[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29054-29063]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 612, VICTORY IN IRAQ RESOLUTION

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 29055]]



                              H. Res. 619

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 612) 
     expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to 
     achieving victory in Iraq. The resolution shall be considered 
     as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on International Relations; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     which may not contain instructions.
       Sec. 2. On the first legislative day of the second session 
     of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, the House shall not 
     conduct organizational or legislative business.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an extraordinary day not only in the 
history of Iraq but the history of the world. We saw the third free and 
fair election take place in the country of Iraq, and for the first time 
in the history of that nation we saw the people of Iraq choose their 
own leaders.
  On January 30 of this year, there were many people who thought it 
could not happen, there were many terrorist attacks, and it actually 
was slow in coming. As you will recall, the pictures that we saw of 
voting stations where early on no one voted, but ultimately 8.5 million 
Iraqis voted to put into place a coalition government that was charged 
with the task of fashioning a constitution, a constitution that would 
work to bring together the very disparate factions that exist within 
Iraq, the three that we know of, the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurdish 
populations, and of course the other divisions that exist in the 
country.
  Mid-summer, we saw the work on that constitution proceed. We saw the 
August date approach. There were problems, difficulties. And then we 
saw the October 15 election rapidly approach, and people from all over 
the world, including leaders of the U.S. forces there, were uncertain 
as to whether or not the Iraqi people would in fact ratify their 
constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, we saw a 64 percent voter turnout, roughly 10 million 
Iraqis voting, and 78 percent of the people of Iraq from throughout the 
country among all of those three disparate factions within the country 
came together and overwhelmingly, with a 78 percent vote, ratified that 
constitution. The existence of that constitution called for 
parliamentary elections to take place, and for, as I said, the first 
time in the nation's history we yesterday saw the Iraqi people choose 
their own leaders, a 275-member parliamentary assembly.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet the exact outcome of that election, 
but there are a number of very important things we do know about 
yesterday's election. We thought that there would be wide-ranging 
terrorist attacks, when in fact there were very few if any difficulties 
with the election at all when it came to attacks. We saw something that 
came as a great surprise to so many people, and that was a 70 percent 
voter turnout.
  Mr. Speaker, 11 million Iraqis voted in this election. If one looks 
at where it is that we are headed, it is an amazing testament to what 
the United States of America and our Coalition Forces have done.
  We, as a body, strongly support our troops; and we, as a body, 
strongly support the mission of our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do, at this point, is share with my 
colleagues the resolution that, if we approve this rule, will be 
considered. It is a resolution introduced by the very distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations. And I should say 
parenthetically that our thoughts and prayers are with Chairman Hyde 
right now as he is going through a very difficult situation in his 
family. But in his absence, I know that from the International 
Relations Committee our colleague from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) came 
before the Rules Committee last night and testified on behalf of this 
resolution; and she was joined by the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Lantos).
  The resolution reads as follows, Mr. Speaker: Expressing the 
commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in 
Iraq.
  Whereas, the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take 
place under the newly ratified Iraqi constitution, represented a 
crucial success in the establishment of a democratic constitutional 
order in Iraq.
  And whereas, Iraqis who by the millions defied terrorist threats to 
vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United 
States and Coalition Forces.
  Now, therefore, be it resolved that:
  1. The United States House of Representatives is committed to 
achieving victory in Iraq;
  2. The Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for 
the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy and a defeat for the 
terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;
  3. The House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express 
solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their 
goal of a free, open, and democratic society;
  4. The successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the 
presence of U.S. Armed Forces, U.S.-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition 
Forces;
  5. The continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will 
be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can 
stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;
  6. Setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United 
States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their 
deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is 
fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
  7. The House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous 
sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and 
their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition Forces; 
and,
  8. The House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that with 
the support of the American people and the Congress, the United States 
Armed Forces, along with the Iraqi and Coalition Forces, shall achieve 
victory in Iraq.
  That is what House Resolution 612 says, Mr. Speaker; and it is very 
clear to me that an overwhelming majority of the House of 
Representatives will be supportive of this effort.
  Now, I think that it is important for us to also look back at a 
number of the charges that have been leveled over the past couple of 
years. There was no strategy, no plan for victory in Iraq. We have 
constantly heard that from many over the past several months. I got, as 
I know all my colleagues did, this 35-page document that was put 
forward by the President as he began his campaign in the past several 
weeks to enlighten the American people on what our strategy for victory 
in Iraq is.
  Now, there are many who believe that this is some great revelation, 
but the lead page of this 35-page document, Mr. Speaker, refers to a 
speech that was delivered 3 weeks, actually about 3\1/2\ weeks, before 
we began our military engagement in Iraq.
  In February of 2003, President Bush said as follows: ``The United 
States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new 
government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will 
ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis 
must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have 
their rights protected. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained 
commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq 
as long as necessary and not a day more.''
  Now, that was stated by President Bush on February 26 of 2003, and I 
commend this document to my colleagues, in which it refers to the fact 
that we have seen extraordinary achievements take place since we began 
our effort in

[[Page 29056]]

Iraq. The impact that it is having on the region is underreported. The 
positive salutary effect of what the United States of America, the 
Iraqi Security Forces, and our Coalition Forces have done has had, I 
believe, an extraordinarily positive impact on nations like Egypt that 
for the first time in its history held, as I was told by the defense 
minister of Egypt, because of what we have done in Iraq they held 
multicandidate elections; in Lebanon where we have seen people, because 
of what we have done in Iraq, standing up for the cause of freedom say 
that they will give their lives to ensure that the Syrians do not 
control their country. So throughout the region we are seeing very 
important developments.
  Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that we continue to live in 
a very dangerous world, and that region of the world is particularly 
dangerous. All one needs to do is look at the statement made most 
recently this week from Iran's leader about the continued quest towards 
undermining the cause of freedom and liberation and democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes it very clear. We congratulate the 
people of Iraq. We underscore the fact that the Iraqi Security Forces, 
the United States of America and our Coalition played a critical role 
in finally bringing about the self-determination which the people of 
Iraq are now enjoying; and it makes it clear that the region is still a 
very dangerous spot on our globe and that any kind of artificial 
timetable that were put into effect calling for our withdrawal would 
undermine the tremendous successes that we have been able to see over 
the past nearly 3 years and, I believe, could jeopardize the future of 
these people who are just now getting a taste of the kind of freedom 
that we take for granted.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of our committee, for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, last night and this morning, like all my colleagues, I 
watched the news reports about the parliamentary elections in Iraq. 
This is a proud day for the Iraqi people, and it is fitting that this 
Congress, this House of Representatives, recognize the courage of the 
Iraqi people, their desire to take control of their own destiny, and 
how much they have suffered to achieve this taste of democracy.
  As has been stated by so many analysts in the news media, one of the 
most important outcomes of this election was the significant 
participation for the first time of Iraqi Sunnis in this election, many 
of whom, according to news reports, were encouraged to vote, escorted 
to the polls or guarded at the polls by armed Iraqi insurgents.
  Everyone in the House of Representatives is proud of the Iraqi 
people. Everyone in this House respects the efforts made by our 
uniformed men and women to help the Iraqi people get to this historic 
moment.
  This House could have sent a strong unified message to the Iraqi 
people, our troops in Iraq, and to the international community in 
support of our troops and in support of the brave Iraqi people. But, 
Mr. Speaker, once again, as it has so often done in the past, this 
Republican leadership has chosen to include controversial language in 
this resolution, knowing that it will provoke sharp and divisive debate 
over Iraq.

                              {time}  0930

  Rather than choosing to send a united message to the world, the 
Republican leadership has cynically and deliberately decided to 
highlight our divisions rather than our unity.
  Late last night, the ranking member of the House International 
Relations Committee, one of the most respected leaders in this House on 
human rights, Congressman Tom Lantos, came before the Rules Committee 
with a resolution that focused on congratulating the people of Iraq for 
three successful elections conducted in Iraq this year. The resolution 
further praises our troops for their contributions to peace and 
stability in Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, he was rejected out of hand.
  Shame on the majority to treat one of the most respected Members of 
this body in such a fashion. Shame. Mr. Speaker, there are many points 
of view in this House about how the U.S. should proceed in Iraq. Even 
among the majority, there are differing points of view. I for one 
believe these successful Iraqi elections provide an opportunity for the 
United States to change course in Iraq and begin bringing U.S. forces 
home. As we pass the 1,000th day of the war in Iraq, I believe we must 
begin the transition to putting the Iraqis in charge.
  After 3 years of war, the United States claims, for better or for 
worse, the elimination of Saddam Hussein from power, and that the 
United States has furthered the Iraqi political process, culminating in 
the passage of a Constitution and now the first democratic election and 
Iraq's first constitutional government.
  At this point, plans for a full transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis 
demands a change in course, one that puts Iraqis in charge. Iraq can't 
move forward with 160,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. Embassy in the 
world, and with Iraqi public opinion behind a timetable for withdrawal.
  Mr. Speaker, many years ago Vermont Senator George Aiken said of the 
disastrous Vietnam war that the United States should declare victory 
and go home. Well, the elections in Iraq and the other milestones 
constitute a sufficient reason for the United States to declare that it 
has done all it can in Iraq, and it is time to reverse the Bush 
administration's policies.
  President Bush's unwillingness to announce a plan to remove U.S. 
troops within a clear time frame and his refusal to renounce the use of 
permanent U.S. military bases there undermines his rhetoric about Iraqi 
democracy and will undermine the legitimacy of the new Iraqi 
Government. Our occupation of Iraq complicates the transition to 
democracy. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had it right, 
Mr. Speaker, when she said last month that the United States can 
support democracy, but we cannot impose democracy. And it is a deadly 
combination when democracy is equated with occupation.
  While the President continues to give speeches on the war, the 
American people have become disenchanted with the administration's Iraq 
policies and its failure to disclose a plan for withdrawal. Let us be 
clear, Mr. Speaker. The President has a credibility gap when it comes 
to Iraq. According to a December 8 New York Times/CBS poll, 59 percent 
of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the war 
in Iraq, and 70 percent do not believe that he has developed a clear 
plan to get American troops out of Iraq.
  We have lost more than 2,100 soldiers dead and over 15,000 wounded, 
overstretched our military, placed our homeland and those of our allies 
at greater risk, and still this President persists in a useless quest 
for, quote, victory.
  But excuse me, Mr. Speaker, just what is ``victory''? Who defines it? 
Who decides when ``victory'' has been achieved in Iraq? Is it the Iraqi 
people themselves? Is it President Bush, who has already declared 
``mission accomplished''? Is it next year? Or the year after that? Or 5 
years or 10 years down the road? Is it when we have lost 3,000 troops 
in Iraq? Or 5,000? Or 10-? How many more American troops do we have to 
sacrifice? How many more Iraqi lives must be sacrificed before we 
decide that ``victory'' has been achieved?
  While most Iraqis are confident in yesterday's parliamentary 
elections, two-thirds are opposed to the presence of U.S. troops, 
according to a poll released on December 12 by ABC News and Time 
Magazine. According to news reports, many of the Sunnis turned out in 
such large numbers yesterday because they see it as a means to end the 
U.S. occupation of their country. Arab voices through the Cairo process 
are helping change the dynamic in a positive way and are filling a role 
that the U.S. no longer needs to play.
  The President must work with the United Nations and Iraq's Arab 
neighbors to develop an interim arrangement as American troops depart. 
The

[[Page 29057]]

best way to preserve the gains made so far is to commit to long-term 
financing for reconstruction, working with the new Iraqi Government to 
set a timetable for withdrawal, and to arrange for an over-the-horizon 
troop presence.
  The Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this House 
should be spending less time on spin and speeches and more time on 
preparing for bringing American troops home. The way out of Iraq begins 
by genuine respect for the will of the Iraqi people and their desire 
for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq. The President can begin to 
demonstrate this respect by putting an end to the attempted 
manipulation of Iraqi public opinion with fake news written by Pentagon 
contractors, the unambiguous announcement that the U.S. will not 
maintain permanent military bases there, and the immediate initiation 
of a coherent plan for the withdrawal of our forces there. This will 
not only give the vast majority of the Iraqi people what they want, but 
the new Iraqi Government its strongest chance for success.
  Unlike what is stated in this resolution, there is nothing 
``artificial'' about this approach. Congress, too, has a responsibility 
to take action where the Bush administration falters. Today we should 
praise the Iraqi people, but tomorrow this Congress should move to 
must-pass legislation to force beginning to bring our forces home.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to these statements made about 
public opinion polls, I would like to point to my colleagues the ABC 
News poll about which my friend referred. Seventy-one percent of the 
Iraqis polled said that their lives were very good or quite good; 61 
percent reported the security situation is very good or quite good in 
the area where they reside; 64 percent said they expect their lives to 
be much or somewhat better a year from now.
  I know that my friend from Ohio is introducing a resolution, he spoke 
about it earlier today, talking about the independence and the Iraqis 
making a choice as far as our presence. The Iraqi President, Jalal 
Talabani, made it very clear in an editorial that he wrote in the Wall 
Street Journal. He said:
  ``A timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they 
have to do is wait. Military plans must be flexible. We should have the 
suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist 
threat.''
  That is not an American military leader making that statement. That 
is the President of Iraq.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, my friend 
from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  As a member of the International Relations Committee, I rise in 
strong support of this resolution and take a moment to express our 
prayers and good wishes to the author of this resolution, who labors at 
the side of his namesake at this very hour in a hospice in Illinois.
  It is extraordinary day today, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress 
that has had the privilege to travel to Operation Iraqi Freedom on 
three different occasions, the news that 11 million Iraqis, with Iraqis 
on point handling the security during these elections, 70 percent of 
Iraqis turned out. It was, in no uncertain terms, a victory for 
democracy in Iraq. And it is my privilege and honor to rise this 
morning on this floor in support of the rule and the underlying 
resolution that confirms this great day in the history of freedom, 
December 15, 2005, when millions of Iraqis defied terrorists to say 
``yes'' to democracy.
  I stand also in support of the affirmative statements in this 
resolution that this House of Representatives is committed to achieving 
victory in Iraq and sees this election as a crucial victory for the 
Iraqi people and a defeat for the terrorists in that country. It is 
also in this resolution an effort to state emphatically the rejection 
of the wisdom of an artificial time line and also to recognize the 
extraordinary sacrifices made by members of the United States Armed 
Forces and their families. It is about them that I rise especially 
today, Mr. Speaker.
  This week at my office in Muncie, Indiana, a group of the citizens 
that I have the privilege of serving came to protest our military 
presence in Iraq, to urge the withdrawal, as some have done and 
continue to do, of our forces from this nation. And while it is their 
right to do so, let me say emphatically, it is my duty to stand with 
our Commander in Chief, to stand with our soldiers in the field, and to 
stand with the good people of Iraq until we achieve a total victory for 
freedom in this nation.
  I derive that sense of duty from seven names that I felt obligated to 
mention today. They are the names of the soldiers that I represented 
until they stepped into eternity, who fell in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
from eastern Indiana.
  Lance Corporal Matthew Smith.
  Private Shawn Pahnke.
  Specialist Chad Keith.
  Staff Sergeant Frederick Miller, Jr.
  Sergeant Robert Colvill, Jr.
  Specialist Raymond White.
  Lance Corporal Scott Zubowski.
  These seven men didn't leave their post, and this Congressman won't, 
either. It is them and to their credit and to their grieving families 
that I rise in support of this resolution today. It is the sacrifices 
of over 2,000 American soldiers who laid down their lives for the 
freedom that we saw demonstrated in the streets of every corner of Iraq 
yesterday that I support this resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member on the 
International Relations Committee, who was denied his request to offer 
his amendment here on the floor today.
  Mr. LANTOS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in sorrow, not in anger, because this morning 
could be a morning of unity and celebration and congratulations. 
Yesterday in unprecedented numbers the people of Iraq rejected the 
threats and intimidation of the terrorists and chose a new permanent 
national Parliament, the first fully sovereign, elected democratic 
assembly in the history of Iraq. This should be cause for celebration 
for the Iraqi people, for our troops, the troops of our allies and the 
Iraqi security forces who bravely protected the Iraqi people who came 
out to vote. Unfortunately, the resolution before us does not do that, 
and that I deeply regret.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that there is a spectrum of views on my side 
of the aisle on how to deal with the difficult situation in Iraq in the 
weeks and months ahead. Yesterday I was asked with a number of other 
Democrats to go to the White House. I sat next to the President as we 
talked about the possibility of building a united approach to this 
difficult dilemma. But the leadership, in a rigid, unbending, almost 
ruthless fashion, refused to take one single word of change or 
modification in their resolution. It was a take-it-or-leave-it 
proposal, which is inappropriate in a democratic legislative body where 
some of us have been attempting to operate in a bipartisan fashion.
  I introduced a resolution and asked the Rules Committee to make it in 
order. My resolution congratulates the Iraqi people on three democratic 
national elections, encourages all Americans to support the Iraqi 
people, and commends our troops and those of our allies and the Iraqi 
forces for protecting their people at election time.
  That is the resolution which should be before us today. We would get 
a unanimous vote, and we would send a message to our troops and to the 
whole world that Congress is united. Instead, by rigidly demanding 
total adherence to the Republican formula, there will be an ugly, 
divisive debate in this body this morning. This is not in our national 
interest.
  I wish to use the balance of my time to read the resolution that I 
believe ought to be before us, Mr. Speaker.
  The text of my resolution is as follows:

[[Page 29058]]



                              H. Res. 613

       Whereas the people of Iraq have consistently and 
     courageously demonstrated their commitment to democracy by 
     participating in three elections in 2005;
       Whereas on January 30, 2005, the people of Iraq 
     participated in an election for a transitional national 
     assembly;
       Whereas all segments of Iraqi society actively participated 
     in the approval of a new Iraqi Constitution through a 
     referendum held on October 15, 2005;
       Whereas reports indicate that the people of Iraq voted in 
     unprecedented and overwhelming numbers in the most recent 
     election, held on December 15, 2005, for a new, national 
     parliament that will serve in accordance with the recently-
     approved Iraqi Constitution for a four-year term and that 
     represents the first fully sovereign, elected democratic 
     assembly in the history of Iraq;
       Whereas this remarkable level of participation by the 
     people of Iraq in the face of dire threats to their very 
     lives has won the admiration of the world;
       Whereas the Iraqi elections could not have been conducted 
     without the courage and dedication of the members of the 
     United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other 
     nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces 
     of Iraq; and
       Whereas the December 15, 2005, election in Iraq inspires 
     confidence that a robust, pluralistic democracy that will 
     bring stability to Iraqi society is emerging: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
       (1) congratulates the people of Iraq on the three national 
     elections conducted in Iraq in 2005;
       (2) encourages all Americans to express support for the 
     people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve a free, open, and 
     democratic society; and
       (3) expresses its thanks and admiration to the members of 
     the United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other 
     nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces 
     of Iraq, whose heroism permitted the Iraqi people to vote 
     safely.

  Mr. LANTOS. There isn't a Member in this body who could not subscribe 
to this. This is not the time for an ugly and divisive debate. And with 
its rigidity and total unwillingness to listen to half of this body, 
the majority has chosen to give us an ugly and divisive debate.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my very good friend from California by saying, first and 
foremost, there is nothing ugly and divisive about the debate that we 
are about to undertake, that we are in the midst of right now, number 
one.
  Number two, I think it is important to note that while all of the 
recommendations that were made by the minority were rejected, I have 
just been given by the staff of the International Relations Committee 
an outline of those two recommendations that were made. They were to 
entirely delete the resolved No. 6 clause in the resolution, which was 
the language that I read which says that we cannot establish an 
artificial timetable for withdrawal, which is exactly what President 
Talabani said in his piece, number one. And, number two, it underscored 
the fact that there was a desire from the minority to change the goal 
of achieving victory to establishing stability in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for us to note that there 
should be, in fact, complete bipartisanship in our goal to not have an 
artificial timetable complying with the request of our men and women on 
the ground there along with President Talabani, as well as making sure 
that we achieve victory in Iraq. Nothing, nothing, has to be divisive 
about this debate. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the 
day, an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives will 
support this, because we want to do more than simply pat our men and 
women in uniform on the back and pat the Iraqi people on the back. We 
want to talk about the importance of sustaining what took place 
yesterday for the future of Iraq.
  Mr. LANTOS. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I will in just a moment. We have got a limited amount of 
time. I look forward to engaging my friend, but I promised the former 
Secretary of State of Michigan that I would yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
her. At this point I would like to do that and then would look forward 
to any comments that my friend would offer.
  Mr. LANTOS. I would like to comment on your observation.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. I look forward to it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Thank you for your courtesy.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying resolution as 
well, because this House must show our troops, the Iraqi people, and 
our terrorist enemies that we are committed to achieving victory in 
Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago, I spoke with a constituent of 
mine named PFC Josh Sparling. Josh serves in the 82nd Airborne Division 
with the 3rd of the 504th, also proudly known as the Blue Devils. Josh 
was wounded by an IED while serving with his unit in Ramadi, Iraq. He 
is currently at Walter Reed Hospital recuperating from surgery, with 
doctors working literally to save his leg.
  When I talked to Josh, he did not want to complain about his wounds 
nor the pain that they were causing him. No, this American hero wanted 
to talk to me about the progress being made on the ground in Iraq, and 
how well the new Iraqi troops performed in the field, and how committed 
the Iraqis were to reclaiming their country from the terrorists.
  His proudest day in Iraq was when he provided security in the Iraqi 
election last October. He watched thousands of Iraqis singing and 
celebrating on their way to polling stations. It made him proud that 
the American military was accomplishing their mission to spread peace 
and hope and freedom and democracy. He was disappointed that he was not 
in Iraq right now with his unit providing security for yesterday's 
election and watching the left flank of his buddies.
  Mr. Speaker, that is commitment. That is dedication, what we expect 
and what we get from our brave men and women in uniform. Yesterday's 
election was a great victory for the Iraqi people, more proof of an 
historic pivot in that part of the world, and now is not the time to 
wave the white flag just as our Iraqi allies begin the difficult 
business of forming a new democratic government.
  We cannot redeploy troops based on political concerns instead of 
needs on the ground to secure victory. We must not let down all of our 
brave men and women in uniform who have served so remarkably. We cannot 
let down over 11 million Iraqis who yesterday stuck a finger in the eye 
of the terrorists as they stuck their finger in that blue ink. We 
cannot give our terrorist enemies a victory which they cannot achieve 
on the battleground.
  We need to send a message, this House needs to send a message, today 
that we are committed to completing the mission. Vote ``yes'' on the 
rule and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos) to respond to what the chairman of the 
Rules Committee had said, let me make clear, nobody is talking about 
waving a white flag here. What we are talking about is trying to figure 
out a way to make a bad situation less bad. The polls have shown 
clearly that the majority of the Iraqi people want us out of Iraq. When 
a majority wants something, they usually get what they want, because 
that is what a democracy is about.
  We don't know a lot about democracy in this House because we are 
routinely shut out of being able to have debates and votes on important 
issues. But the bottom line is that those of us who are advocating that 
the President set some sort of a timetable are doing so because we 
think that that is a way to strengthen the situation, to give the new 
government over there a chance to succeed. I don't believe it can 
succeed if it is viewed as a puppet of the United States. I don't 
believe it can succeed with a huge U.S. occupation over there. I don't 
believe it can succeed with the largest U.S. Embassy in the world over 
there. I don't believe it can succeed if those are the conditions.
  And so having said that, let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. I thank my friend for yielding.

[[Page 29059]]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield a minute to my friend 
from California as well.
  Mr. LANTOS. Thank you.
  My good friend Mr. Dreier suggested that there will not be a divisive 
debate this morning. That divisive debate has already begun. You need 
to listen to the words of what my colleagues are saying. I attempted to 
avoid this divisive debate this morning. I attempted at the end of this 
session to have this Congress go home with a unanimous vote 
congratulating the Iraqi people on what they have done; congratulating 
our military, our allies and the Iraqi forces for making it possible 
for them to vote.
  There are divisions on policy, and it is an ostrich policy to pretend 
that there are no divisions. I may agree with the gentleman's view 
about a timetable. That is not the issue. The issue is that the last 
discussion of Iraq in this body will show division, bitterness and 
divisiveness, and that could have been avoided with a little bit of 
flexibility and consideration on the part of the majority for the views 
of almost one-half of this body.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? I have yielded 2 minutes to the 
gentleman. I think he still has time.
  I just would like to say that I believe that the resolution that has 
been brought forward is one which recognizes the directive, the call 
from the President of Iraq. It recognizes the sense of the men and 
women in uniform who are on the ground there. And I believe that an 
overwhelming majority, and I will say to my friend, there may be some 
Republicans who choose to vote against this measure. I don't know that 
every Republican is going to vote in support of this resolution, but 
this resolution underscores the importance of victory in Iraq.
  Mr. LANTOS. Reclaiming my time, it is in the national interest to 
show the greatest degree of unity in this body, and your resolution 
does the opposite.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of the authors of 
the amendment that was rejected last night in the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend, the distinguished Rules 
Committee member from Massachusetts, for yielding me time.
  Last night I made the statement in the Rules Committee that I would 
not participate in the debate. I do not intend when the debate begins 
to have anything to say, and quite frankly if I had the wherewithal, I 
would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side not to say anything as 
well. But I do know a little bit now, having served on the Rules 
Committee for a little while, about closed rules, and I know when we 
have closed rules, we restrict democracy.
  We come here to advocate for democracy in Iraq, as rightly we should. 
But I come this morning to advocate democracy for the Members of the 
House of Representatives who have a different point of view that needs 
to be heard regarding this important matter having to do with our 
Nation. Like my friend and mentor, Tom Lantos, I feel that there will 
be division as a result of the resolution as filed. I quite frankly am 
a bit surprised that so many people in the majority who argue that the 
war should not be politicized have done an act, although subtle and 
nuanced, that is as political as most things that we do here.

                              {time}  1000

  I do not decry politics. That is what we do for a living. But when it 
comes to this Nation, we all have a responsibility to stand together. 
There is no one in this Congress that does not support the military of 
the United States in every aspect of what it has done. There is no one 
in this Congress that wants us to fail in achieving victory in Iraq and 
anywhere that terror exists in this world. We have a vested interest in 
that. We have a natural right to pursue that particular interest.
  But to fashion a resolution that ignores the language that Mr. Lantos 
offered, that does precisely the same thing with civility all 
throughout it, I cannot imagine that we have passed yet another closed 
rule and that we have restricted a sensible, civil resolution offered 
by Mr. Lantos, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Hoyer.
  In that light, I consider it to be the kind of act that is seemingly 
becoming the pattern with so many people in this House who represent so 
many constituents who are not being heard.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my friend.
  First of all, let me say that as a member of the Rules Committee, I 
am very proud of this democratic, small ``d,'' institution; and I am 
very proud of the work of the Rules Committee. I would like to say that 
in this session of Congress more amendments offered by Democrats have 
been made in order than amendments offered by Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that as my friend talks about 
ideas being shut out, that is a mischaracterization of what has 
happened here. We have come forward with a sense of the Congress 
resolution, a simple resolution is what it is. I would like to share 
with my colleagues, since we are talking about the process of democracy 
in Iraq and the process of democracy here in the United States of 
America and in the people's House, according to the Congressional 
Research Service, they state on simple resolutions, ``Simple 
resolutions express nonbinding opinions on policies or issues (the 
`sense' of the House or Senate) or deal with the internal affairs or 
prerogatives of the House. For example, they are used to establish 
select and special committees, appoint the members of standing 
committees, and amend the standing rules. In the House, the Rules 
Committee reports its special rules in the form of simple 
resolutions.''
  This is a simple resolution which I believe is going to enjoy strong 
bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans will, I believe, in 
overwhelming numbers support this resolution which simply says, Mr. 
Speaker, that we recognize the incredible sacrifice by our troops, we 
recognize the incredible sacrifice and suffering that the Iraqi people 
encountered under Saddam Hussein and the struggle that they have gone 
through over the past 3 years. And it recognizes what has been clearly 
stated by Iraq's President, by our men and women in uniform and by the 
people of Iraq, and that is establishing some artificial timetable 
would undermine the process of democracy.
  One must look at the letter which has gotten a great deal of 
attention that was sent from the number two operative in al Qaeda, Mr. 
Zawahari to the lead operative for al Qaeda in Iraq, the center of 
terrorism from Zarqawi. And he has said in that letter, Democracy is 
coming and there will be no excuse for violence thereafter.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we do everything that we 
can for the stability of Iraq, the stability of the region, and the 
stability of the world, that we must maintain that path towards 
democracy. The coalition forces, the Iraqi security forces are making 
that happen.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in 20 seconds I put to the 
Chair a simple question: If this resolution is so simple and 
noncontroversial, why did it come through the Rules Committee? And is 
it not true that Mr. Lantos' resolution is also simple, and there was 
nothing to preclude the Committee on Rules from hearing the Lantos 
matter, had you chosen? And are you not the greatest exemplar of not 
having closed rules, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my friend.
  I will simply say that I believe we should do everything we can to 
pursue the deliberative process here. I believe that the Rules 
Committee does that. We have a management responsibility. We bring 
resolutions through the Rules Committee. If there is controversy, I

[[Page 29060]]

believe that recognizing our strategy for victory in Iraq is the right 
thing to do. People in Iraq, our men and women on the ground, recognize 
that.
  I believe it is the right thing to do and I look forward to a strong 
and overwhelming bipartisan vote in support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the chairman for not answering my 
question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the Rules Committee respects a 
deliberative process in this House or that it is somehow democratic or 
receptive to alternative ideas, I think demonstrates to me that the 
chairman has pretty low standards when it comes to being inclusive.
  The bottom line is, on important issues, on important matters like 
this one, we are routinely shut out. I mean, the chairman may be on 
board with what the President is doing in Iraq, but there are many of 
us who have great concerns. And the fact of the matter is, the section 
that is controversial in this bill deserves debate, not in the context 
of this resolution, but we should be on this floor debating this for a 
period of time and let everybody have their chance to present their 
viewpoint on what our policy should be in Iraq.
  We should be debating Iraq almost every day. I mean, we are at war. 
We have lost 2,100 American servicemen and women; 15,000 are wounded. 
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we do not like to 
talk about it except in the context of these resolutions that kind of 
get dropped on us and brought to the floor; and we are supposed to 
praise our troops, which we all do.
  We want to congratulate the democratic voting in Iraq, which we all 
do. But then tucked into this is a provision which some of us find 
objectionable.
  This administration has a credibility gap, in my opinion, when it 
comes to Iraq. We have been misled too often, and it is time to demand 
the truth. It is not acceptable to embrace an open-ended U.S. policy 
toward Iraq that suggests that we put all our faith in the President.
  He has been wrong on everything. There were no weapons of mass 
destruction. There was no tie to al Qaeda. There was no imminent threat 
to the United States from Iraq, and he rushed us into war. He said we 
would be greeted as liberators. Here we are approaching the third year. 
We are not greeted as liberators. We are stuck in a mess.
  Mr. Speaker, I will also point out to the chairman of the Rules 
Committee that if you read the front page of today's Washington Post it 
says, ``Iraqi Vote Draws Big Turnout of Sunnis.'' Underneath, 
subheadline, ``Anti-U.S. Sentiment is Motivator for Many.''
  A majority of the people in Iraq want us to begin the process of 
withdrawal; and what you are asking us to do is to embrace a resolution 
that says we will be there for as long as the President wants us, and 
that is unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, like the President's wishful, staged 
declaration of ``Mission Accomplished'' on that aircraft carrier 2\1/2\ 
years ago, or the Vice President's declaration that the insurgency was 
in its ``final throes,'' this resolution proclaims the desire of 
Congress for ``victory'' in Iraq.
  Instead of dispatching our troops in adequate numbers, this Congress 
made one speech after another. Instead of covering our troops with 
adequate, impenetrable armor, this Congress passed one paper resolution 
after another like this, which provided little shield from those who 
would do our brave men and women harm.
  Well, each day's news shows how out of touch this Administration and 
its congressional followers continue to be. Like the administration, 
this Congress has no idea what victory means other than trying to 
escape the morass that its bad judgment got us into.
  I believe that victory in Iraq, which we all desire, begins with a 
commitment to championing the truth. This is an administration that 
cannot utter ``Iraq'' without saying ``9/11,'' even though it knows 
there is absolutely no connection between the two.
  To win a war you have to shoot straight. Our young men and women in 
Iraq and Afghanistan understand that, but this administration and its 
congressional followers demonstrate again and again that they do not--
when they are discussing the real weakness of the Iraqi army or fail to 
do so, the strength of the insurgency, or the length our armed forces 
should be deployed.
  They are so proud of the democratic choices made in Iraq this week 
and so very fearful for there to be any democratic choices on the 
resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others. 
They fear a democratic debate in this House because their position is 
one of complete weakness. They have waved the white flag themselves at 
the possibility of a true debate in this Congress.
  What we need is a genuine debate about the best pathway for our 
security in Iraq. The President finally conceded over 30,000 civilians 
have died in this invasion. We have passed 2,000 young, brave men and 
women in the service of America, and we are on the way to 3,000.
  This administration has begun a public relations offensive when what 
we need is an offensive for the protection of our families. It has 
abandoned that in favor of a meaningless political victory, not a real 
plan for success for the security of our families.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I first say to my friend from Texas (Mr. Doggett) that this notion 
that we are going to stay just as long as President Bush wants us to 
stay and not a day longer, well, actually, what President Bush has said 
is that we will stay as long as necessary and not a day longer. And 
that was part of the initial strategy that was launched on his speech 
on the 26th of February 2003. And it is very, very clear that the 
President of Iraq has said that any kind of artificial timetable would, 
in fact, jeopardize the prospect of democracy.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Has the President or your resolution been willing to 
declare that it rejects the idea of permanent bases in Iraq?
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I will say that the President has 
said in that speech that we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary 
and not 1 day longer. That is very clear to me, and so it is obvious.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the very, very able 
fighter for freedom, our great friend from Springdale, South Carolina 
(Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am here today in support 
of the rule and the underlying resolution, in very strong support. I am 
here as a Member of Congress. I am here as a 31-year veteran of the 
Army Reserves and the National Guard.
  I am also proud to be the father of a son who served for a year in 
Iraq. I know firsthand of the progress that is being made there, along 
with other Members of Congress.
  We should be proud that Chairman Hunter, his son served in the 
Marines for a year in Mosul. Mr. Skelton had a son serve in Afghanistan 
in the war on terrorism. Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Akin of 
Missouri, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, and Mr. 
Saxton of New Jersey, all of us have had family members who have 
participated in the global war on terror, and we are so proud of their 
successes.
  Additionally, I would tell you that I disagree with Democratic Leader 
Pelosi. I believe that her position is wrong. I believe that proposing 
a withdrawal is giving your game plan ahead of time. You do not do it 
in football; you do not do it in politics. And you do not do it in a 
time of war. It is my view that we should understand that war is 
unpredictable.
  Of all times, this week 61 years ago we found out the 
unpredictability of war and that is the Battle of Bulge. Tens of 
thousands of German troops secretly were located in the Ardennes

[[Page 29061]]

Forest, attacked our troops in Luxembourg, in Belgium, and in Germany 
itself, and we lost 17,000 Americans. This could not be projected, this 
surprise attack.
  We need to be prepared. So I am very proud that indeed progress is 
being made.
  Our President has a wonderful plan of developing the Iraqi Security 
Forces, developing the Iraqi economy and the political situation, as we 
saw yesterday with the historic turnout of millions of Iraqis to build 
a civil society. And the bottom line is, it protects the American 
people.
  This is exactly what America did after World War II, developing the 
democratic society of Japan which now is one of our great allies. We 
have the same potential to protect American families now.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating today is an H. Res. 
resolution. Basically, this is just a sense of the Congress. It is 
largely symbolic.
  One of the complaints that many of us on this side of the aisle, and 
I know some of the people on the Republican side have as well, is that 
we kind of skirt around the real issue, which is what the policy is. 
Staying as long as it is going to take, that is not a policy. That is a 
sound bite.
  The President does not know where we are going in Iraq. He has given 
speeches that have been heavy on rhetoric, but not particularly big on 
specifics.
  If we want to do something helpful here, bring a binding bill to the 
floor here that sets out our policy, and let us have it out. Let us 
have the debate. Let us talk about what our policy should be in Iraq. 
Let us come back next week or let us come back for a week in January 
and have this debate. Let us discuss what, in fact, our policy should 
be in Iraq. We are not doing that. This is all symbolic.
  Notwithstanding the fact that we have 160,000 troops over there, that 
over 2,100 Americans have died over there, and 15,000 Americans have 
been wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, we have yet 
to have a real policy debate on this House floor about what course we 
should take in Iraq. That is what we want. That is what we are hoping 
for. I do not think that is unreasonable.
  To bring a largely symbolic resolution to the floor and tuck in it 
this kind of policy statement, give us an hour during the debate on the 
resolution to talk about everything, that is not the way we should be 
doing business around here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, the odds of success in Iraq are not enhanced 
by Congress continuing to act as a rubber stamp for President Bush. We 
need a change in strategic vision in Iraq.
  This resolution says that setting a timetable somehow is a Communist 
plot, but, in fact, the President himself set timetables in Iraq when 
he set timetables to have transitional elections in Iraq. He set 
timetables for elections because it focused the Iraqis to demand 
performance, and that is what we should do in setting a timetable to 
transition to Iraqis true sovereignty for three reasons.
  Reason number one, we should no longer provide a crutch for an 
indefinite period of time to the Iraqi politicians. We need to focus 
their minds on making the compromises that are necessary if a real 
government is going to be followed. We cannot fall into the trap of 
enabling Iraqi politicians to continue their bickering. They need a 
solution.
  Number two, people say a timetable will encourage more violence. Let 
me ask you this: If there is a young unemployed man who is angry about 
foreign troops marching on his neighborhood, what do you think will 
make him more angry and more likely to plant an IED, the fact that we 
tell him we are going to leave in a year or so, or tell him we are 
going to stay there as long as George Bush says so? We need to tell 
them that we are going to come home.
  The third reason we ought to think about this is that in our 
briefings we have received, we have been told that the Iraqi military 
will be fully trained by next December 2006, and it is realistic, it is 
commonsense, it is a measure to focus the Iraqi politicians on the 
necessity of seeking compromise, to say that we should begin 
transitioning next year and substantially conclude by December 2006.
  During that time I have one message for the administration. They need 
to do a better job arming the Iraqi military forces. They need radios, 
they need Humvees, they need logistics. We cannot allow that force to 
fall apart. We need to defeat this resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) has 3\1/4\ minute remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to 
simply focus on the issue that is constantly raised here, and that is, 
the notion that we somehow impose closed rules on every piece of 
legislation.
  There have been 113 rules considered on the House floor in the first 
session of the 109th Congress. With the exception of those rules which 
by statute or simple resolutions or appropriation continuing 
resolutions, 10 percent of those 113 rules have been closed rules. We 
allow for a free floor in debate. More Democratic amendments than 
Republican amendments have been made in order. So we are enjoying 
democracy right here in the people's House, and the people of Iraq are 
enjoying the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, given the stated interest in democracy here 
in the House, I would ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to permit 
for division of the question so that we could express our unanimous 
support for the various provisions of this resolution, except for that 
on which we have disagreement as to the best way to achieve success in 
Iraq. At this point, so that we can have the kind of democracy that 
occurred this week in Iraq, of which the majority seems so proud, and 
actually have it right here on the floor of the House, I ask unanimous 
consent for a division of the question on the provisions of this 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The majority manager of the resolution has 
not yielded for the purpose of such a request.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Given his professed interest in democracy, I am sure he 
will yield for that unanimous consent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California yield? 
The gentleman from California is indicating that he does not yield for 
that purpose.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Shocking, truly shocking, that democracy cannot exist 
here on the House floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I 
will close for our side.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me remind the Members of this House, 
the chairman of the Rules Committee talked about how generous the Rules 
Committee is. This year, in the 109th Congress, we have had 43 
restrictive rules, 22 closed rules, plus three additional closed rules 
that were included in one rule, H. Res. 351, and we have had 11 open 
rules as far as appropriations bills.
  Let me also simply say my point was that on important matters we 
usually have closed rules, as we did yesterday on the pension bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so I could amend the rule and allow the House to consider 
House Resolution 613 instead of House Resolution 612. House Resolution 
613 was introduced last evening by International Relations Ranking 
Member Lantos, the Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip

[[Page 29062]]

Steny Hoyer and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), which 
expresses congratulations to the people of Iraq on three national 
elections conducted in 2005.
  This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee early this morning, 
but unfortunately, it was rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment and the text of House Resolution 613 immediately prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, regardless of how Members of this House 
feel about the war in Iraq, I think all of us want to congratulate the 
people of Iraq for holding these historic elections and for getting out 
to vote despite the significant risks. We all want to congratulate our 
troops, but quite frankly, there is language in this bill that some of 
us consider inflammatory, that some of us strongly disagree with, and I 
would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
that we can have a unified message and not a divisive message here in 
the House.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been in Iraq now for over 1,000 days, and I 
believe we must begin the transition to putting the Iraqis in charge. 
President Bush's unwillingness to announce a plan to remove U.S. troops 
within a clear time frame and his refusal to renounce the use of 
permanent U.S. military bases I think undermines his rhetoric and I 
think endangers the chance for democracy to succeed. Our occupation in 
Iraq complicates the transition to democracy.
  People can disagree with me on this, but the fact of the matter is we 
should be debating this issue of how we deal with Iraq not in an H. 
Res. form, but in a binding resolution here on the House floor. We have 
time to debate Merry Christmas resolutions here in the House, but we 
never have the time to debate in a real way and in a meaningful way 
this war in Iraq.
  We have sent thousands of our servicemen and -women into harm's way 
in Iraq. I would argue we rushed into this war. We have paid dearly for 
what the politicians in Washington have decided to do. We owe our 
troops better than just coming up and saying, stay the course. We owe 
them more than saying we are going to stay there until victory is 
achieved.
  What is victory? I mean, nobody has defined what victory is. The 
President says we will know when we get there. Well, that is not good 
enough. That is not good enough for anybody in this House. That is not 
good enough for our soldiers.
  We owe these brave men and women more than just a pat on the back and 
a congratulations. We owe them a real policy, and we owe the people of 
Iraq who have sacrificed so much the right to determine their own 
future. They want us to begin to extricate ourselves from Iraq. We 
should do that, and I would hope that my colleagues will vote ``no'' on 
the previous question so we can bring up a resolution that truly unites 
this body and not divides it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen these buttons that my colleagues on the 
other side have been wearing, although I do not see them wearing it 
this morning, but they wore them last night, that says, debate Iraq. I 
just listened to a statement by my friend from Massachusetts, and I 
would say what is it that we are doing right now?
  We have just gone through a very rigorous debate on the Defense 
appropriations process. It was considered under an open amendment 
process. We have gone through the Defense authorization process, and we 
have had a full debate on that. Every single day on the House floor at 
least one Member stands up to outline his or her position on the issue 
of Iraq. We are debating it constantly here, and it is a very healthy 
and important debate for us to have.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have been listening to this debate, which has been 
taking place over the past hour, a name sticks in my mind. The name is 
J.P. Blecksmith. J.P. Blecksmith is a young marine who was tragically 
killed in one of the biggest battles in Iraq a year ago last month. It 
was the battle of Fallujah, and since he died, I have gotten to know 
his family, and his parents have repeatedly said to me personally, have 
gone on television and said this, that in the name of their courageous 
son who is a marine killed in the battle of Fallujah, it would be 
absolutely reprehensible for the United States of America to cut and 
run, for us to leave Iraq on some artificial timetable.
  So, Mr. Speaker, today is a day of celebration. I cannot understand 
why my colleagues would say that the following line is somehow 
contentious. It simply says, while congratulating the Iraqi people for 
this overwhelming success that they had yesterday, congratulating our 
men and women in uniform and the Iraqi security forces and the 
coalition forces, it says basically what President Talabani of Iraq has 
said in a Wall Street Journal editorial. The resolution says, Setting 
an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed 
Forces from Iraq or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq 
and redeploying them elsewhere in the region is fundamentally 
inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq.
  What is contentious about that? I cannot understand why anyone would 
believe, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot come together with a strong 
bipartisan vote, making sure that the success that we enjoyed on 
January 30 and October 15 and just yesterday in Iraq is sustained.
  We know that Mr. Zarqawi has made it very, very clear that, as 
democracy blossoms, terrorism will come to an end.
  So let us do everything within our power to support this resolution, 
to support our troops, to support the sustained victory of the people 
in Iraq. I urge support of this resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 619, the Rule for H. Res. 612 Expressing 
the Commitment of the House of Representatives to Achieving Victory in 
                                  Iraq

       Amendment in nature of substitute:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       ``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 613) 
     congratulating the people of Iraq on the three national 
     elections conducted in Iraq in 2005. The resolution shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the resolution and the preamble to final 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on International Relations; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.''
                                  ____


                              H. Res. 613

       Whereas the people of Iraq have consistently and 
     courageously demonstrated their commitment to democracy by 
     participating in three elections in 2005;
       Whereas on January 30, 2005, the people of Iraq 
     participated in an election for a transitional national 
     assembly;
       Whereas all segments of Iraqi society actively participated 
     in the approval of a new Iraqi Constitution through a 
     referendum held on October 15, 2005;
       Whereas reports indicate that the people of Iraq voted in 
     unprecedented and overwhelming numbers in the most recent 
     election, held on December 15, 2005, for a new, national 
     parliament that will serve in accordance with the recently-
     approved Iraqi Constitution for a four-year term and that 
     represents the first fully sovereign, elected democratic 
     assembly in the history of Iraq;
       Whereas this remarkable level of participation by the 
     people of Iraq in the face of dire threats to their very 
     lives has won the admiration of the world;
       Whereas the Iraqi elections could not have been conducted 
     without the courage and dedication of the members of the 
     United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other 
     nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces 
     of Iraq; and
       Whereas the December 15, 2005, election in Iraq inspires 
     confidence that a robust, pluralistic democracy that will 
     bring stability to Iraqi society is emerging: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
       (1) congratulates the people of Iraq on the three national 
     elections conducted in Iraq in 2005;
       (2) encourages all Americans to express support for the 
     people of Iraq in their efforts

[[Page 29063]]

     to achieve a free, open, and democratic society; and
       (3) expresses its thanks and admiration to the members of 
     the United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other 
     nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces 
     of Iraq, whose heroism permitted the Iraqi people to vote 
     safely.

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today, without a doubt, we should 
congratulate the Iraqi people for what appears to be a successful, 
high-turnout election.
  For the third time this year, courageous Iraqi citizens have 
enthusiastically exercised their democratic rights.
  But successful elections do not, and cannot, obscure the devastating 
national tragedy that is the Iraq war.
  It doesn't change the fact that over 2,100 Americans have died for 
weapons of mass destruction that never existed.
  It doesn't change the fact that this war has turned Iraq into a 
hotbed of terrorist activity.
  It doesn't change the fact that our troops are sitting ducks for the 
insurgents, who have been emboldened--not deterred--by our military 
presence in Iraq.
  Here's the bottom line: a successful Iraqi election should, at the 
very least, reinforce the imperative of bringing our troops home. If 
Iraq is truly able to self-govern, then we have no business occupying 
their country and meddling in their affairs.
  I've argued all year long that it's time to restore Iraqi sovereignty 
and give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. If the election is a watershed 
moment as the White House claims . . . then what is the continued 
justification for having our troops over there in harm's way?
  Now is the time to enlist the support of the international community 
to establish an interim security force for Iraq. But that's just the 
start.
  As I've written to the President in a letter signed by 61 other 
members of the House, the United States must also launch a ``diplomatic 
offensive,'' recasting our role in Iraq as reconstruction partner 
rather than military occupier.
  We must also lead the way in establishing an international peace 
commission to oversee the post-war reconciliation and coordinate peace 
talks between Iraq's various factions.
  The majority of the American people aren't behind it. Our global 
allies aren't behind it. The Iraqi people aren't behind it. Even Iraqi 
leaders--Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish alike, who agree on practically 
nothing--have united around a call for the United States military to 
leave.
  With the Iraqi people having voted once again, let's offer the 
ultimate vote of confidence in their democracy. Let's reward the self-
sufficiency they've demonstrated--by giving them their country back and 
bringing American soldiers home.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________