in a professional manner to address the 
challenges facing our country here at home and around the world.
  I will vote against the Hunter Resolution.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my deep dismay over the resolution being brought before the 
House tonight. The leadership of this House has responded to criticism 
of the war in Iraq by forcing a meaningless vote in order to shame the 
man who offered that critique, my good friend Jack Murtha.
  Jack is a patriotic American of the highest order, contrary to the 
way our colleagues on the other side of the aisle may try to portray 
him. He has dedicated his life to the service of his Nation, defending 
it for 37 years as a marine and striving to make it a better place 
through his 31 years as a Member of this institution. During that time, 
he has earned two purple hearts, a bronze star, and the Vietnamese 
Cross of Gallantry and become one of the most respected leaders on 
military and Veterans issues from either party.
  Rather than listening to the wise words of a man who knows better 
than almost any of us what our soldiers need in a time of war, many of 
my colleagues have taken to questioning his motives and even his 
character, and now House leadership has twisted his words and offered 
this resolution as a vehicle to humiliate this proud, honorable, and 
decent man. They are holding this House hostage and answering his 
principled and heart-felt proposal with a mean-spirited and empty 
resolution that is only one sentence, was not considered or debated, 
and was offered under the most egregious terms.
  I will not be participating in this charade tonight; if I were, I 
certainly would vote against this resolution. It is not meant to spark 
a legitimate debate over the Iraq war. It is a personal attack rather 
than a policy statement. I find it reprehensible to subject this great 
and humble man to such indignity.
  While I do not necessarily agree that immediate withdrawal from Iraq 
is the best course, I respect the conclusion reached by Mr. Murtha 
through his soul-searching. Despite any disagreements any of us may 
have on policy, we should not come together tonight to single him out 
as the object of ridicule. I will not be a part of it, and I would hope 
that my colleagues would not either. I urge them to vote ``no'' on this 
shameful resolution.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague from Pennsylvania, a 
man whom I deeply respect and admire for his lifetime of service and 
sacrifice to the Nation, made a serious statement about the prosecution 
of the war effort by the President. His speech yesterday morning and 
the resolution that he introduced were heartfelt expressions that he no 
longer believes that we can stay the course in Iraq. Mr. Murtha 
believes that the continued presence of American troops in Iraq has 
retarded Iraqi efforts to unify the country and that Iraqis will not 
take the necessary steps to restore security as long as American troops 
remain in the country in large numbers.
  But instead of addressing the serious deficiencies in the 
Administration's military strategy, the majority offers this 
counterfeit resolution that precludes any debate on how we can improve 
our chance of success in the war effort.
  Although there are differences within our caucus as to what our 
course of action in Iraq should be, we are united in our belief that 
the present course being followed by the administration is not working, 
and we must find a new course.
  But how have the Vice-President and the Republican Majority in this 
House treated the sincere misgivings of a man who has shed blood for 
his country and been a staunch supporter of our men and women in the 
military? They have launched a vicious smear attack on Mr. Murtha's 
patriotism. Indeed they have gone so far as assert that anyone who 
questions the wisdom of any aspect of their handling of the war is 
unpatriotic, and willing to give aid and comfort to the enemy. 
Unfortunately, the administration's inability to communicate a clear 
strategy for success in Iraq has caused a great many Americans to 
question the Nation's prosecution of the war--including some of the 
most devoted, most patriotic and most courageous of Americans. People 
like former Senator Max Cleland, and now Jack Murtha.
  But I believe that Senator Chuck Hagel has it right--the willingness 
to question, to prod and to probe our government is what produces the 
best policy and leads to the best outcomes, in war as well as in peace. 
The courage to question a powerful but imperfect government is much 
more the essence of patriotism than a coerced silence.
  The administration's prosecution of the war effort has suffered from 
deficient planning that took the maxim of preparing for the worst and 
hoping for the best and turned it on its head. It failed to consider 
how the Sunni minority would react to being stripped of its privileged 
status, even as they underestimated the consequences of decades of 
totalitarian rule and the atomization of Iraqi society under Saddam 
Hussein.
  Many of my colleagues and I have repeatedly called upon the President 
to do what should have been done a long time ago by laying out a 
strategy and vision for success in Iraq that will not condemn the Iraqi 
people to anarchy or turn Iraq into a haven for jihadis. We have called 
for proper oversight of the war effort by Congress to make certain that 
our troops in Iraq are properly equipped and that we are doing 
everything in our power to ensure their safety and success.
  This House, this Congress and this Nation stand for the proposition 
that reasoned debate can produce wise policies that will best ``provide 
for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'' Mr. Speaker, 
this resolution should be withdrawn.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
politically-motivated resolution. I believe this resolution does a 
disservice to the courage my colleague from Pennsylvania has shown in 
seeking to open a dialogue on one of the most important issues facing 
our country today--how we can be successful in Iraq while putting in 
place a process that begins to bring our troops home.
  And let there be no mistaking my colleague's motivations. Congressman 
Murtha is a highly decorated Marine veteran and a Vietnam War hero. His 
love for and loyalty to the brave men and women who wear our Nation's 
uniform is sincere. It is profound.
  I agree with his characterization of the war in Iraq--specifically 
how errors by this administration and negligent Congressional oversight 
have compromised our mission there and put our troops in harm's way.
  And I agree that next year must be a time of transition in Iraq, 
allowing Iraqis to take control of their country. America cannot 
support another year of ``staying the course'' with no end in sight, as 
the president continues to propose.

[[Page 27486]]

  The time has come for the Bush administration to implement a new 
strategy for Iraq--one that both safely brings our troops home and 
brings stability and security to the country and throughout the region. 
To get there, we must consider the various proposals for success in the 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a discussion we in this body have waited far too 
long to have. Now is not a time for the partisanship this majority has 
shown in bringing this political resolution to the floor. The American 
people expect better from their representatives in Congress--
particularly on a matter such importance. They deserve better.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, in the other body, the junior 
member from Massachusetts delivered compelling remarks about 
Congressman Murtha. I believe that it would be to the benefit of all of 
my colleagues to hear Senator Kerry's comments.

       Yesterday, Jack Murtha, a respected congressman on military 
     matters, and former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated 
     Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. He didn't 
     come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his 
     heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. 
     I am not going to stand for a swift boat attack strategy 
     against Jack Murtha.
       It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on 
     the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a 
     marine who served his country heroically in Vietnam and has 
     been serving heroically in Congress ever since.
       No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner 
     stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack 
     Murtha's character and conscience.
       Dennis Hastert--the Speaker of the House who never served--
     called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut 
     and run. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward 
     when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam 
     and earned two purple hearts--he was a patriot then, and he 
     is a patriot today. Jack Murtha didn't cut and run when his 
     courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice 
     should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut 
     and run from the truth.
       Just a day after Dick Cheney, who had 5 deferments from 
     Vietnam, accused Democrats of being unpatriotic--the White 
     House accused Jack Murtha of surrendering. Jack Murtha served 
     37 years in the Marine Corps. He doesn't know how to 
     surrender--not to enemy combatants, and not to politicians in 
     Washington who say speaking his conscience is unpatriotic.
       Robert Kennedy once said, ``The sharpest criticism often 
     goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of 
     country.'' Chuck Hagel showed he hasn't forgotten that when 
     he said, `The Bush administration must understand that each 
     American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and 
     should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.' But too 
     many in the Republican Party forgot that long ago. They 
     forgot that asking tough questions isn't pessimism; it's 
     patriotism.
       We've seen the politics of fear and smear too many times. 
     Whenever challenged, Republican leaders engage in the 
     politics of personal destruction rather than debate the 
     issues. It doesn't matter who you are. When they did it to 
     John McCain, we saw it doesn't matter what political party 
     you're in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw it doesn't 
     matter if your service put you in a wheelchair. And when they 
     did it to Jack Murtha yesterday, perhaps the most respected 
     voice on military matters in all of Congress, we saw that 
     this administration will go to any lengths to crush any 
     dissent.
       Once again, they're engaged in the lowest form of smear and 
     fear politics because they're afraid of actually debating a 
     senior congressman who has advised presidents of both parties 
     on how to best defend our country. They're afraid to debate a 
     decorated veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our 
     troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent 
     our brave troops to war without body armor. They're terrified 
     of actually leveling with the American people about the way 
     they misled America into war, and admitting they have no 
     clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home.

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration poses a 
clear and concise policy question. Either you support the mission our 
troops are carrying out in Iraq or you are against it.
  I voted to authorize the use of force back on October 10, 2002 and 
today I want to reaffirm, on the record, my support for this important 
mission. Furthermore, I want to let all of our troops know, especially 
those who train and operate at the four military bases in my 
congressional district, that I will continue to support those 
strategies that will lead us to victory and stand opposed to any cut-
and-run strategy.
  In his book, The Hinge of Fate, Winston Churchill said, ``I like 
commanders on land and sea and in the air to feel that between them and 
all forms of public criticism the Government stands like a strong 
bulkhead. They ought to have a fair chance, and more than one chance.''
  I think that we ought to let those words sink in. They ought to have 
a fair chance, and more than one chance.
  No one ever said war was easy and any historian can tell you that 
anything of significant value has never come easy. The brave men and 
women serving in Iraq are writing the latest chapter in the history of 
freedom.
  We should look forward, continue to support our troops, and provide 
them with the tools and the strategy to triumph--completing their 
mission is the most important thing to them. It should be our goal as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, let's show our support for this mission and embrace a 
victory strategy, not just an exit strategy.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution. I have no doubt that the majority of the House will oppose 
it, so it will be voted down.
  And by voting down this resolution, we are responding to the 
Republican leadership's desire to have us say what we're against.
  But that's the easy part. The hard part--the part that should be 
under discussion--is to say exactly what we are for, what policy we 
think our country should follow regarding our military involvement in 
Iraq.
  The Republicans don't want to have that discussion. They would rather 
put forward a politicized, petty, irresponsible resolution that is 
intended to score political points. Like the Bush Administration, they 
are adopting the tactics of a political campaign, and like the 
Administration, their greatest success will only be to further divide 
Americans. How does this honor our men and women in uniform who are 
even now risking their lives in Iraq?
  It's clear that the Republican leadership is concerned that 
Representative Jack Murtha's call for the rapid redeployment of 
American forces and reducing our military presence in Iraq is already 
carrying significant weight in Congress. Why else would the Republicans 
seek to trivialize and play politics with this proposal from a man who 
is not only a decorated veteran, but one of the most respected voices 
in our country on military and national security policy?
  Like Mr. Murtha, I believe the Bush administration has largely failed 
in Iraq because the civilian direction of the war has not matched the 
skill and sacrifice of our soldiers. Going to war the way we did was a 
strategic mistake, and the aftermath has been a failure because of the 
president's refusal to plan and refusal to listen.
  I voted against the resolution authorizing the president to rush to 
war in the first place. I did so because I had concerns about the 
president's refusal to consider more aggressive inspections of WMD 
before going to war, his inability to secure international support, his 
obvious failure to develop a plan for securing peace after ousting 
Saddam, and his reckless disregard of experienced military advice.
  Although I was an outspoken opponent of going to war in Iraq, I have 
supported our brave soldiers because it has seemed to me that our 
national security is now linked, like it or not, to a credible plan for 
stabilizing Iraq and preventing a catastrophic civil war in the region.
  I do not think supporting our troops is a partisan matter. In fact, I 
know everyone on both sides of the aisle does support them. So, it is 
disappointing--but, unfortunately, not surprising--that some have 
alleged otherwise.
  And, some have suggested the resolution we are voting on today is a 
Democratic resolution, even though it was introduced by the gentleman 
from California, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, 
who of course is a Republican.
  The resolution we are voting on today isn't Jack Murtha's 
resolution--it is a cheap ripoff of a well-intended effort on the part 
of a respected veteran and long-serving Member. Jack Murtha's 
resolution calls for the immediate termination of the deployment of our 
forces, but it also says that the redeployment of forces should happen 
at the earliest practicable date, not right away. Jack Murtha's 
resolution includes important safeguards such as a quick-reaction U.S. 
force and a presence of U.S. Marines outside of Iraq who could respond 
as necessary if events in Iraq were spiral out of control.
  I remain concerned about setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal 
because how we leave is as important as when we leave. That's why I 
cannot support Mr. Murtha's resolution and why I certainly cannot vote 
for this resolution proposed by Mr. Hunter.
  Nevertheless, the fact of today's debate, coupled with the 
evaporation of public confidence in the president's management of the 
war, should be a wake-up call to the president to develop a withdrawal 
strategy that can garner bipartisan support and set an unmistakable 
path toward exiting Iraq expeditiously and with our interests and 
security intact.
  This country cannot have 535 commanders-in-chief. There can only be 
one commander-

[[Page 27487]]

in-chief and we need him to address the country, explain his withdrawal 
strategy, and to be honest with the American people about the costs and 
timetable for withdrawal.
  We were led into war as a divided nation and today we are even more 
divided. A successful withdrawal from Iraq can only be helped if 
Congress and the Bush Administration work to bring unity at home. In a 
hopeful sign, that kind of unity was on display when the Senate passed 
with overwhelming bipartisan support a resolution requiring 
accountability by the president in Iraq, and the House should, at a 
minimum, do the same.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania who speaks with authority about the military matters of 
the United States.
  Jack Murtha won the American Spirit Honor Medal, received the Bronze 
Star with Combat ``V'', two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of 
Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
  The issues he raised yesterday are profound issues for each and every 
American. We honor the fallen soldiers by making an honest assessment 
of our national security needs. We honor our great democracy by having 
the national conversation about the war in Iraq--but we dishonor 
democracy by mischaracterizing what Jack Murtha said--and putting 
forward a resolution that does not reflect what he asks . . . and 
stifles real debate on this important issue.
  Nobody here really believes the United States should--tomorrow--
withdraw all troops from Iraq. But many of us--indeed many Americans--
are unhappy with the direction of the war and believe we could have 
done it better from the beginning.
  This is a serious resolution for us to consider; it should not be a 
political ploy for the leadership to mischaracterize. This is a serious 
debate that the Congress is not inclined to have--as evidenced by the 
late scheduling of a mischaracterized bill.
  We should be holding hearings about this and we should not be 
debating any of this on a Friday night when people don't watch the 
news, we should do it next week and give it 50 hours of debate. What is 
more important than a debate about our national defense and the 
security of our troops?
  It is instructive to remember that we sent our troops to battle in 
Iraq ill prepared for what they would encounter. We did not send them 
with the tools--or in the numbers--they needed to win the war. We sent 
them with helicopters and rifles that didn't function properly, we sent 
them without the body armor they needed, we sent them in humvees 
without the armor they needed. They were not greeted as liberators--
more faulty intelligence--they were greeted with improvised explosive 
devises and lED attacks have only grown more sophisticated and more 
frequent on our troops.
  Here's where we are right now: when you make a wrong turn and 
discover that, do you stay on that road because you don't want to admit 
you are wrong? Or do you find an exit, get off and find your way? By 
staying in Iraq after our invasion based on faulty intelligence--we are 
doing irreparable damage to our international friends: Israel, Jordan, 
Lebanon, Pakistan, Kuwait, and the list goes on.
  We need to do it right or leave as Jack Murtha suggests. 1. redeploy 
U.S. troops consistent with the safety of the U.S. forces; 2. create a 
quick reaction force in the region; 3. create an over-the-horizon 
presence of Marines in the region; and 4. to diplomatically pursue 
security and stability in Iraq.
  I will vote ``no'' for the fabricated resolution before the House 
tonight but I urge the House to follow the advice--the actual advice--
of Jack Murtha.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support Jack Murtha but 
I do not support this fraudulent Republican Resolution.
  In my district back in 2000, tens of thousands of ballots were thrown 
out, spit out by faulty machines.
  The Republicans stole the election back in 2000 and now we are at 
war.
  It's time for the Republicans to talk the talk and walk the walk.
  If they want war, give them a gun and make them go fight.
  Those in the White House who have deferred 5 times and others over 
there who were called to duty yet never showed up . . . how dare they 
call Mr. Murtha a coward!
  John Murtha has been the most ardent supporter of our troops on the 
ground in Congress.
  In his 37 years in the Marines, John Murtha won two Purple Hearts, a 
Bronze Star with Combat ``V'', and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. 
He was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal by the Marine Corps 
Commandant when he retired from the Marines.
  John Murtha earned his bona fides to comment on what the troops are 
going through when he volunteered for duty in Vietnam.
  And yes, Mr. Speaker, I can't speak for Congressman Murtha but I will 
tell you straight out that I AM calling the President, and the others 
in the White House who have intentionally misled the Americans into 
this war liars.
  They knew from the outset that there weren't any Weapons of Mass 
Destruction over there.
  They knew from the outset that there was no connection between Al 
Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
  But yet, Mr. Speaker, we went in there anyway.
  And now over 2,000 of our brave soldiers have lost their lives; over 
30,000 have suffered permanent injuries and their lives, or the lives 
of their loved ones will never be the same.
  This war is a sham, it was a sham from the get go, and it is a sham 
today.
  Now, I support the troops but I do not support the leaders of this 
Nation who led them into battle without enough equipment, and without 
any exit plan whatsoever.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I served in a war during 
which too many national leaders played too much politics.
  Tonight is a disgraceful period in the history of our great country 
and this House of Representatives.
  To wage a political war against one of the greatest military 
champions Congress has known is no less than unpatriotic.
  Representative John Murtha (D-PA), the leading Democrat in the House 
on military affairs, has proposed a plan of action for Iraq and I 
commend my colleague for his courageous leadership. The measure that 
has been brought to the floor tonight is not Representative Murtha's 
plan.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been this leadership and honesty with the 
American people that has been lacking in the Presidents position on the 
war in Iraq. ``Stay the course'' is not a strategy for success, It is 
little more than hollow rhetoric that offers no real vision.
  We can and should begin to redeploy our troops as soon as possible 
after the Iraqi people ratify their Constitution in July 2006. In the 
months leading up to the Iraqi election in July, we need to make it 
clear to the Iraqi people that we do not intend to occupy their country 
or maintain permanent military bases there. And it must be made clear 
to the world that the United States has no intention of controlling 
Iraq's oil production and oil wealth.
  We must find a rational and reasonable way out of this quagmire. We 
owe it to the men and women serving us in combat, to their families and 
to all the American people who are paying both the human and financial 
costs of this war.
  Advocates of the measure we will vote on tonight are cheapening the 
job our brave men and women serving in Iraq are doing; the men and 
women putting their lives on the line to serve our country.
  Mr. Speaker, those who dreamed up this strategy are derelict in their 
duties, absent without leave from their duty station; and people I 
would not want to share a foxhole with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the 
resolution is considered read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 3, noes 
403, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 608]

                                AYES--3

     McKinney
     Serrano
     Wexler

                               NOES--403

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver

[[Page 27488]]


     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--6

     Capuano
     Clay
     Hinchey
     McDermott
     Nadler
     Owens

                             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)

                              {time}  2333

  Mr. BOEHLERT and Mr. LINDER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the resolution was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in the family, I was unable 
to vote on H. Res. 571. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to be present 
for the vote on final passage of H. Res. 571, the resolution that calls 
for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. I strongly oppose 
this resolution and its underlying sentiment. Had I been present I 
would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 571.

                          ____________________