[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11400-11410]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 861, DECLARING THAT THE UNITED 
            STATES WILL PREVAIL IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 868

       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. 861) 
     declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global 
     War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the 
     terrorist adversary. 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) ten hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled among the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on International Relations, the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary, and the chairman and ranking minority member 
     of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit which may not include instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 861 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the 
     Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise

[[Page 11401]]

and extend their remarks, and insert tabular and extraneous material 
into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. 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 the Rules Committee met and reported a rule 
for consideration of House Resolution 861.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule is a closed rule providing 10 hours of debate 
in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence.
  It waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution 
and provides one motion to recommit, which may not contain 
instructions.
  It further provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the 
previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, in the context of today's debate, I believe there are 
four relevant questions we must consider. First, should we have entered 
the war in Iraq? Second, with Saddam Hussein gone, what are the stakes 
in terms of our involvement in Iraq? Third, what are the chances for 
success in Iraq? And finally, where will the battle be won or lost? I 
would like to consider each of those questions in turn.
  First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? I remind the Members 
of this House that it was official policy of the United States 
Government beginning in 1998, agreed to by both Houses of Congress, to 
remove Saddam Hussein from power. We had good reason to do so. This is 
a person who had twice launched regional wars and took over a million 
lives; who pursued and nearly acquired nuclear weapons on two different 
occasions; who developed weapons of mass destruction and had used them 
against his own people; who was a state sponsor of terrorism; who had 
systematically worked his way out from under the restrictions applied 
to him by the United Nations; who had expelled weapons inspectors from 
his own country; who was a continuing threat; and, frankly, who had 
terrorized and brutalized and killed hundreds of thousands of his own 
people. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
  Second, with him gone, what is at stake in Iraq? For that I think we 
should turn to the enemies that we fight today. al Qaeda, they have 
designated this and other terrorist groups as the central battlefield 
in the war on terror. I quote from the chief theoretician of al Qaeda: 
``Iraq is the greatest battlefield against the infidel and his native 
allies. It is not the American war machine that should be of utmost 
concern. What threatens the future is American democracy. To allow Iraq 
to build a democracy would represent our biggest defeat.'' So the 
stakes are certainly worth the effort.
  Next, what are our chances of success in Iraq? Frankly, I think they 
are very good, for two reasons. First, obviously, the skill, the 
bravery, the professionalism of our own people which was demonstrated 
only last week when they cornered and killed al Zarqawi, one of the 
world's worst terrorists; but second, and we ought to note this, the 
Iraqi people themselves. It is they who stepped up under the most 
difficult of circumstances and turned out in successfully greater 
numbers at three different elections. It is they who, in the civil 
turmoil they are going through, have fashioned a Constitution, have 
created a permanent government. It is their leaders who run the risk of 
being killed every single day, and it is their people who are standing 
up literally by the thousands and fighting back to defend their own 
country and to move it forward to a hopeful and democratic future. So I 
think our chances of success in Iraq are good.
  Finally, though, where will the battle be won or lost? Finally, Iraq 
is a crucial theater. What happens there with our military, what 
happens with the Iraqis is determinative to the outcome; but I would 
also suggest that the United States is itself a battlefield, a 
political battlefield. The real question is whether or not we will 
sustain the will that it takes to ultimately be successful, and that 
decision will be made not in Iraq but in Congress and in the United 
States itself.
  So what we are about today is a fight, I think, that involves us on 
the most critical battlefield of all, the battlefield of American 
public opinion.
  Mr. Speaker, today we may hear about the ``unfairness'' of this 
resolution. We may hear charges of a rigged process. Let us be clear, 
Mr. Speaker. The minority was asked to provide their own party 
substitute to this resolution, and they did not choose to do so. We 
were ready to make this in order in the Rules Committee. They did not 
do so, and we moved forward with our resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, if the other side of the aisle would like to argue 
process rather than substance, that is certainly appropriate, and that 
is their privilege. They should vote against this resolution. If they 
disagree with the resolution in substance, they should vote against it. 
If they disagree with the resolution because they consider it 
ramrodded, they should vote against it. That is their right.
  Frankly, I believe their real challenge is that they have no common 
unified position on Iraq as a party. Whether we are right or wrong on 
our side of the aisle, we do have a common position, and it is 
expressed in the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge those on both sides of the aisle who believe that 
winning the campaign in Iraq is of the utmost important in achieving 
success in the wider global war on terror to vote for this resolution. 
I believe that many Members of both parties will.
  Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge the support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we will not be having a real debate on Iraq today. It 
will be a pretend debate, one that will have absolutely no effect on 
U.S. policy. No amendments, no substitutes, no chance for Members of 
Congress to actually do their jobs by making thoughtful changes to the 
resolution.
  The distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee 
testified before the Rules Committee that the resolution before us will 
at least give Members the opportunity to ``get things off our chest.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in therapy. I am interested in 
changing this failed policy.
  This process is disrespectful to the men and women of our Armed 
Forces, disrespectful to the people we represent, and disrespectful to 
the traditions of this House.
  The Bush administration is trying to encourage, cajole, and sometimes 
even strong arm the Iraqi Government into being more inclusive, to 
respect the rights and privileges of the minority, to embrace the 
democratic process. Well, I hope the government of Iraq is not watching 
today, because the Republican majority certainly has no intention of 
teaching by example.
  We are all committed to a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq. 
The important question remains, to achieve this goal, is the United 
States committed to keeping 150,000 or 100,000 or 50,000 American 
military men and women in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time, 
perhaps even decades into the future?
  Under the current policy, the mission in Iraq is neverending. The 
resolution

[[Page 11402]]

before us asks us not just to stay the course, but to stay forever.
  The reason why so many of us, Democrats and Republicans, want to have 
a meaningful debate and meaningful votes on the war in Iraq is because 
the Bush administration has lost our confidence and our trust.
  For too long this Congress has given the administration blank checks 
and unchecked authority. We have abdicated our responsibilities. We 
have not done our job, which is to legislate, to conduct oversight, and 
to shape the policy of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the reality of our policy in Iraq is one characterized 
by corruption, mismanagement, incompetence and self-delusion. 2,493 
American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have died since the 
beginning of the war, 94 percent of them since the President declared, 
``Mission Accomplished.''
  And despite unanimous congressional agreements against permanent 
military base funding, the Republican majority stripped these 
provisions from the emergency supplemental conference report presented 
to the House on Tuesday.
  In the period leading up to the war, the President said, ``Imagine a 
terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground.'' 
Unfortunately, we do not have to imagine that anymore. The State 
Department now reports that Iraq is indeed a terror haven. The very 
thing we wanted to prevent by going to war was actually created by the 
war.
  Certainly the death of terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi is welcome 
news. We did not create Zarqawi, but it was the war in Iraq that 
offered him the opportunity to kill American soldiers and innocent 
Iraqi civilians and to inflame sectarian hatreds.
  But as we all know, foreign terrorists represent only 6 to 8 percent 
of those committing violence in Iraq. By far, most attacks are carried 
out by Iraqi Sunni insurgents and by the growing Shiia and Sunni 
sectarian groups battling each other.
  The American-backed effort to arm tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers 
and officers, coupled with a failure to curb a nearly equal number of 
militia gunmen, has created a galaxy of armed groups, each with its own 
loyalty and agenda. Sectarian violence has become almost as serious a 
threat as the insurgency. As former commander of U.S. Central Command 
General Anthony Zinni said in April, ``These militias will be a fact of 
life after we are gone. No one seems to have a plan for these 
militias.''
  It is a disturbingly familiar refrain, Mr. Speaker: No one seems to 
have a plan.
  On the ground, reconstruction is not going well. A plan to build 150 
health care clinics has not resulted in much more than empty shells and 
uneven walls. Power blackouts remain a constant frustration. Only 19 
percent of Iraqis today have working sewer connections, down from 24 
percent before the war. While most Iraq reconstruction projects are way 
behind schedule, there is one construction effort that is right on 
target: the $592 million U.S. embassy, which will be the size of about 
80 football fields.
  The recent report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction found massive corruption and mismanagement of U.S. aid. 
Billions of dollars have been lost or squandered through fraud and 
corruption, much of it by a handful of corporate contractors with 
special, privileged ties to the administration and a near complete lack 
of systematic oversight of funds.
  And still, Mr. Speaker, there is no accountability for this money and 
no accountability for this war, not within the Republican White House 
and not here in this Republican House.
  This is a critical point, because this debate must be about more than 
simply how long we will stay in Iraq.
  Where is the accountability for the corruption taking place in our 
reconstruction projects? Where is the accountability for our troops 
receiving faulty body armor and other equipment? Where is the 
accountability for the lack of funding to provide services for all the 
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who are dealing with post-
traumatic stress and other needs? Where is the accountability for the 
creation of death squad-type militias within the Iraqi police and 
security forces? Where is the accountability for the abuse of prisoners 
and detainees which is costing the United States so much of its 
credibility and standing in the international community?
  It is not the role of the Congress to turn a blind eye to whatever 
the administration wants to do. Quite the opposite. It is our 
responsibility to oversee every single taxpayer dollar that is being 
spent on this war.
  The total bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stands at $450 
billion. If we stay in Iraq for just one more year, we will have spent, 
off budget, off the books, half a trillion dollars on this war, a debt 
that President Bush and the Republican majority intend to pass on to 
our children and our grandchildren.
  Leadership, Mr. Speaker, requires courage. It requires taking 
responsibility. It requires accountability. It demands competence. In 
every single one of these areas, the White House, the Pentagon, this 
Republican Congress score an F for failure.
  Instead, all the American people are getting is a world class PR and 
spin campaign coming out of the White House.
  Make no mistake, H. Res. 861 requires no accountability from the 
White House or the Congress on the war in Iraq. It will not provide any 
increased protection for our troops on the ground. It will not protect 
our tax dollars from further waste, fraud, or abuse.

                              {time}  1045

  It won't demand direction, let alone a plan, from the President about 
how and when our troops will return home.
  So here we are, treating the issue of war and the safety of our 
troops with a resolution that carries the same force of law as a 
resolution congratulating a sports team. Quite frankly, this process is 
an outrage and it should be rejected by this House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I remember the 
inexorable slide towards the absolute irrelevance of the international 
system during the decade of the 1990s and the first few years of this 
decade, Saddam Hussein having in fact purchased just about every 
relevant United Nations leader and world leader, in fact, even in our 
friendly continent of Europe, except of course for President Bush and 
Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Aznar. Saddam Hussein and, we 
must remember, Mr. Speaker, the Oil-for-Food program and its billions 
of dollars siphoned off to purchase world and United Nations leaders. 
Saddam Hussein flouted his disdain for the international community and 
its, according to him, silly norms, laws, and resolutions. Almost 20 of 
them, Mr. Speaker, he systematically ignored and laughed at.
  He called in al Zarqawi of al Qaeda to Iraq, joining next door 
Afghanistan as a state dedicated to welcoming and fostering 
international terrorists. In Afghanistan, as my late father Rafael 
Diaz-Balart would tell me, my late father whose wisdom far exceeded his 
formal education of five degrees from universities in Europe and one on 
this continent, he would tell me, ``There in Afghanistan is the 
Taliban, the Taliban who torture women and who have opened that country 
to the training camps of international terrorists.''
  And in 1993, we saw the attacks coming from those terrorists to here, 
to New York City, the World Trade Center, and then the bombings of 
American embassies in Africa, and even an attack on a United States 
ship, the Cole. Nothing happened. But then came 9/11, Mr. Speaker, and 
it became evident that we could no longer allow despots like Saddam and 
the Taliban to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by 
the United Nations Security Council, no matter how many billions of 
dollars they spent purchasing world leaders.

[[Page 11403]]

  This is, Mr. Speaker, the debate of our era. We cannot wait until 
international terrorism attacks us. We must take the war to 
international terrorism and defeat international terrorism before the 
terrorists attack us. That is the debate of our era, as President Bush 
has reiterated so often. And that is a debate that we as a country and 
as a Congress must engage in, and I am pleased to see that we are doing 
so today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the 
House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
  Mr. SKELTON. I rise to speak against the rule. I take a back seat to 
no one in supporting our American military and their families. No one. 
But before us is a resolution that is not the fulfillment of a promise 
that we were given. We were told we would be able to have a debate on 
Iraq. That is not the case. This resolution covers the waterfront. Iraq 
is a singular war that we should discuss at length by itself.
  You see, there are two ongoing wars: The war against terror, which 
has genesis in Afghanistan, and we did the right thing going in there. 
We are still chasing bin Laden, and some day we will get him. We 
toppled the Taliban. And then, of course, we went into Iraq based upon 
the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and we are there.
  I sent two letters to the President of the United States warning 
about the aftermath, warning about what might very, very well happen 
after our national victory, and it came to pass. We have an insurgency 
there which is different and distinct from terrorists.
  The insurgency is composed of Baathists, Fedayeen, and Sunni, who 
were basically in charge under Saddam Hussein. This is their attempt to 
knock down the government that is there and to establish their own, far 
from being the terrorists that we went after in Afghanistan.
  Two wars. That is why this is a disingenuous resolution before us.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma for yielding time, and I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a global war that we did not seek but 
that was brought to our shores by actions of terrorists on September 
11, 2001. The global war on terror is unlike other past wars. In the 
past the United States fought a clear enemy state. Today we fight an 
enemy without borders that threatens our free way of life.
  When George Washington was elected as our first President, there was 
a king in France, a czarina in Russia, an emperor in China, and a 
shogun in Japan. The American President was the only elected leader at 
that time. Today, countries in every continent elect their own leaders. 
The number of democracies currently stands at an all-time high and has 
been growing without interruption for some time. Freedom and self-
government is on the march around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, why is this important? It is important, Mr. Speaker, 
because history has shown that those countries who elect their leaders 
are less belligerent than those who do not. Democracy and freedom are a 
threat to the terrorist ideology, which is why they fight so hard to 
keep self-government from taking hold.
  The Middle East is an area where democracy has faced significant 
challenge. It is a region where we have seen entrenched dictatorships, 
continued violence, and civil unrest.
  In an article from the Washington Times on June 12, Mark Stein cites 
four separate and recent incidents that took place in Baghdad, London, 
Toronto and Mogadishu. He goes on to say, and I quote, ``The world 
divides those who think the above are all part of the same story and 
those who figure they are strictly local items of no wider 
significance.'' I believe that these events are all rooted in the same 
ideology, and the United States, as the leader of the free world, 
stands in the way of this ideology.
  We must not forget the sacrifice our military is making for the 
security and support of our ideals. They are fighting the enemy abroad 
so we will not have to fight them here. We must continue to support our 
troops and stay focused on defeating terrorism in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 868 and the 
underlying resolution declaring that the United States will prevail in 
the Global War on Terror, which is essential to the security of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a global war that we did not seek, but 
that was brought to our shores by the actions of terrorists on 
September 11, 2001. The Global War on Terror is unlike all other wars. 
In past wars the United States fought a clear enemy state--today, we 
fight an enemy without borders that threatens our free way of life.
  When George Washington was elected the first President there was a 
king in France, a czarina in Russia, an emperor in China, and a shogun 
in Japan. The American President was the only elected leader at the 
time. Today, countries on every continent elect their own leaders. The 
number of democracies currently stands at an all-time high, and has 
been growing without interruption for some time. Freedom and self-
government is on the march around the world. History has shown that 
those countries who elect their leaders are less belligerent than those 
that do not.
  Democracy and freedom are a threat to the terrorists' ideology, which 
is why they fight so hard to keep self-government from taking hold. The 
Middle East is an area where democracy has faced significant 
challenges--it is a region where we see entrenched dictatorships, 
continued violence and civil unrest.
  In an article from the Washington Times on June 12, Mark Steyn cites 
four separate and recent incidents that took place in Baghdad, London, 
Toronto and Mogadishu. He goes on to say, ``The world divides into 
those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who 
figure they're strictly local items of no wider significance . . .'' I 
believe these events are all rooted in the same ideology. The United 
States as the leader of the free world stands in the way of this 
ideology.
  Mr. Speaker, this Global War on Terror is protecting the freedoms 
that terrorists seek to destroy by any means necessary. Throughout this 
war, the terrorists have been emboldened by weakness, but fortunately 
it is the brave actions of our military men and women who are proving 
to our enemy that America will persevere. We must not forget the 
sacrifice our military is making for our security and in support of our 
ideals. They are fighting the enemy abroad, so that we will not have to 
fight them here.
  I am proud of the soldiers from my area in Central Washington who 
have stepped forward to defend our nation's security. In addition to 
contributing to the Global War on Terror in manpower--my district is 
home to the Yakima Training Center--where the soldiers of the Stryker 
Brigade train in settings designed to simulate real battlefield 
conditions in the War on Terror. They are helping to transform our 
military into a force that can meet the readiness demands of this new 
conflict.
  As our troops employ the latest techniques to combat terrorism in 
this modern war--they clearly demonstrate the dedication and honor of 
military men and women before them. This has been apparent the two 
times I have traveled to Iraq, and when I visit with troops returning 
from the front.
  Mr. Speaker, the Global War on Terror is not a war we sought, but it 
is one we must continue to fight and is vital we win. We face a clear 
choice today. Do we back down in the face of a determined enemy for a 
temporary reprieve, or do we stand firm and fight the terrorists 
abroad? I believe the answer is obvious. We must stand firm on the 
Global War on Terror.
  While more work remains--thanks to our troops, America is safer. 
Saddam Hussein is being brought to justice and Iraq is being stabilized 
so that it is not a haven for future terrorist activities. We must 
continue to support our troops and stay focused on defeating terrorism 
in Iraq and around the world in order to keep American families and 
communities safe at home.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
resolution that the United States will prevail in the Global War on 
Terror.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 7 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking 
member of the House Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page 11404]]

  Mr. Speaker, about two centuries ago, almost, this country was facing 
a war that devastated it for generations. The first day, the first 
battle was going to be at Bull Run, not far from here in Washington, 
and I am sure that some Members of Congress and many other citizens of 
Washington packed up lunches, got in their horse and buggy, and went 
out to watch the fight. Suddenly, they found the Union forces were 
being routed, bloodied, and were told to run for their lives.
  Today, our brave Union forces are again in the field, are suffering 
great casualties, and what is happening today when we finally get 
around to talking about Iraq 4 years after it happened? We are going to 
have a picnic. So later today everybody will stop and go to the White 
House and discuss the picnic. There is something so surreal and Alice 
in Wonderland about all the things that have been going on around here, 
but let me tell you of a different time.
  In 1991, leading up to the first Gulf War, this Congress had a real 
debate about that conflict, one that was said to be one of the best of 
the 20th century, because in 1991 the House was a real deliberative 
body. We had three resolutions to consider; actually, the minority 
resolution, there were two Democrats and one minority leader 
resolution, was the one that passed in a Democrat Congress, and every 
Member who wanted it had 5 minutes to speak their mind. We debated for 
20 hours on that, and it was a wonderful time because we all took part 
in something we cared so deeply about.
  Contrast that with what this Republican leadership is giving us now, 
a day not about policy or progress but about politics and posturing. It 
is a day designed to provide the majority with a chance to make cheap 
political attacks against Democrats in anticipation of upcoming mid-
term elections at a time when Americans and Iraqis are giving their 
lives in one of the most brutal wars of our time.
  Yesterday, an internal Republican memo was circulated outlining the 
party's plan of attack for today. It instructs Republicans to paint a 
picture of ``A Democrat Party without a coherent national security 
policy that sheepishly dismissed the challenges America faces in a 
post-9/11 world.'' We are going to hear a lot of that empty propaganda 
today, I am absolutely sure. But how will that divisive rhetoric help 
our soldiers abroad, Mr. Speaker? What can it possibly have to do with 
the war we are fighting?
  If this memo didn't show us the real motivations behind today, last 
night's meeting of the Rules Committee certainly did. My fellow 
Democrats and I had a simple request at the meeting. We asked for the 
rule to be an open one. An open rule would have given any Member on any 
side of the House who wanted to speak a chance to do so. And what is 
more, an open rule would have permitted Members from both sides of the 
aisle to present amendments to the resolution so that we could do more 
than just talk, so that we could try to improve the flawed policies 
being pursued in Iraq.
  But the committee gave us a closed rule. Not one person here from 
either party will be able to amend this resolution. Now, why would the 
Republicans do this? Could it be because they are not interested in 
addressing the serious questions in a forthright way? There are 
certainly problems to be addressed. Let me give you one example.
  Yesterday, I joined a group of Democrats repeating our call for the 
creation of a Truman Commission to oversee the Iraqi reconstruction. 
Rampant construction and incompetent Iraq contracting have prolonged 
our mission there and cost lives, with 75 percent of oil and gas and 50 
percent of electricity projects remaining unfinished.
  The GAO reports that $7 billion in funds have simply been lost. The 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, is 
investigating 72 cases of alleged fraud. Have Republicans dealt with 
these problems? They have not. They recently elected to block $1.9 
billion in new reconstruction funds from being examined. They won't let 
Mr. Bowen and his team look at that, because he was doing the job too 
well. So they took the jurisdiction pretty much away from him.
  I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that today, instead of 
proposing serious solutions to the problems we are facing, we are being 
offered a ``yes or no'' vote on a resolution drowning in patriotic 
rhetoric and offering us an open-ended fight against an open-ended 
enemy.
  Debate is about choice, but there is no choice here today. What we 
have is less like our democracy and more like a Soviet election. 
Americans expect real debate in their Congress. They do not expect 
their representatives to passively acquiesce to the assertions of a 
meaningless resolution based on White House talking points. And they 
expect their elected officials to have a meaningful discussion on the 
future course of the greatest challenge to our Nation in a generation.
  My friends on both sides of the aisle, we can stop this sham in its 
tracks by voting ``no'' on this rule. I implore every Member from both 
parties to realize what is at stake here. If you support the rule, you 
are saying you don't believe our troops and their families deserve a 
serious debate on the war. You are saying you don't think the massive 
troubles of the Iraqi people deserve more than a cursory glance. And 
you are saying you don't think this Congress should be anything more 
than the President's rubber stamp. What you are saying is that this war 
is just a political tool to be used at elections.
  My fellow Democrats and I have said a lot about the death of 
democracy in this House. Over the course of the 109th Congress, of 144 
different rules presented by this Republican Party, only one rule that 
was not an appropriations measure has been made open for debate and 
amendable by this leadership. One. And if there was ever a rule that 
should be open, if there was ever a day in which democracy should 
breathe freely in these halls, even if just for one day, it is this 
rule and it should be this day.
  Your vote on this rule isn't about how you voted on the war, it is 
about respecting the troops. It is about respecting democracy. How can 
we ask the fine young men and women of our Armed Forces to die so that 
Iraqis can have democracy and debate when we are systematically 
undermining those same principles here? It is unconscionable.

                              {time}  1100

  Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, I implore every Member, 
everyone to take a stand for the values of democracy and the values of 
this Nation and vote please against this rule. Defeating this rule will 
show our troops that we have enough respect for them in this House to 
have a real debate on their lives and future and of the future of the 
Nation that we love.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on this day of debate while we discuss the 
merits and perils of our involvement in the war on terror, there is one 
sentiment that is shared by every Member of Congress: our admiration 
for our Armed Forces who risk their lives each day in defense of our 
freedom. Within these Halls of democracy where we passionately 
represent our constituents, it is important to recommend that the 
democratic way of life that is at the heart of what we do would not be 
possible without the men and women of our Armed Forces.
  The brave men and women of our military are often called upon to 
travel great distances away from their families and loved ones to fight 
for the freedom that all Americans hold dear. Each time one of them 
enters into battle, it is with the knowledge that they may be asked to 
make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, giving their lives to 
secure our great Nation.
  In recognition of these heroes, we have placed a memorial display in 
the Rayburn horseshoe foyer featuring the name of each and every member 
of our forces who has fallen as a result of the current conflict in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.

[[Page 11405]]

  It is my hope that the many Members, staff, visitors, students, and 
constituent groups who visit the House office buildings each day will 
take a moment to stop by the memorial and reflect on the gift of 
freedom given selflessly by these honored individuals to every 
American.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today's debate is long overdue. For the past 3 years, 
the United States has had a military presence in Iraq. In fact, when 
the authorization for war in Iraq was authorized, I was not a member of 
this body. Yet this is the first extensive public debate Congress will 
have had on the most important issue of the day.
  Even now, however, the rule put forth by the House leadership asks 
Members a simplistic question: Do you accept or renounce the 
President's vague appeal to stay the course and be patient? Such a 
narrow focus does a disservice to our role as representatives of the 
people.
  The American people want to hear practical, well-thought-out ideas 
from their elected representatives. Today we could have had that 
honest, engaged and realistic debate.
  I had hoped to discuss the reality of Iraq right now and how we may 
best help a political solution to emerge. This isn't a debate we should 
be afraid of. We can have this debate and can have it respectfully. But 
the House Republican leadership has decided to pass on this 
opportunity.
  What should we be debating? I believe there are several things upon 
which all Members can agree, Republican and Democratic alike.
  The first is that the United States has no desire to control Iraq's 
oil supply. The second is that we will not build permanent bases in 
Iraq. Taken together, these statements say clearly to the Iraqi people 
that the United States presence in Iraq is not permanent. And it says 
clearly to the administration that our strategy in Iraq must reflect 
the fact that we will not be there forever.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the focus of this House must move beyond these 
specific details and rapidly toward our broader policies on Iraq. We 
all want a free, stable and prosperous Iraq, and we have an important 
diplomatic role to play. But ultimately, it is up to the Iraqis to 
achieve those goals through the political process.
  The United States should continue to offer support for Iraqi security 
forces; and regardless of our troop deployment, the United States must 
maintain its responsibility to assist in rebuilding the country's 
economy and infrastructure.
  But beginning to draw down troops stationed in Iraq can be done while 
keeping all of these goals in mind. I respect several redeployment 
proposals put forth by Members of this body for those reasons.
  The President's exhortations to ``stay the course'' remain 
disconnected from the reality on the ground and from a sincere 
engagement on the policy details.
  In contrast, the proposals put forth by several Members of the House 
were developed after much thought. The Members struggled to mold the 
chaos in Iraq into a workable solution that upholds the best interests 
of the Iraqi people and that of the American people.
  These proposals and ideas deserve to come to the floor. They deserve 
to be debated, and they deserve a vote. Unfortunately, under the rule 
reported out, this will not happen. Instead, we will have a gripping 
session that yields no results. Congress is part of this government. In 
fulfillment of its responsibilities, this House should reject this rule 
and bring real policy to the floor.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here and I wish 
to address the first of the four points that Mr. Cole presented when he 
introduced this particular rule.
  I, like the gentlewoman from California who just spoke, and those of 
us who were elected for the first time in the last two cycles, was not 
here for the 1998 debate and piece of legislation passed by 360 of our 
Members and signed by President Clinton which outlined our foreign 
policy objectives with Iraq; nor was I here for what I was told was the 
17-hour debate on the vote that authorized use of force in Iraq.
  Those two, in my opinion, should have been the definitive debate and 
vote on what our common policy would be as we move forward.
  What I would like to talk to you about now is what I find most 
compelling, and that is the legal rationale for what we are doing in 
Iraq.
  Saddam Hussein's Iraq violated 17 U.N. resolutions, three of which 
demanded use of force for the violation of those. Saddam Hussein's Iraq 
had violated the treaty he signed with the United States. His forces 
were shooting at American servicemen. He put a bounty on the head of 
every American airman that could be brought to him. He had offered a 
cash bonus to every family of a suicide bomber who would blow up either 
an Israeli or an American at the time.
  When a foreign country violates its treaty with us and shoots at our 
servicemen, that is a legal justification for our actions. In fact, it 
is odd enough that we probably have a greater legal justification for 
this war than any other conflict with which this country has been 
involved in the last 50 years.
  In Korea, we went in after one U.N. resolution, not 17.
  In Vietnam, we made it a national priority because of a treaty we 
had, not with Vietnam but with an ally, France.
  We bombed Serbia and went into Bosnia, not because of a legal pretext 
or compelling national interest, but because our European allies asked 
us to assist them with their particular issue.
  The quarantine during the Cuban missile crisis was an aggressive act 
of war that was condemned by the U.N. Secretary General and protested 
in dozens of cities throughout the world, but was, in my mind, not a 
legal act but a right act of President Kennedy.
  In Iraq, what we are doing is both legal and it is right.
  Every war we have had has been littered with protests. Historians 
tell us in the Revolutionary War a third of Americans were opposed to 
it and a third were indifferent.
  The War of 1812, Mr. McGovern's State tried to secede from the Union.
  In the Civil War, we had the greatest riots proportionately we have 
ever had in this country, and the Governor of New York inflammatorily 
said President Lincoln's goal was to kill all of the Irish.
  In the Spanish American War, the Speaker of the House postwar 
resigned in protest.
  In World War I, the Secretary of State prewar resigned in protest.
  Only World War II has been atypical in those concepts of what we had.
  As a history teacher, I see mass amounts of parallels with what we 
are doing now and what has happened in history. I don't have the time 
to go into any of those.
  What I simply hope is for this House and this Nation is that we don't 
have the tunnel vision of short-term policy and we do not reject the 
lessons of history that will help us understand what should be the 
definition of our common potential future and policy towards Iraq.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the International 
Relations Committee.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I urge 
all my colleagues to reject this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, as we embark on this debate, I believe it is important 
to recall the debate we had during the first Persian Gulf crisis.
  In 1991, we were on the brink of war with Iraq over Saddam Hussein's 
invasion of Kuwait. Emotions were high, and the parties were divided. 
We Democrats were in the majority then, and we allowed over 30 hours of 
debate on three different measures representing profoundly differing 
points of view.
  I wish to repeat this, Mr. Speaker: we allowed over 30 hours of 
debate on

[[Page 11406]]

three different measures representing profoundly differing points of 
view.
  And the critical vote, Mr. Speaker, was on a proposal of the 
Republican minority sponsored by the Republican minority leader, Bob 
Michel. It was supported by some of us on the majority Democratic side, 
myself included, and it prevailed.
  And in 1999, Mr. Speaker, as the people of Kosovo bled from the 
wounds of Serbian bullets, this House had a highly emotional debate 
over three different resolutions relating to proposed U.S. action to 
end the humanitarian disaster. Again, the minority was afforded an 
alternative which barely lost on a tie vote.
  Today we are purportedly debating how to end the war, rather than 
whether to begin one, and an equally vital debate given the lives at 
stake. But the Republican leadership has thrown out all precedent and 
instead of giving the House a chance to work its will, they are forcing 
us into a charade.
  Members will not be given a chance to offer amendments or 
alternatives to let the House work its will. Rather, all that is 
offered is 82 seconds for each Member to state a view on the complex 
and difficult subject of the Iraq war.
  Mr. Speaker, I tried to work on this resolution with my good friend, 
Chairman Hyde, on a bipartisan basis as I always have. But the 
Republican leadership expanded the original draft far beyond Iraq and 
rejected every one of our substantive suggestions.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should allow all Members to offer their own 
ideas through amendments to this resolution. At a minimum, it should 
allow a Democratic substitute, and it should provide enough time so 
that every Member has at least 5 minutes to express his or her views.
  Mr. Speaker, just as the Democratic majority gave Republican minority 
leader Bob Michel an alternative in 1991 during the first Iraq debate, 
our Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, should have the same opportunity 
to offer a Democratic alternative with the same chance of prevailing in 
this House.
  Instead, the Republican leadership has turned what could have been a 
serious debate into a charade.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just 15 seconds.
  I want to make note for the record, we did offer the minority an 
opportunity for a substitute resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. And no, I will not yield. My time is very 
tight, and you have time to respond.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of American efforts 
to rid the world of terrorism and help democracy take root in a region 
long controlled by hostile dictators and murderous regimes.
  All around the world we are working to eradicate terrorists and their 
organizations. Iraq has emerged as a central battlefield of this war, a 
battlefield where Saddam was captured in a hole and is now in jail, 
where Zarqawi met his demise, and where insurgents and jihadists are 
fighting and losing to the might and skill of coalition forces. Most 
importantly, it is a battlefield far, far from the shores, schools, 
neighborhoods, and cities of America.

                              {time}  1115

  I recently traveled to Iraq with our Speaker and was able to meet 
with the Prime Minister and other key government officials, as well as 
our U.S. commanders overseeing the operations. I was impressed by what 
I saw, but I was more impressed by what I heard from the servicemen and 
women themselves. Morale is high, and they are confident in the success 
of this mission.
  Iraqi citizens have embraced freedom and have now voted in three 
national elections, each garnering wider and broader support. Iraq now 
has a constitution, a parliament, a president, a prime minister and a 
fully formed cabinet. What is more, this new government reflects a 
broad ethic and sectarian balance, a balance that will help ensure the 
needs and voices of all Iraqis are represented.
  Ultimately, it is that freely elected government that is the most 
important success of this effort, elected leaders who are Iraqi first, 
and all other identities second, interested, invested in the future of 
their own country, of their own people. These Iraqi founding fathers 
face great challenges, no doubt. But what opportunity is more powerful 
than freedom from tyranny?
  We must remain committed through patience and hard work to help this 
new government succeed.
  I support this resolution. I support the rule that is allowing this 
resolution to come forward and the manner in which it was created. And 
I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important affirmation 
of the hard work of America's servicemen and women.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, let me correct something that has been said on this 
floor. In the testimony before the Rules Committee, the Democrats not 
only asked for an open rule, we asked for a substitute. We were denied 
that. We were shut out. It is here in black and white in the testimony.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this war was launched without an imminent 
threat to our families. It endangers them more every day, creating new 
generations of terrorists. Radical ``know it all'' ideologues here in 
Washington bent facts, distorted intelligence, and perpetrated lies 
designed to mislead the American people into believing that a third 
rate thug had a hand in the 9/11 tragedy and was soon to unleash a 
mushroom cloud.
  From the start, House Democrats overwhelmingly voted against this 
war. But radical ideologues rushed headlong anyway, ignoring 
professional military advice about the number of troops and equipment 
needed. One general after another has indicted this Administration for 
its misjudgment and mismanagement.
  But now, almost 3,000 Americans lie dead, with about another 20,000 
seriously injured. Every day, every single day, American taxpayers are 
forced to spend $229 million in Iraq, and they pay again every time 
they go to the gas pump. All that is in sight is an endless, civil war 
quagmire.
  Today's resolution pins these Administration failures on the 
coattails of our courageous servicemen and women. Administration 
ineptness is falsely attached to a resolution honoring our troops.
  Americans are increasingly realizing there is a better way to honor 
our troops than by sending more of them off to be killed. Would that 
there were more than a little of our troops' courage right here in 
Washington from those, who refuse to challenge this Administration's 
arrogant, myth-based policies and who choose instead to cut and run 
from their responsibilities.
  Instead of staying the course, we need to chart a smarter course. It 
is not weakness or retreat to recognize the Administration offers us 
only an endless ``spend and bleed'' policy.
  When this talkathon ends, reject this fraudulent resolution, which 
cannot be amended or changed, to alter this Administration's deadly 
pursuit of a desert mirage. Neither paper resolutions, nor more 
Administration arrogance will defeat terrorism.
  The harm from this Administration's disastrous decision to invade 
Iraq was apparent from the beginning. The warnings of many, as noted in 
my speeches, including those given on the floor on September 22, 2002 
(H6410), October 9, 2002 (H7328), and October 10, 2002 (H7772), and the 
contemporaneous editorial below, went unheeded.

          [From the Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 13, 2002]

               Our Voices Must Work to Avert An Invasion

         (By Rep. Lloyd Doggett, U.S. House of Representatives)

       I recently voted against what is really an authorization 
     for launching a massive land invasion and military occupation 
     of Iraq. More important than speaking with one voice, the 
     votes of 133 Congress members against this rush to war 
     underscored the importance of our continuing to speak as one 
     democracy.
       I sought to give voice to the thousands of Central Texans 
     who communicated their

[[Page 11407]]

     concerns about making the terrible weapon of war a 
     predominant instrument in our foreign policy.
       With this grave decision on war and peace though, I knew I 
     would have to answer to more than those I am privileged to 
     represent--I would have to answer to myself, my children and 
     to history.
       War now would only increase the danger to American 
     families. The house-to-house urban combat that would likely 
     result from a land invasion in Iraq would kill thousands, 
     divert precious resources from our ongoing war on terrorism 
     and expose our families to more terrorism from among the many 
     who would perceive this as a crusade against Islam. From the 
     information provided to Congress, I do have some insight into 
     issues about which so many are understandably uncertain and 
     fearful. No evidence has been shared to connect Iraq to the 
     Sept. 11 tragedy, nor to show that Iraq now poses an imminent 
     threat to American families.
       As former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said, 
     ``Saddam Hussein is probably on Osama bin Laden's hit list.'' 
     From Central Intelligence Agency reports, secret until last 
     week, we know that the unfinished job of overcoming al Qaida 
     represents the real threat. The CIA concluded that invading 
     Iraq is more likely to drive our now separate enemies 
     together against us and certainly more likely to make Saddam 
     Hussein use any weapons of mass destruction that he may 
     possess.
       In addition to the cost in lives, the costs of war, to 
     differing degrees, will touch us all. President Bush's top 
     economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated that the cost 
     of waging this war may rise as high as $200 billion. At a 
     time of chronic deficit spending, these are precious 
     resources no longer available for education, health care, 
     retirement security and homeland security.
       True security is more than a military second to none and 
     effective law enforcement at home; it means working with 
     nations to address our common security concerns. We are 
     strong enough to defeat Iraq in combat, but we must be wise 
     enough to rely on America's other strengths to rid the world 
     of Saddam Hussein's danger.
       No fool would trust Saddam Hussein with even one American 
     life. Our choice is not between ``war'' and ``doing nothing'' 
     or between ``war'' and ``appeasement.'' The prudent choice 
     remains--first, attempt holding Iraq accountable through 
     effective, comprehensive, international inspections.
       Some of the most insightful arguments against invading Iraq 
     were advanced by Republicans and military leaders. The first 
     President Bush, in 1998, wrote: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam, 
     extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . . . 
     would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . 
     . . [We] could conceivably still be an occupying power in a 
     bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically 
     different--and perhaps barren--outcome.''
       Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was even more direct: ``I am 
     certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been 
     like the dinosaur in the tar pit.''
       Apparently, Iraq represents only the first step in 
     implementing the administration's recently announced ``first-
     strike'' defense strategy. Over-reliance on packing the 
     biggest gun and having the fastest draw will not make us 
     safer. Rather, it is a formula for international anarchy. A 
     quick draw may eliminate the occasional villain, but only at 
     the cost of destabilizing the world, disrupting the hope for 
     international law and order, and, ultimately, endangering all 
     of us.
       President Reagan used containment effectively against 
     another ``evil empire,'' the Soviet Union, and from Cuba to 
     Libya, a succession of presidents has avoided nuclear 
     Armageddon. Containment and disarmament may not end all wars, 
     but they are clearly superior to the new ``first-strike 
     formula'' that risks wars without end.
       With the prospect of war overshadowing all of our hopes and 
     dreams for this country and the world, we must continue to 
     thoughtfully and respectfully voice our opposition in hopes 
     that invasion may yet be averted.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
rule, H. Res. 861. I firmly believe that the installation of democratic 
governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with the recent completion 
of Iraq's National Unity Government and ratification of a Constitution, 
the elimination of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and the continued success of 
our reconstruction efforts in these countries are tremendous 
accomplishments in the global war on terror.
  We are at a point in Iraq where we can build on these successes. We 
can advance democracy and freedom and stand by the Iraqi people while 
honoring the commitment that we have made. Or we can withdraw, as many 
on the other side of appeasement are suggesting, leaving the progress 
we have made and the future of Iraq to chance. Just as in Europe and 
Japan following World War II, there is only one option, Mr. Speaker, 
and that is to stand by the Iraqis until their government, police, 
military can ensure the security of their own nation. Then, and only 
then, will be the appropriate time to disengage, leaving a strong ally 
and flourishing democracy as an example of a peaceful and free nation 
to others in the Middle East region.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot give in to the anti-war 
rhetoric which only serves to embolden our enemies, while offering 
little hope and little vision. Rather, we must continue to advance 
policies which make our Nation safer, which are responsible for the 
liberation of over 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has 
led Libya to abandon their weapons of mass destruction program, and it 
makes every new year worse than the previous one for the terrorists.
  In this fight for the future of peace, freedom and democracy in the 
Middle East and around the globe, winning should be our only option.
  This past Friday we heard Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq make the 
following statement: ``With our allies we will persevere to make Iraq a 
prosperous democracy in the heart of the Middle East.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see great hope and potential in the Iraqi 
government and the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, the minority party 
offers no hope. All we hear are ill-conceived and shortsighted 
strategies which threaten any chance of Iraq becoming a bastion of 
democracy in the Middle East.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule and 
the resolution, which sends a clear and a positive message to the new 
Iraqi government and its citizens. But just as importantly, Mr. 
Speaker, it sends a clear message to those soldiers who have been 
injured or killed and their families that this Congress will never 
break faith with them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this rule, which I support, will allow one 
of the most critical actions to date in the war on terror. Hardly a 
charade.
  This action is not military in nature. It is entirely political. But 
it will determine victory or defeat as surely as any battle in Iraq.
  Our troops can defeat any enemy on earth. Our volunteers, our 
patriots, our heroes, our warriors, under any conditions they can win 
if we have the will, if we have the backbone to do what is right.
  That is what we debate under this rule. Do we have the will to win?
  Many, not all, of the other side of the aisle lack the will to win. 
The American people need to know precisely who they are. If there are 
any on this side of the aisle who hold the same view, this will allow 
them to be found out as well. Then the public can decide the course of 
this war in November by hopefully throwing the defeatists out of 
office.
  This debate, under the rule, is as critical a fight as any our troops 
could have on the battlefield. No one has any doubt our soldiers will 
win any fight we send them to. That is not the question. The world's 
doubt is entirely over the backbone of this Congress.
  Because of the statements of Members of this body, not their votes, 
but what they say today, and of the Senate, that have given substantial 
propaganda assistance to the enemy, this rule, this debate is 
absolutely essential to preserving the victories of our troops that 
they have won with their blood and their lives.
  It is time to stand up and vote. Is it al Qaeda or is it America? Let 
the voters take note of this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the 173rd Airborne in 1968-69 Vietnam, I 
saw how the words of Senators and Congressmen undermine the hard-fought 
victories and sacrifices of our soldiers.
  Men who today sit in Congress publicly trashed the troops on the 
front back then, comparing our American soldiers to the barbarian 
Genghis Khan.

[[Page 11408]]

  American media overlooked decades of Communist torture and atrocity 
against Vietnamese civilians. I couldn't overlook it. As a dental 
surgeon I had to reattach the tongues cut out by Viet Cong terrorists.
  Where was our media? They instead chose to focus the world's 
attention on isolated American failure at My Lai.
  Through carefully planned international media and political 
manipulations, the NVA and Viet Cong were encouraged to keep fighting, 
regardless of their defeats in the field. American media fell right 
into line with the enemy's public affairs plan.
  Our troops and citizens were told over and over by the press and 
politicians that their efforts were futile, our countless victories 
pointless, and every reverse, no matter how slight, disastrous.
  The result of this psychological warfare was that the same Nation 
that had prevailed in World War II against heavy odds, numerous battle 
defeats, and our enemies' military parity, simply walked off the field 
in Southeast Asia.
  It was a lesson in strategy our enemies have learned well, one that 
is now being used against us in Iraq.
  It is of great interest to note that the same reporter who ``broke'' 
the story on My Lai also ``broke'' the story on Abu Grahib nearly four 
decades later--while overlooking the thousands of executions, 
beheadings, and other atrocities of the enemy.
  Coincidence or planned strategy?
  Same players, same actions, seeking the same result--unconditional 
U.S. withdrawal from a war on terror we didn't start, allowing 
barbarians to slaughter millions of innocent civilians, with the end 
result our Nation humiliated and compromised on the world stage.
  The lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that we can fight 
our enemies in this House by sending an unmistakable message that 
America will not run.
  The day that our enemies in Iraq believe this, the war will be won.
  It's time for this body to start fighting for our soldiers.
  The 173rd has been back in action in this war, and I will be darned 
if I will let what happened to us in Southeast Asia happen to these 
guys in the Middle East, if I can help it.
  Let's finally bury the ghosts of Vietnam by committing to victory. In 
doing so, we greatly reduce the need for future military action, as 
potential enemies will no longer doubt our national resolve in a 
showdown.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I just recently sent 850 Oregonians off to 
Afghanistan to fight the resurgent Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the 
perpetrators of 9/11. September 14, this House, on a proud day, with 
one exception, voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan to take out 
the Taliban, take out the perpetrators of 9/11, al Qaeda. That was 
nearly unanimous.
  But sadly, the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress 
distracted us onto a path of a war in Iraq 1,143 days ago. 2,497 
servicemen killed, 18,490 wounded. First it was weapons of mass 
destruction. Then it was about 9/11. Then it was about building 
democracy.
  But now the Republicans want to pretend that it has to do all about 
the war on terrorism. They mentioned al Zarqawi. The Pentagon wanted to 
take out al Zarqawi. They had him in their sights before the war in 
Iraq, and the Bush White House and Dick Cheney wouldn't let them 
because it would hurt recruitment for the coalition of the willing to 
invade Iraq, where al Qaeda did not exist.
  If you strip out the rhetoric from this nonbinding resolution, with 
no Democratic alternative, no amendments allowed, it is a stay the 
course resolution with an open-ended commitment. As the President said, 
a future President will decide when U.S. troops will leave.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of 
Government Reform, a gentleman who has been to Iraq on 12 different 
occasions, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid we will lose the war in Iraq, 
... in Iraq. I am deeply concerned we will lose the war in Iraq here at 
home.
  Our efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help bring 
democracy to the most troubled part of the world is a truly noble 
effort that must succeed.
  Whether you believe al Qaeda was in Iraq when the war began, they are 
there now, and they think they can win because they believe we will 
leave too soon, before Iraqis can defend themselves.
  True, we got their prince. Al Zarqawi is dead, but his fellow 
terrorists remain determined to succeed.
  This resolution clearly links the war in Iraq with the war against 
Islamist terrorists. Islamist terrorists is exactly who the 9/11 
Commission said we are confronting. If you agree, vote for this 
resolution and explain why. If you disagree, vote against the 
resolution and explain why.
  I support the rule. I support the resolution. I support our efforts 
in Iraq, and I look forward to the 10 hours of debate.
  When I ask individual Iraqis what is their biggest concern, it is not 
the bombings, the lack of electricity or anything else other than this. 
It is, and I quote, ``that you will leave us. That you will leave us 
before we can grab hold of democracy and defend ourselves.''
  I pray we will not let them down. I look forward to the 10 hours of 
debate. I look forward to our being absolutely resolute in helping 
Iraqis have an opportunity they have worked so hard to achieve.
  In just 11 months, Iraqis have had three elections that put our 
elections to shame. They have a new government. They only need more 
time to develop their security, to defend themselves and a democracy 
they dearly love.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately rise in opposition to this 
rule because I believe it is a missed opportunity for this Congress to 
substantively have a say in the most important issue facing our country 
today and that is the course of the war in Iraq, but also our strategy 
in combating global terrorism.
  But instead of offering a real policy discussion, the Republican 
majority today offers a political document just before the fall 
elections.
  My question to my friends across the aisle is very simple. What are 
you afraid of? Why are you not allowing any other amendment to be 
offered during this 10-hour debate? Why are you not allowing our side 
to have an alternative resolution so we can get into the very troubling 
aspects of this administration's conduct of war in Iraq and our 
strategy on global terrorism.
  Many of us have grave concerns about how this administration has 
based its decisions in Iraq. These concerns are shared by many 
Americans and our constituents throughout the country today. Yes, we 
can kill Zarqawi, but are we defeating Zarqawiism?
  Many of us today have grave doubts. Yet, instead of having an open 
and honest debate, we get this charade. We deserve better. The American 
people deserve better.
  I encourage my colleagues to defeat this rule.

                              {time}  1130

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on our side.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I am prepared to close whenever you are, Mr. 
McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say simply in closing that we will 
not be having an open debate on Iraq policy today. No one from either 
side of this aisle will be allowed to present policy alternatives that 
will be debated and voted upon. No one will be able to offer amendments 
to increase accountability over the hundreds of billions of taxpayer 
dollars that have been poured into this war. Just like the last 3 
years, there will be no debate that might actually affect the direction 
of U.S. policy in Iraq.

[[Page 11409]]

  Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, Democrats and Republicans have 
come to the Rules Committee with amendments to the various defense 
bills that would have required greater accountability and modified our 
policies in Iraq. The Republican majority in this House has routinely 
denied these amendments the right of debate. They have routinely kept 
them from being offered on the floor of this House for votes. So when 
the Republican leadership says they have offered us a debate on Iraq, 
it is simply not true.
  This is not what we asked for. We do not need therapy. We do not need 
time to get things off our chests. We need real debate and meaningful 
votes on U.S. policy in Iraq.
  At best, the Republicans have structured a glorified 10-hour Special 
Order on Iraq. But let us not dignify it by calling it a debate when no 
Member will have the opportunity to vote on competing policy proposals.
  Mr. Speaker, to our troops who are in harm's way, to their families 
and friends and to the American people, I offer my sincere regrets that 
once again the Republican-led Congress is failing to address the war in 
Iraq in the serious manner it deserves and has instead chosen to create 
this sham of a debate.
  Mr. Speaker, the great British conservative Edmund Burke once said, 
``A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.'' Mr. 
Speaker, I wish the majority of this House would heed those words.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of 
my close, I simply want to remind my friends on the other side of the 
aisle the simple fact is, despite their insistence to the contrary, our 
side never received a substitute amendment to consider. The Rules 
Committee received four amendments, none of which was a Democratic 
substitute. We cannot make in order what is not submitted to the Rules 
Committee.
  Let me say that I suspect that this procedural problem really 
represents the fact that there is not a cohesive alternative presented 
by the other side. We have watched again and again and again as the 
Democratic Party has struggled to come to grips with this issue and 
find a united position, and so far no united position has emerged.
  As I pointed out in my opening remarks, we do indeed have a united 
position. It is one that you can agree with or disagree with, but it is 
a resolution that we can put forward and we can command the 
overwhelming majority of our Members to support. And, frankly, I hope 
and trust that many Members on the other side will also be supportive 
of that position.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. What is at stake in Iraq is 
the war on terror, whether or not we will be successful. That is the 
central battlefield of this particular moment.
  Everybody on both sides agrees that removing Saddam Hussein was a 
good thing to do. He was an evil man, a dangerous man, a tyrant to his 
own people, a threat to world peace. That removal was not going to come 
about by accident or by internal revolution. They had indeed tried to 
do that. Unfortunately, they had failed. It took direct military 
intervention by the United States of America to rid the world of one of 
the worst tyrants we have seen in the second half of the 20th and the 
opening of the 21st centuries. Once there, the terrorists, our enemies, 
made this the central battlefield. And, frankly, over the course of the 
last 3 years, they have inflicted enormous damage on the Iraqi people.
  I, for one, am enormously proud of how the Iraqis have responded to 
that challenge. To see a people who, in the face of terror and death 
and destruction, have gone out to the polls not once, not twice, but 
three times with ever increasing numbers of participants; to see them 
write a constitution in the midst of turmoil and challenge; to watch 
them create a permanent government; to watch that government take 
control; and to see their people, thousands of their people, stepping 
forward to defend their country and fight their enemies who are also 
our enemies is, frankly, an inspiring and a noble sight. I think we 
have a terrific chance to succeed in Iraq because of the Iraqi people, 
because of the valor and the skill and the professionalism of the 
American military.
  The real battle and the real arena, as my friend Mr. Shays suggested, 
is here on the floor of this Congress and in the court of public 
opinion in the United States. If we maintain the resolve, if we 
maintain the commitment, if we keep our promise to the Iraqi people, we 
will be successful. If we do not, we not only will fail, we will 
strengthen and harden our enemies and, frankly, will bring dishonor on 
ourselves.
  I am extraordinarily proud of this President. I am extraordinarily 
proud of this Congress with its bipartisan commitment to succeed in 
Iraq.
  To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is, under an open 
rule, is it a requirement that a substitute or that substitutes be 
filed with the Rules Committee in order to have them debated and voted 
on the House floor? Because my understanding is it is not a 
requirement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is inquiring about the 
proceedings of the Committee on Rules, and it is not for the Chair to 
characterize those proceedings.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I think I made my point, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 194, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 287]

                               AYES--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich

[[Page 11410]]


     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Burton (IN)
     Capito
     Carter
     Cubin
     Gordon
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lynch
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Rahall
     Rogers (KY)
     Rothman
     Saxton
     Sessions
     Taylor (MS)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1202

  Mrs. TAUSCHER, Messrs. GUTIERREZ, MATHESON and BOUCHER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________