[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11410-11518]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DECLARING THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL PREVAIL IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON 
                                 TERROR

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

                              H. Res. 861

       Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a 
     Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against 
     an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and 
     that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its 
     repressive ideology throughout the world;
       Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used 
     violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;
       Whereas it is essential to the security of the American 
     people and to world security that the United States, together 
     with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to 
     those who provide them assistance;
       Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed 
     to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first 
     popularly-elected President in that nation's history has 
     taken office;
       Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the 
     United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure 
     Afghanistan;
       Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its 
     partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the 
     government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass 
     destruction;
       Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, 
     Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, 
     constituted a threat against global peace and security and 
     was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions;
       Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition 
     partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from 
     power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united 
     Iraq at peace with its neighbors;
       Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central 
     front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
       Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United 
     States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, 
     representative government under a newly ratified 
     constitution;
       Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity 
     government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations 
     for Iraq and the broader Middle East;
       Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with 
     Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly 
     forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including 
     finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-
     Zarqawi;
       Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over 
     from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion 
     of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to 
     secure Iraq;
       Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and 
     civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and 
     those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or 
     been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of 
     freedom; and
       Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will 
     continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
       (1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active 
     part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders 
     protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as 
     diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
       (2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces 
     and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and 
     Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have 
     fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well 
     the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their 
     lives to help defend freedom;
       (3) declares that it is not in the national security 
     interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for 
     the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces 
     from Iraq;
       (4) declares that the United States is committed to the 
     completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, 
     secure, and united Iraq;
       (5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the 
     Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, 
     in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the 
     formation of the first government under Iraq's new 
     constitution;

[[Page 11411]]

       (6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global 
     peace and security by standing with the United States and 
     other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi 
     and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
       (7) declares that the United States will prevail in the 
     Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom 
     from the terrorist adversary.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 868 and the 
special order of today, debate shall not exceed 10 hours, with 5 hours 
equally divided among and controlled by the chairman of the Committees 
on International Relations, Armed Services, the Judiciary and the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and 5 hours controlled by 
the minority leader or her designee.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is recognized to control 75 
minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H. Res. 861.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, the 
Speaker of the House (Mr. Hastert).
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, one of our greatest Presidents, Ronald 
Reagan, was fond of saying that ``Freedom is never more than one 
generation away from extinction.'' President Reagan's wise words are 
still true today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 861. This resolution is 
about more than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about a global 
war to protect American ideals, and the democracy and values on which 
this great Nation was founded.
  This resolution, Mr. Speaker, like this war itself, is about freedom. 
Just 12 days ago I returned from Iraq. I can tell this House that the 
morale of our fighting men and women there is sky high. They are not 
suffering from doubt and ``second guessing.'' And they are certainly 
not interested in the political posturing about the war that often goes 
on in this city. They know why they are there. They know they are 
liberators doing good. And they believe passionately in their mission.
  It is not possible to talk to these men and women without being 
inspired by their courage, their determination, their professionalism 
and their patriotism.
  I came home from Iraq believing even more strongly, that it is not 
enough for this House to say ``we support our troops.'' To the men and 
the women in the field, in harm's way, that statement rings hollow if 
we don't also say we support their mission.
  The clarity with which our men and women in uniform understand the 
reason they are in Iraq is a stark contrast to some here at home who 
talk about this war as a ``war of choice.''
  The facts are clear. America has been struck repeatedly. Despite the 
life-ending attacks on Khobar Towers, our East African embassies, the 
USS Cole and the first World Trade Center bombing, U.S. policy tended 
to confuse these attacks with isolated law-enforcement events. We 
failed to recognize them as the escalating strikes that they were. We 
failed to identify the networks behind the bombs. We convinced 
ourselves that these attacks were just somehow random acts of violence. 
And yet the attacks continued.
  The terrorists did not admire or appreciate our limited response. 
They did not come to the table to discuss points of political concern, 
and they did not de-escalate, demobilize or disappear. Our response was 
inconstant and limited, but their reactions were not. They plotted and 
they practiced, while we hoped for the best and fired an occasional 
cruise missile into the desert. We were wrong and we slumbered in 
denial.
  And then came the day when terrorism slapped us in the face, 
awakening us to a stark reality. I remember it as a crisp, fall day. 
Where the clear blue sky was filled with fluffy white clouds. But that 
peaceful scene was transformed in an instant when planes went crashing 
into buildings and the clear sky turned to choking ash and soot.
  I stood in my Capitol office, just a few yards from where I am 
speaking here today. I saw the black smoke rising from the Pentagon. 
The third plane had hit just across the river from this Capitol 
building.
  On 9/11 the terrorists were not a distant threat, they were in our 
front yard, and they were very real and very deadly. In that moment, we 
were afraid. None of us had anticipated the lengths to which our 
enemies would go to destroy our American way of life, our ideals and 
our belief.
  Of course, we knew that foreign terrorists had caused trouble 
elsewhere, maybe in Israel or in Northern Ireland, but we found it hard 
to imagine that they came to our shores hoping to kill tens of 
thousands of men, women and children, innocent, unarmed people, 
peacefully going about their daily lives.

                              {time}  1215

  It is hard, even now, to comprehend such enormous evil.
  As we watched some of our fellow citizens leap from burning buildings 
to their deaths, our fear turned to anger and then anger to resolute 
determination.
  America's response started high above a corn field in rural 
Pennsylvania. Brave men and women, armed with nothing more than boiling 
water, dinner forks and broken bottles, stood up, as Americans always 
do when our freedom is in peril, and they struck back.
  We know from the messages they left behind that their final thoughts 
were for their families and their loved ones, but they also spoke of 
their love of their country.
  ``Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.'' 
Perhaps the brave souls on United Flight 93 reflected Ronald Reagan's 
words because the generation represented on that plane, like the 
patriots at Concord Bridge, were not going to let freedom be 
extinguished, not on their watch.
  We in this Congress must show the same steely resolve as those men 
and women on United Flight 93, the same sense of duty as the first 
responders who headed up the stairs of the Twin Towers.
  We must stand firm in our commitment to fight terrorism and the evil 
it inflicts throughout the world. We must renew our resolve that the 
actions of evildoers will not dictate American policy. And we must 
decide, right here, today what kind of a Nation we want to leave for 
our children and their generation.
  We are not alone in the fight on global terror. I cannot list them 
all, but they include countries large and small, rich and poor: Great 
Britain, Japan, Canada, Jordan, Portugal, Denmark, Mali, Latvia, 
Romania, Italy, Poland, South Korea. In fact, the number of countries 
working to defeat our common enemy continues to grow.
  Pakistan, a nation that once recognized the oppressive Taliban 
regime, has changed its course and now works closely with the coalition 
to round up terrorists. Yemen, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia have also 
moved aggressively within their borders to fight terrorism. Libya has 
given up her nuclear capability.
  Today, more than three-quarters of al Qaeda's known leaders and 
associates have been detained or killed.
  There is no doubt that since 9/11 our military, as well as our law 
enforcement intelligence agencies, have made great strides in uprooting 
terrorism. Nearly a dozen serious al Qaeda plots have been stopped 
since September 11th. But there is good reason for ongoing vigilance 
because the threat is still very real.
  Just recently, our neighbor to the north, Canada, foiled a terrorist 
plot to storm that country's parliament and one of its major television 
headquarters. The terrorists planned to behead those they captured.
  Mr. Speaker, today in parts of the Middle East, where once oppression 
choked out freedom, we are now seeing democracy take root.
  Afghanistan was once a safe haven for the al Qaeda terrorist network. 
In remote training camps, terrorists

[[Page 11412]]

planned and practiced attacks on the United States and other freedom 
loving peoples. Those camps are now gone. In their place is a 
developing democracy with an elected President and a new Constitution 
that gives unprecedented rights and freedoms to all Afghans.
  Just 3 years ago, Afghan women were whipped in the streets; schooling 
was denied to girls. Today, women have the right to vote, and two 
Afghan cabinet ministers are women.
  In Iraq, just 3 years ago, a brutal dictator sat in palatial luxury. 
Unhampered by the United Nations, Saddam and his family stole the Oil-
for-Food money from starving Iraqi children in order to support their 
lifestyle of debauchery and brutality. Schoolgirls were raped. Iraqi 
patriots were thrown alive into meat grinders. Unspeakable atrocities 
of all kinds were common, including the use of chemical weapons on 
Saddam's own people, the Kurds.
  Saddam invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait. He harbored terrorists 
in his midst, and he defied 17 United Nations Security Council 
Resolutions.
  Just a few days ago, I was listening to the radio, and a pundit 
remarked on the sectarian violence in Iraq. He observed that perhaps 
the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. Given the unspeakable 
and systematic brutality of Saddam's regime, such a remark either 
reflects a serious misreading of history or a very naive and forgiving 
nature.
  It might have been easier for us in America to turn our heads and 
look the other way, as much as the rest of the world did, but I would 
submit that Saddam was an evil cancer on the world. He was a threat to 
our country, and Mr. Speaker, America, not just Iraq, is better off 
today because Saddam Hussein sits in a court of law, answering for 
crimes he committed against humanity.
  While I was in Iraq, I met with Prime Minister al Maliki as well as 
my counterpart, the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament. We talked about 
the birth of democracy in Iraq.
  I looked at the Speaker. I looked him in the eye and I said, ``Mr. 
Speaker, I admire you. The Iraqi people represent an ancient 
civilization, but your democracy is just beginning. Your challenges are 
great, but so too are your opportunities.''
  I urged the Iraqi people to look forward and not back, to listen to 
the voices of reconciliation, not division, I urged them to choose 
unity.
  They told me that they were succeeding in putting together a unity 
cabinet, and shortly after my return, they announced the names of the 
last three ministers that deal with critical security issues.
  Each Iraqi official I met with, even the Iraqi Speaker, who 
originally viewed the U.S. presence in Iraq negatively, thanked me for 
the help America has given their country. He went further and urged us 
to stay with them while they build up the capacity to take over the 
task of providing security for their people.
  Today in Iraq we are working together with Iraqi patriots, men and 
women elected by their fellow citizens.
  Along with brave Iraqi soldiers and police, we are moving toward a 
day when the Iraqi Government on its own has the strength to protect 
their people, a day when our men and women, and their coalition 
partners, can come home.
  The ``stand up'' of this new Iraqi Government, which is the fruit of 
three elections where Iraqi citizens held up their ink-stained fingers 
and resisted intimidation, brings us closer to that day.
  President Bush told us from the beginning that this road would not be 
easy. We have lost many American lives. And each one is precious to us.
  But our fighting men and women remain committed to the effort. Active 
duty retention and recruiting is meeting or exceeding all objectives, 
and we are making progress toward our goal, but the battle is not over.
  It is a battle that we must endure and one in which we can, and will, 
be victorious. The alternative would be to cut and run and wait for 
them to regroup and bring the terror back to our shores. When our 
freedom is challenged, Americans do not run.
  ``Freedom is the very essence of our Nation,'' President Reagan said 
in 1990 when a section of the Berlin Wall was presented to his 
Presidential library. America, he said, ``remains a beacon of hope for 
oppressed peoples everywhere.''
  President Reagan also observed that freedom is not passed on at 
birth. It must be fought for and protected and handed on. And that is 
happening. Freedom is being handed on.
  Our soldiers, sailors, Coast Guardsmen, airmen, marines, and our 
Reserves are serving proudly and bravely in harsh conditions, far from 
their families.
  When I was in Iraq, I told them that their task was important and how 
proud we all were of their service. But frankly our men and women in 
uniform did not need to be told. In fact, it is we who should listen to 
them.
  They know their sacrifices on foreign shores are keeping the battle 
against terrorists out of our cities. They know that by going into 
harm's way they are keeping American freedoms safe, and they know that 
they are helping a proud but brutalized people to throw off tyranny and 
stand tall once again. They know that they are liberators, not 
occupiers.
  Our men and women in uniform know all this, and they are proud of it. 
It is time for this House of Representatives to tell the world that we 
know it too; that we know our cause is right and that we are proud of 
it.
  Stand up for freedom. Adopt this resolution.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the media just reported the sad news that we have just 
reached a sad milestone: 2,500 Americans have lost their lives in the 
Iraq war. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask at the outset of this very 
important debate that the House observe a moment of silence for all 
those who have given the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 minutes.
  All of us know, all of us understand stability in Iraq is important, 
not only to the United States but to the world.
  It is no secret that Iraq is of particular importance because of its 
oil. The United States consumes 20.6 billion barrels of oil per day. 
Yet we produce only 5.1 billion barrels of oil a day. China is the 
second largest consumer, with 6.9 million barrels per day, and they 
produce 3.6 million barrels per day. Iraq has the fourth largest oil 
reserve in the world. Saudi Arabia is number one, Canada number two and 
Iran number three. So all of us agree Iraq is important. But how do we 
get to a conclusion?
  Let me compare Gulf War I with Gulf War II. In Gulf War I, Kuwait was 
attacked by Saddam Hussein. It was a brutal attack. President Bush I 
immediately reacted. He sent his emissary, Secretary Cheney, to Saudi 
Arabia. They got an agreement from Saudi Arabia to use their land to 
put troops in. He immediately sent in the Airborne Division, and he 
immediately sent in F-16 fighters to deter Saddam Hussein. All of us 
knew that there was a possibility at that time that he would have 
complete control of the oil in the Middle East. So we knew how 
important it was.
  Then President Bush started calling up the Reserves. He called a 
number of Members of Congress over to the White House, and he consulted 
and talked to them. I do not remember if the gentleman from Illinois 
was there, but there were seven or eight of us went to the White House. 
We talked to him about calling up the Reserves and having other people 
pay.
  This is important not only to the United States. This is important 
internationally. This oil supply, this stability in the Middle East is 
important to the whole world, and he went to work. He called every 
major nation. He called Egypt, and this was no easy task for these 
countries to come around to decide to support the United States.

[[Page 11413]]

  Matter of fact, President Mubarak said to me that King Hussein came 
to him and said if you support the United States, you will cut the 
throat of Saddam Hussein, and yet Egypt decided that they were going to 
go along with us.
  Then he talked about that we needed to have a U.N. resolution, which 
we did have. Then we had to have a resolution in the Congress of the 
United States. But the big thing that he promoted was he got a 
coalition together, and this coalition ended up with 400,000 American 
troops and 160,000 coalition troops.

                              {time}  1230

  And I remember during this debate, I remember calling Secretary 
Cheney, calling General Scowcroft saying, you have got 250,000 troops 
over there, you don't need any more. Let's get this war going. And 
General Scowcroft said something I have never forgotten. He said, we 
are going to give General Schwarzkopf whatever he wants. He wants more 
troops, we are going to give him more troops. And Secretary Cheney 
called me and said we are going to have to send another 180,000 troops. 
We are going to have overwhelming force when we go into Kuwait.
  And they did have overwhelming force. It went on for 6 months. The 
troops were out in the field, they trained, and when they went in they 
did a magnificent thing. It was overwhelming. And it was paid for by 
other countries. Sixty billion dollars came from other countries. 
President Bush I convinced other countries that they had to help pay 
for this because it was not only important to the United States, it was 
important to them, the stability in the Middle East.
  Now, let me talk about the second Gulf War. The second Gulf War we 
had intelligence that said there were weapons of mass destruction; 
there was an al Qaeda connection. I believed that. As a matter of fact, 
I listened to the reports, and I was hesitant about the al Qaeda 
connection, but I believed that they had biological weapons. Matter of 
fact, a week or so before the war started, Ms. Pelosi, as the new 
minority leader, wanted to go overseas on her first trip. She wanted to 
visit the troops. Even though she had been against the resolution to go 
to war, she wanted to tell the troops she supported the troops. And 
anybody that votes for the Defense Subcommittee appropriations, anybody 
that belongs to the Armed Services Committee shows their support of the 
troops.
  So we went over, and on our way over we stopped in Turkey. Imagine, 
the 4th Division was sitting outside Turkey. It was supposed to 
outflank the Iraqis. And the State Department asked me, okay, talk to 
the Turkish government about letting us go through. Now, we had the 
most modern division, the most technologically advanced division in the 
whole world sitting there off Turkey. I talked to them and I became 
convinced they weren't going to let us go through, even though they had 
voted the very day I was there, and they voted by a majority, but not 
the supermajority they needed to allow the United States to go through.
  I went then to Kuwait and we listened to the commanders. The 
commanders told us that there is a red line drawn around Baghdad and if 
we cross the red line they are going to use biological weapons. And I 
believed that. I believed. As a matter of fact, they said if you cross 
this red line, we have already verified this by monitoring their 
telephones, by monitoring their cell phones. When we monitored cell 
phones of Saddam Hussein's headquarters they said use biological 
weapons. The troops believed it. They were prepared. They felt like 
they could go in there with protective gear, they could go in there 
with what they needed and the hot air, the winds, would dissipate the 
weapons. And, of course, they crossed the red line and nothing 
happened.
  But I still thought there were weapons of mass destruction. I still 
thought there were biological weapons. I came back and we sent a team 
over there. And the team went over and the team looked for those 
weapons of mass destruction. Matter of fact, at first a fella named 
Kay, that was so strong about it, former CIA, said, we will find them. 
And he looked for months and couldn't find anything at all. Absolutely 
no evidence of any kind of weapons of mass destruction. No biological 
weapon, no capability, no nuclear capability, no al Qaeda connection.
  When we go to war, we should go to war, first of all, if it is a 
threat to our national security. It was a threat to our national 
security when you talk about the first war, because it destabilized and 
he would have controlled all the oil in the Middle East, which is so 
important to the free world. The second time was no threat to our 
national security. Now, we didn't find that out, those of us who voted 
for it, didn't find this out until after we had gone to war.
  The second thing is you go with overwhelming force. I talked to one 
of the commanders who was in a meeting with five officials; there was 
him, there was Secretary Rumsfeld, there was Secretary Wolfowitz, 
General Pace, and General Myers. And he said we recommended 350,000 
troops. And as you know, they gave him a lot less troops than that. The 
coalition troops at the most were up to 30,000 and now they are down to 
20,000.
  The first war, 160,000. And the first war was all paid for. It cost 
us $5 billion. The reason I remember this so vividly is I was chairman 
of the committee at the time the money came through our committee, and 
we then sent it over, reprogrammed it over to the Defense Department 
itself. But the discrepancy that we have seen, the mischaracterization, 
the optimistic predictions are the problems that I have had.
  Now, I sent a letter, with Duncan Hunter and a number of other 
people, and I said to the President, we need 100,000 more troops. Well, 
the President decided he didn't need 100,000 more troops. Now, imagine 
this, we are on the ground and we have won the war. The troops did a 
magnificent job, as we knew they would, but they completely 
miscalculated the problems that we were going to have afterwards.
  Now, I talked to a tribal leader the other day in Anbar Province. He 
told me that, as far as he saw, the first 6 months we had occupied 
Anbar. Now, Anbar is the province we are having the most trouble right 
now. It is where Ramadi and Fallujah are. Those are the areas where 
there is the most contention. In the first 6 months there wasn't a shot 
fired. Not a shot fired. I said, let me ask you right now, what kind of 
progress have we made economically? No water, no electricity, no jobs 
in Anbar Province. Two million people.
  And we talk about Saddam Hussein. Almost 900,000 people left when 
Saddam Hussein was there. They left the country as refugees. The time 
we have been there 900,000 people have left the country. They voted 
with their feet. The President went in the other day, he says he was 
glad to see democracy in action. You know where he went? The same place 
I go, in the fortress. In the Green Zone. That is where he went. They 
are afraid to go outside the Green Zone.
  When I first went there, the first two or three trips I went, I could 
go anyplace. I drove around all over Iraq. The last time I landed at 
Baghdad Airport, they flew me to Anbar Province down in Haditha, and we 
flew so low because of the threat we had to come up over the wires in 
order to get down, and I didn't see a person the whole time. There were 
2 million people in Anbar Province. Not one project. Not one.
  I said on the floor of the House the most important thing in that 
first supplemental, in the $87 billion, was the $18 billion that went 
for reconstruction. And of course there are so many projects that 
haven't been finished. Now, after we sent the letter about the 100,000, 
and during that period of time, we asked a fella named Hamre, who was 
the former Under Secretary of Defense, who went over to Iraq and he did 
a study for the Defense Department. He came back and said, you have got 
3 to 6 months to get this straightened out.
  And what did he suggest had to be done? They weren't big projects. He 
suggested we had to have trash picked up, sewage taken care of, 
electricity, and jobs. Those are the kinds of things he talked about, 
and securing the border. Those are the things he said had to

[[Page 11414]]

be done in 3 to 6 months, and if it is not done, it will go the other 
way. And all of us know what has happened. All of us know what has 
happened with the insurgency.
  Now, let me go through why I get so distressed by the reports that I 
get about how well it is going. First of all, the number of daily 
attacks in Iraq have gone from in 2004, daily, 53 attacks in 2004, 70 
attacks in 2005, and in 2006, 90 attacks a day.
  Estimated size of the insurgency. Now, we are supposed to be making 
progress. That is what we hear. The estimated size of the insurgency in 
2004 was 15,000. In May of 2005 it was 16,000. In May of 2006 it was 
20,000.
  This is the way I measure whether there is progress or not progress.
  The amount of cash paid to families, this is an important point, to 
Iraqi civilians killed or maimed by the operation involving American 
troops went from in 2004, $5 million to $20 million.
  Now, what does that mean? The problem is that all of us want to solve 
the problem, all of us want to have a satisfactory answer in Iraq. The 
problem is the way we have to operate as a military. The reason we won 
the first Gulf War is we were fighting a conventional force and we 
wiped them out. Nobody can match our military. They are the best in the 
world. But now we are fighting a guerilla war, and that is the type of 
problem that we have.
  For instance, we went into Fallujah, we put 300,000 people outside 
their homes and only 100,000 have come back now. And when we put 
300,000 people outside their home, every one of those are an enemy.
  Abu Ghraib. Why did Abu Ghraib happen? Abu Ghraib happened because we 
had insufficient forces and untrained people and unsupervised people in 
that prison.
  Now, what do I mean by untrained? We had one fella, who happened to 
be from my district, that had a court order against him because he had 
abused his family, and he couldn't carry a gun in Pennsylvania. And he 
said, I can't do this. This is against my nature. I don't know anything 
about taking care of prisoners. He is now in jail. But the point is he 
was untrained in that particular job, and even though he told them, 
they put him in the job. And of course we know the tremendous 
consequence, at the very time we went into Fallujah, at the very time 
we put 300,000 people outside their home.
  And listen, I endorse this. I know we have to have, when we go into 
an area, we have to use overwhelming force. That is the way the 
military has to operate. But, you see, these payments from $5 million 
in 2004 to $20 million last year, that is because when we go into a 
place we kill them inadvertently. And when we kill people inadvertently 
we make enemies, and Abu Ghraib was the biggest public relations 
disaster we had since My Lai during the Vietnam War.
  The number of complete or reconstructed projects, as I said, in al 
Anbar Province, imagine now, this is one-third of the geography of 
Iraq, and they have 2 million people, zero. Zero. Number of civilians 
who died in Baghdad last month, 1,400, in sectarian violence. What is 
the definition of sectarian violence? A civil war.
  All of us want to end this thing. All of us want to find a way to 
prevail in Iraq. This is a civil war and we are caught in a civil war. 
There is less than a thousand al Qaeda in Iraq. They have diminished al 
Qaeda. But we are caught in this civil war between 100,000 Shiias and 
20,000 Sunnis fighting with each other.
  The average monthly U.S. war expenditure in Iraq: $4.4 billion in 
2003, $5 billion in 2004, $6.1 billion in 2005, and $8 billion. The 
average monthly expenditure, $8 billion. Now, think what I am saying. 
The first Gulf War, and Duncan Hunter remembers this, they paid 
internationally. We paid $5 billion. He was on the Armed Services 
Committee. He knows what I am talking about. We paid $5 billion and 
they paid $60 billion. They had 160,000 troops in the first Gulf War.
  Now, let me talk about the sentiment and talk about the polls taken. 
We all look at the polls to see what is going on. Now, the only poll 
taken of U.S. forces in Iraq, about 3\1/2\ months ago: 72 percent of 
the American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the 
country within a year.
  Now, I can understand that. Let me tell you, it is hot, they are 
wearing 70 pounds every day when they are out there in the field, and I 
can certainly understand that. Forty-two percent say they do not know 
what the mission is. And that is devastating when they do not 
understand the mission.
  A public opinion Iraqi poll, a segment of 18 provinces, all 18 
provinces: More than half the Iraqis say they are headed in the wrong 
direction, and 82 percent say the economic situation is either poor or 
fair. Now, these are the Iraqis. Ninety percent say the security 
situation is poor or fair.
  And who do they trust? Who do they trust for personal security? 
Forty-three percent trust the Iraqi police, 35 percent trust the Iraqi 
army, 6 percent trust the insurgents, 6 percent trust the insurgents, 4 
percent trust the armed militia, and 1 percent, 1 percent trust the 
multinational force. In another poll taken at the beginning of this 
year, 47 percent approve the attacks on the United States forces, and 
87 percent of the Iraqis endorse a timetable for withdrawal.
  Our global image couldn't have been higher after the first Gulf War, 
with 80 to 90 percent of the people in the world thinking the United 
States did a marvelous job. We had recovered from Vietnam, finally, in 
the first Gulf War.
  Ten of 14 countries polled said the war in Iraq has made the world 
more dangerous, and most of the countries rated the U.S. troops in Iraq 
a bigger danger to world peace than the threat posed by Iran. Britain, 
France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and 
Turkey all have more favorable ratings of China than the U.S.
  Now, this resolution is a restatement of the failed policy of this 
administration, and it is no surprise that that is what this is.

                              {time}  1245

  We can't win this. This cannot be won rhetorically. We cannot sit 
here, stand here in an air-conditioned office and say we support the 
troops, say we support the policy.
  I visit the hospitals every week, and the only person to visit them 
more than I do is Bill Young and his wife. I see these young people. I 
am so impressed by their determination, and I am so hopeful we can end 
this terrible tragedy.
  When I got into this 6 months ago, I got into it because of the 
troops and because of the fact that I felt we couldn't do anything more 
militarily. We had done everything we could do militarily, and, second, 
because of the future of the military.
  The bill we are going to pass next week, and very few people are 
going to vote against it, if you want to really support the troops, 
that is what you vote for. You vote for that legislation. That will say 
we will run out of money for personnel for the troops because we cut $4 
billion out of the base bill by September. We will take care of that. 
We will find a way to do it. But the point is the base bill was cut by 
$4 billion.
  Now let me tell you the difference in what I believe is the answer. I 
believe we redeploy and be ready; that is what I say. I say redeploy 
and be ready.
  We are the targets. We are causing the problem. You know who wants us 
to stay in Iraq right now, the al Qaeda wants us there because it 
recruits people for them. China wants us there. North Korea wants us 
there. Russia wants us there. We are depleting our resources, just like 
Russia depleted their resources in Afghanistan. The same thing is 
happening with the United States. We will have spent $450 billion by 
the end of this fiscal year. Now think, the first gulf war we spent $5 
billion. We have spent $450 billion.
  Stay and we will pay, not only pay in dollars, in money; we are going 
to pay long term.
  I figure it took us through the Reagan administration to pay for the 
Vietnam War. We had 18 to 21 percent interest rates during the Reagan 
administration, and the reason we did was because Lyndon Johnson, the 
President of the United States, said we

[[Page 11415]]

can have butter and we can have guns, and he didn't raise the taxes he 
should have raised when we had the war going on.
  So we continue to pay with lives lost in terms of financial treasure 
and more than $8 billion a month. We pay in terms of international 
reputation. We pay in terms of the future of our military. We stay and 
pay. I say redeploy and be ready.
  Let me tell this one last story.
  When I came out of Vietnam, they gave me this small bullet. It is a 
45 caliber without any powder in it. It says: ``First Marines, 
everything is going to be all right.''
  A month after I came out of Vietnam in 1967, Lyndon Johnson said, and 
I believed in the Vietnam War. I thought we were fighting communism. 
But Lyndon Johnson said, and they had an election, one month after I 
came out of Vietnam, everything was going to be all right. Do you know 
how many people we lost from 1967 until we pulled out? 37,000.
  Rhetoric does not answer the problem. Only the Iraqis can solve the 
problem in Iraq. They are fighting with each other, and our troops are 
caught in between. I say it is time to redeploy and be ready.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't help but comment on my good friend Mr. Murtha's 
eulogy for the first gulf war. The problem we have had there is we quit 
too soon. We quit before the victory was secure. We left the Republican 
Army, we left Saddam Hussein, we just washed our hands and left. I hope 
we learned a lesson from that, what a mistake it was and it led to 
later difficulties.
  Mr. Speaker, so much of what we do in this Chamber is 
inconsequential; but the subject of this debate is anything but 
trivial. Let us then be serious as life and death are serious.
  The capacity to reproduce that fearful mushroom cloud which first 
terrorized the world in 1945 is multiplying and becoming the deadly 
plaything of rogue nations across the globe.
  Partisans have charged the President with misleading us into war, 
``misleading'' being a pale euphemism for lying. The acquisition is 
made more grave by the assertion that he concocted the war for purely 
political purposes.
  By any measure this is a monstrous charge, but questions persist that 
must be answered if we are to honestly examine the President's 
rationale for intervention. It is essential to first understand the 
context in which the decision was made.
  President Bush has cited two factors for his decision to intervene in 
Iraq: the first, his belief that Saddam was reconstituting his arsenal 
of weapons of mass destruction; and, secondly, that the Iraqi dictator 
was cooperating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
  The threat from Saddam Hussein stretches back much further than many 
of today's critics care to remember. Saddam's effort to develop a 
nuclear weapon began in the 1970s, centered around the nuclear reactor 
being constructed at Osirak.
  Despite the alarming evidence of its purpose, the world casually 
contemplated what it saw as a distant, perhaps even benign, 
development.
  But the luxury of inaction was not available to Israel because her 
leaders knew that the country was certain to be among Saddam's first 
targets. They also knew that the responsibility for Israel's safety was 
theirs alone, and that the world would do nothing to save their country 
if they failed to act.
  So act they did, launching a bold attack in 1981, destroying the 
reactor complex and setting Saddam's nuclear quest back many years. But 
far from praising this heroic act that benefited humanity, the world 
community responded with condemnation, even outrage. Yet, in hindsight, 
is anyone so foolish as to assert that Israel should have waited for 
the United Nations to confirm that a threat existed, that Israel should 
not have taken action to destroy the reactor, even in defiance of the 
international community?
  Had Israel not acted, the future of the Middle East and the West 
would likely have unfolded quite differently and far more tragically.
  Unchastened by this setback, Saddam continued his aggressive campaign 
to dominate the region and control the world's oil supply, launching a 
decade-long war against Iran in 1980 during which over a million people 
were killed and in which he used poison gas and other means of mass 
slaughter.
  After being beaten back from Iran, his attention then turned to 
Kuwait, which he invaded and annexed in 1990, assuming the world would 
meekly accept this fait accompli.
  Many forget that for a time that outcome was a real possibility. Much 
of the initial response in the world community, and in this country, 
was one of let's look the other way and hope for the best.
  Only when the United States decided to forcefully eject Saddam from 
Kuwait and to assume the principal burden for doing so was the 
international community finally persuaded to go along. We refused to 
allow our fate and that of the world to be shaped by a dictator, and 
all sensible people are glad of it.
  What we providentially discovered after that war astonished the 
entire world. Despite years of inspections and the best efforts of 
numerous intelligence services, Saddam had managed to secretly 
construct a massive program to develop nuclear, chemical and biological 
weapons. The experts estimate that he was only 6 months from an 
operational nuclear device. Had he postponed his invasion of Kuwait by 
half a year, the world would now be a much darker place.
  This record of unrelenting aggression and implacable menace was the 
only context in which a reasonable person could view Saddam's future 
designs. This was the background in which the events of 9/11 occurred.
  Imagine yourself as President, confronting the fact that an unknown 
group of terrorists had incinerated 3,000 Americans in an attack 
carried out by individuals who gladly committed suicide to create this 
horror. We had no idea how extensive their resources were, how global 
the threat was, who were their allies, how massive were the hidden 
terrorists to come.
  In this context, let us consider the alternative to our intervention 
in Iraq: The President is presented with evidence that once again 
Saddam Hussein has developing weapons of mass destruction, that he once 
again refuses to cooperate with international arms inspectors, that he 
has had contact with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that 
he is even harboring terrorist organizations. And yet the President 
decides not to act. He decides to wait, to see if those same inspectors 
who had previously been deceived by Saddam will again give him a clean 
bill of health months or years in the future, to wait until our allies 
or the United Nations grudgingly grant us a narrow warrant to act. To 
wait until Saddam perhaps gives to some terrorist organization a 
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to detonate in some U.S. city.
  To trust our fate to those who would destroy us is to die and leave 
no descendants.
  Is it possible to imagine the storm of condemnation that would 
justifiably fall on a President who, by not acting, allowed Saddam to 
arm himself once again with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? To 
allow the possibility that these might be made available to a terrorist 
organization, to acquiesce in the death of thousands, tens of 
thousands, perhaps of millions of Americans simply because the 
available evidence was not 99 percent, no, 100 percent certain?
  For if al Qaeda had had a nuclear device, there can be no doubt it 
would have used it on 9/11 and we would be mourning the death of 3 
million Americans, not a tragic 3,000.
  Which then was the greater risk in the face of decades of evidence? 
To act or not to act? To trust Saddam? Who in this body is willing to 
assert that it is ever wise, that it is ever moral to risk the 
destruction of the American people? That is the context in which the 
decision to intervene in Iraq was taken.

[[Page 11416]]

  Was our intelligence imperfect? In retrospect, that is obvious. But 
when is it ever perfect? Nor was this shortcoming uniquely ours. Every 
intelligence service in the world assumed that Saddam was once again 
engaged in developing weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion, 
we learned the astonishing fact that even Saddam's own generals 
believed he possessed them and was prepared to use them.
  It is certainly worth noting that among the shrillest voices 
condemning our intelligence failure are many who once devoted their 
efforts to weakening our intelligence capabilities, who employed their 
energies towards imposing restrictions, cutting budgets, sounding 
alarms about imaginary ``rogue elephants.''
  Permit me to quote from some of the most strident critics of this 
administration and its campaign against the terrorists.
  The first is a United States Senator now serving with great 
distinction in the other body. And on September 23, 2001, 12 days after 
the events of 9/11 this Senator stated: ``The tragedy is at this moment 
that the single most important weapon for the United States of America 
is intelligence.

                              {time}  1300

  ``We are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it is going to 
take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.'' You 
will find that on CBS's Face the Nation, September 23, 2001.
  But this same Senator, in 1995, introduced a bill, S. 1290, that 
would have reduced the intelligence budget by $300 million in each of 
the fiscal years, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.
  Then we have a gentlewoman serving with distinction in this body, 
from sunny California, and in 1998 she stated, ``it is time to totally 
eliminate the CIA.'' Congressional Record, March 18, 1997.
  On several occasions in the 1990s, following the collapse of the 
Soviet empire, a majority of Democrats in the House voted to cut the 
U.S. intelligence budget. Yet, following the horrific events of 
September 11, the chorus of voices that had previously advocated 
reducing our intelligence capabilities quickly reversed their theme. 
Even they must thank God that they had been unsuccessful in their 
efforts. But on this subject we hear nothing but deafening silence.
  One inescapable lesson of history is that passivity in the face of a 
threat is an invitation to strike. The desire to run away only 
encourages pursuit. We are seeing that fatal approach gather strength 
elsewhere in the world manifested in efforts to bind the hands of those 
who would attack terrorism at its source. The hope is that, as with the 
passing of a storm, the threat will move on and blue skies reappear and 
that the nightmare will at last be over. But the terrible reality is by 
succumbing to the fear of terrorism, by doing too little in the fear 
that we are doing too much, we condemn ourselves to a future of 
unending assaults.
  Other countries have learned that, however meager their contribution 
to their own and the world's security, however ineffectual their 
actions, in the end the United States will rescue them. We will make 
the world right again. We will defend against all threats. We, however, 
no longer have that luxury. If we do not take action to defend 
ourselves, then we are lost because no one exists to rescue us if we 
fail.
  So, aware of its responsibilities, aware of the horrific consequences 
that might occur from indecision and a reliance on trust and hope, 
President Bush acted to remove the threat posed by Saddam. What he did 
is called leadership. And for doing his duty for all of us, he has been 
denounced by many of the same people who would have denounced him had 
he not acted, denounced by people who bear no responsibility, who take 
no responsibility, even for their own actions.
  Saddam is no longer a threat to anyone. That is a salutary lesson for 
those around the world who watch and wait for opportunities for 
unopposed aggression. They now know that their invulnerability has 
vanished. Even more important, and almost entirely unnoticed amid the 
torrent of criticism focused on President Bush, is that his actions 
have greatly enhanced the credibility of the United States. For the 
next time this or any President warns a foreign despot to cease actions 
we believe are threatening to us, there can be little doubt that we 
will take decisive and forceful action, no matter how great the 
opposition of the world community.
  No one can credibly question that this greatly enhanced credibility 
paid off with Libya's decision to abandon its efforts to acquire 
weapons of mass destruction. Qaddafi understood what President Bush's 
critics still refuse to acknowledge, that this administration is 
determined to eliminate threats to our country, both actual and 
potential, and if necessary, will use force to do so.
  That is in sharp contrast to the passivity of the previous 
administration, whose failure to react to the repeated attacks on the 
United States only encouraged our enemies to make further attacks. What 
other conclusion could al Qaeda and others have reached from our 
baffling inaction and response to their assaults on our embassy, on our 
military, on us? They were taught the false lesson that they were free 
to slaughter us and we would do nothing.
  Incredibly, senior officials from the administration now shamelessly 
criticize this President for taking decisive measures to address the 
threat that they themselves could not be brought to contemplate. By 
acting first in Afghanistan, and then Iraq to remove Saddam, President 
Bush has rendered the need for future interventions much less likely.
  It is unfortunate that the quest for political advantage and a high 
decibel partisanship have intruded into the national discussions of how 
best to address the problems we face in Iraq. But there can be no doubt 
that the more we appear disunited, and the more voluble our dissent 
into weakness, dissension and inaction, the greater the aid and comfort 
we give to our enemies.
  The world of predictability and relative safety we once knew is gone. 
We are now engaged in a cruel, brutal struggle with those who would 
destroy us, one unprecedented in its challenge to our perseverance and 
courage, and one that will be fought not just in foreign lands but on 
our own soil.
  To insist that decisions must await perfect intelligence, that the 
risk of action is to be more feared than the risk of inaction, that 
others will save us, is to guarantee our defeat. But defeat in this new 
and more dangerous world means annihilation. The smoking gun that some 
critics insist on might well be some of our cities.
  We in this Chamber, our country, the entire world, owe this President 
not condemnation but our thanks for acting in Iraq, for refusing to 
wait for an avowed enemy to strike, for not temporizing and letting the 
forces of destruction wage unopposed their pitiless war to destroy 
everything we believe in.
  To those faint of heart from temporary setbacks in Iraq or who seek 
to benefit politically from our differences there, permit me to quote 
from Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine wrote, ``These are the times that try 
men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this 
crisis shrink from the service of their country. But he that stands by 
it now deserves the love and thanks of men and women. Tyranny, like 
hell, is not easily conquered. Yet, we have this consolation with us, 
that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.''
  Charles De Gaulle once said, ``France would not be true to herself if 
she weren't engaged in some great enterprise.'' Our great enterprise is 
the defense of freedom, and may we be worthy of the challenge.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let me comment on a couple of things the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois said.
  He talks about early exit. This war has gone on, Mr. Chairman, this 
war has gone on longer than the Korean War. It has gone on longer than 
World War I, and it has gone almost as long as the European War.

[[Page 11417]]

  If I believed we were making progress, we can't win this militarily. 
What I am saying is to redeploy, to get our troops out of harm's way is 
the key. I see no progress at all in this operation. I see the 
opposite.
  When I see, you talk about al Qaeda being encouraged by what we say. 
Al Qaeda has gone from 15,000 to 20,000. Incidents have gone from 50 a 
day to 90 a day. That is the thing that worries me. And we are not 
making progress. We are losing progress.
  I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair reminds Members to 
direct their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this issue today, this important issue for so many Americans across the 
country, from my home State of Missouri. So many families such as mine 
have young people in uniform. But this resolution before us today is 
not what we requested, nor is it what we were told we would have before 
us to debate. We expected a resolution confined to the country of Iraq 
and the conflict there. That is not what the resolution is. This 
resolution covers the Middle East waterfront, trying to blend together 
the Iraqi war and the war against terrorism, which has its genesis in 
Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, these are two separate and distinct wars. We did the 
right thing by going into Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban, which 
supported and protected the al Qaeda terrorists. And then came along 
the discussion, the international discussion about Iraq and Saddam 
Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction.
  We made the decision, as a country, to go into Iraq. At that time, 
Mr. Speaker, knowing the history and the culture of the Middle East, I 
sent two letters to the President of the United States, one on 
September 4, 2002, and one on March 18, 2003, before we went into Iraq. 
My letters warned against the aftermath.
  They sent an Assistant Secretary of State and an Assistant Secretary 
of Defense over to see me and said, ``Ike, it will be all right.''
  We know what happened in the aftermath insurgency because we allowed 
the looting, we sent the Iraqi Army home, rather than give them a 
paycheck and a shovel, and didn't have enough troops to quell any 
insurgency. And it arose. And here we are, some 3 years later.
  Despite the fact that this resolution is a broad one, let's talk 
about Iraq, which should be the complete subject of the resolution 
before us.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation is at a strategic crossroads. We are 
spending $8 billion a month, over $300 billion on this war. And more 
strikingly, we are losing, Mr. Speaker, a battalion's worth of 
casualties killed or injured between Iraq and Afghanistan. By far, most 
of them are, sadly, in Iraq. And there are increasing insurgent 
inspired attacks.
  Now, what makes this resolution so interesting is the fact that it 
flies in the face of the law that we passed here in the Congress of the 
United States and the President signed. The bill, the defense bill of 
2005 said this: ``Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant 
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking 
the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby 
creating conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States 
forces from Iraq.'' That is the law of our land. That is what the 
defense bill said last year. ``Thereby creating conditions for the 
phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.''

                              {time}  1315

  What does this mean to us in the long run? Well, farmers in Missouri 
know that the quality of the corn that they plant will bring about the 
quality of the corn that grows. And we find ourselves militarily eating 
our seed corn in the country of Iraq. Sadly, a few moments ago we had a 
moment of silence for the 2,500th American that sacrificed a life in 
that sad country. But it means eating up the equipment, and we are 
using equipment right and left and it is going to take 3 years to 
refurbish the United States Army if the war would stop today equipment-
wise. There are challenges in recruiting and retention. But I have to 
tell you how proud I am of those young people in uniform today. But if 
we do not take serious thought about the phraseology that is in the law 
creating the condition for the phased redeployment of United States 
forces from Iraq, I think that we may be eating our military seed corn. 
And what does this mean? It means that the United States of America 
will be less prepared to either deter or defend an attack that might 
come at some future date.
  This is serious business. We need to remain strong militarily. That 
is the way you deter problems. Should North Korea, somewhere in Asia, 
somewhere in Latin America, somewhere in Africa that would cause us to 
be involved, the question is, Mr. Speaker, would we be prepared 
militarily to meet that challenge?
  That is why it is very important that we do our very best to take 
seriously the law regarding transition this year, the significant 
transition.
  And what will it take? It will take the Iraqi government to stand up 
on its own, and it is on its way there, to transfer the security 
problem and situation to their police force and to their military, and 
we have some 250,000 Iraqi military either fully trained or nearly 
fully trained. We have to hand the baton over to them. We as a country, 
whether militarily or not, cannot determine the fate of Iraq. The 
Iraqis have to do it themselves, their own government, their own 
military, and their own police force. We can be of help. We have been 
of help. We have been there some 3 years. I think it is time for us to 
seriously look at where we are, where we are going, and do our very 
best to keep ourselves militarily strong for those days that are bound 
to happen.
  And, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Members I have been in Congress 
29 plus years thanks to those wonderful folks in Missouri. During that 
time, we have had 10 military confrontations with other countries. 
History being what it is reflects that, and the future may hold 
something similar. We hope not. But the question is will we be 
militarily prepared when the time comes?
  The Iraq adventure needs to be looked at in light of the law that we 
passed last year. The calendar year 2006 should be a period of 
significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security 
forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, 
thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United 
States forces from Iraq. That is the law. That is what the Congress 
passed. That is what the President signed. And that is where we are.
  Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record at this point my letters in 
full to the President, dated September 4, 2002, and March 18, 2003.

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 2002.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Thank you for inviting me to the 
     briefing this morning. I share your concern about the 
     continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his efforts to 
     produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I would like to 
     offer my assistance as the administration considers how to 
     deal with this threat.
       Before Congress can authorize any military action that 
     might be part of the administration's plan, we must have 
     answers to more questions than were able to be raised. at 
     today's meeting. Our constitutional duty requires us to 
     ensure that all implications of such action are considered in 
     advance. The case has not yet been fully made as to what the 
     threat is, why military force is an appropriate way of 
     addressing the threat, and why action must occur now. In 
     short, Congress and the American people must be clear on your 
     strategic vision before we can authorize a specific course of 
     action. I believe, like Clausewitz, that in strategy there is 
     an ``imperative . . . not to take the first step without 
     considering the last.''
       Your strategy for dealing with Iraq must address the 
     fundamental questions of the threat, the method of acting, 
     and the timing. Furthermore, any strategy to eliminate Iraqi 
     WMD must also address several component issues, each of which 
     raises critical questions.

[[Page 11418]]


       1. How to manage Iraq's transition to a stable post-Saddam 
     regime:
       As I mentioned to you this morning, this is a crucial 
     question for administration strategy to answer in advance of 
     any military action. I have no doubt that our military would 
     decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like 
     the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must 
     consider what we would do after we caught it.
       As Sun-Tzu said in the classic strategic treatise, The Art 
     of War, ``To win victory is easy; to preserve its fruits, 
     difficult.'' Military planners and political leaders alike 
     knew this in World War II. Planning for the occupation of 
     Germany and Japan--two economically viable, technologically 
     sophisticated nations--took place well in advance of the end 
     of the war. The extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its 
     history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions, 
     and its isolated economic system argues both for careful 
     consideration of the benefits and risks of undertaking 
     military action and for detailed advanced occupation planning 
     if such military action is approved.
       Specifically, your strategy must consider the form of a 
     replacement regime and take seriously the possibility that 
     this regime might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to 
     civil unrest and even anarchy. The effort must be to craft a 
     stable regime that will be geopolitically preferable to 
     Saddam and will incorporate the disparate interests of all 
     groups within Iraq--Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd. We must also plan 
     now for what to do with members of the Baath party that 
     continue to support Saddam and with the scientists and 
     engineers who have expertise born of the Iraqi WMD program.
       All these efforts require careful planning and long-term 
     commitment of manpower and resources. The American people 
     must be clear about the amount of money and the number of 
     soldiers that will have to be devoted to this effort for many 
     years to come.
       2. How to ensure the action in Iraq does not undermine 
     international support for the broader war on terrorism:
       In planning for military operations in Iraq, we cannot 
     ignore the lack of international support to date. Pre-emptive 
     action against Iraq is currently vocally opposed by many of 
     our allies and friends throughout the world and particularly 
     in the Middle East.
       When we are seen as acting against the concerns of large 
     numbers of our friends, it calls into question the ``humble'' 
     approach to international relations you espoused during the 
     presidential campaign. More than that, it has several 
     potentially damaging long-term consequences. First, it risks 
     losing the large number of partners needed to prosecute the 
     global war on terrorism. To ferret terrorist groups out of 
     their many hiding places, we must have broad allied support. 
     Second, it risks seriously damaging U.S. moral legitimacy, 
     potentially providing states like India and Pakistan with a 
     preemptive option that could drive long-standing conflicts 
     beyond containable bounds.
       Finally and perhaps most dangerously, actions without broad 
     Arab support may inflame the sources of terrorism, causing 
     unrest and anger throughout the Muslim world. This dynamic 
     will be worse if Iraq attacks Israel--perhaps with weapons of 
     mass destruction--and draws them into the conflict. Iran, 
     which has the potential to seize a reformist path, may well 
     move away from the United States in the face of attacks that 
     could next be taken against them. Together, these dynamics 
     will make achieving peace in the Middle East more difficult 
     and may well provide the rationale for more terrorist attacks 
     against Americans.
       These concerns do not make military action in Iraq 
     untenable. They do, however, highlight the depth and 
     importance of the issues to be addressed before we strike. We 
     need to ensure that in taking out Saddam, we don't win the 
     battle and lose the war.
       3. How to ensure that the United States can execute this 
     operation successfully as well as its other military 
     missions:
       As you are well aware, Mr. President, the consideration of 
     military action against Iraq comes at a time when U.S. forces 
     are actively engaged throughout the world in a range of 
     missions. Given the operational pressures these forces 
     currently face, we must ask what the risks and trade-offs 
     will be of defeating Iraq, particularly if Iraqi forces mass 
     in Baghdad for urban operations. How many casualties must the 
     American people be prepared to take in a worst-case scenario? 
     What will the impact of sustained operations be on so-called 
     high-demand, low-density assets? What military operations 
     might we have to forego because of continued demands in Iraq? 
     Will we still be prepared for the range of other threats that 
     might emerge throughout the world? With little allied support 
     and contributions, will we still be able to maintain military 
     spending on transformational technologies and on sound 
     quality of life for our forces if we are bearing a huge 
     wartime cost alone? What will be the impact on the domestic 
     economy of these resources drains and of the long-term costs 
     of reconstructing Iraq? These questions must be answered 
     before any military action commences so that the American 
     people understand the risks and the sacrifices involved.
       I ask these questions only to highlight the complexity of 
     the undertaking and the need for Congress, the American 
     people, and our friends around the world to understand 
     exactly what is at stake and why we must act now. Only such a 
     comprehensive strategic approach will ensure that we commit 
     U.S. troops consciously and with full knowledge of the range 
     of challenges we face--both in the initial campaign and in 
     the long aftermath to follow. Even a strategy that has 
     military action as its centerpiece will require great 
     diplomatic efforts to ensure its success. I look forward to 
     hearing the administration's answers and to working with you 
     to find the best course of action.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ike Skelton,
     Ranking Democrat.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: This is a critical week for our nation 
     and for the world. As you prepare to make the most difficult 
     decision of sending our troops into combat, the thoughts and 
     prayers of all Americans are with you. My colleagues here in 
     Congress have many different views on the wisdom of action in 
     Iraq and the severity of its consequences. But we are united 
     in our support for all the men and women who serve this 
     nation.
       There is no doubt that our forces will be victorious in any 
     conflict, but there is great potential for a ragged ending to 
     a war as we deal with the aftermath. I appreciate the efforts 
     that members of your administration have made to keep me 
     informed about plans for the administration and 
     reconstruction of Iraq following military conflict. Your team 
     has thought about many of the things that will need to be 
     done.
       Secretary Rumsfeld frequently talks about the list he keeps 
     of things that could go wrong in an Iraq war. I have kept my 
     own list--of things that could go wrong after the war is 
     over. The list below is indicative of this broader list. My 
     hope is that this will be helpful to members of your 
     administration as you continue to plan for all possibilities. 
     These are not complete scenarios but rather a series of 
     possible problems that could occur in some combination.


           internal divisions and external influences in iraq

       Without access to Iraq through Turkey, U.S. troops are not 
     present in northern Iraq in large numbers. Turkey enters 
     northern Iraq to establish a buffer zone and fighting breaks 
     out between the Turks and Kurds. A significant U.S. military 
     force is needed to separate the groups, complicating the 
     governmental transition and international support.
       An uprising in Kirkuk leaves the Kurds in control of areas 
     of the city and surrounding area. This triggers a large 
     Turkish invasion to protect the Turkmen minority and to 
     prevent Kurdish control of oil resources. Again this would 
     require U.S. military resources with all the attending 
     effects.
       In the event that Turkey crosses into Iraq, Iran may do the 
     same, ostensibly to stem the refugee flows from southern Iraq 
     and to protect Shi'a interests.
       Shi'a populations in the south rebel and undertake attacks 
     against Sunnis. U.S. troops must step in to protect the 
     Sunnis and restore peace. These tensions resurface during 
     attempts to build a federal and representative government.
       Urban fighting in the south brings Shi'a into conflict with 
     Sunnis. The resulting devastation causes a refugee crisis as 
     Shi'a make for the Iranian border. The results of Saddam's 
     policy of forced Arabization of areas like Kirkuk yield 
     dangerous consequences. Groups like the Kurds flow back into 
     these areas seeking to reclaim their former homes and land, 
     sparking conflict with Iraqi Arabs.
       Attempts to fashion a federal government in Baghdad prove 
     difficult. Iran is able to establish proxies for its 
     influence among the Shi'a representatives. Once in Iraq, 
     infighting breaks out among members of the former Iraqi 
     opposition in exile. The United States is unable to 
     transition the administration of Iraq effectively and has to 
     remain in place, with significant military backing.
       The war involves lengthy urban combat, particularly in 
     Baghdad. Most infrastructure is destroyed resulting in 
     massive humanitarian problems. The emphasis on humanitarian 
     aid distracts from efforts to establish a new government. 
     Once established the government faces massive political 
     pressure from the sustained humanitarian crisis.


                      weapons of mass destruction

       Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons against 
     advancing U.S. troops, but also inflicts substantial civilian 
     casualties. Efforts to stabilize cities and to establish a 
     government are complicated by the need to deal with the large 
     number of dead and to decontaminate affected areas.
       Saddam uses biological and chemical weapons directly 
     against civilian populations or against another Arab country 
     and seeks to affix blame for civilian suffering to the United 
     States. Over the period of occupation,

[[Page 11419]]

     this resentment complicates U.S. efforts to maintain support 
     for reconstruction efforts.
       U.S. troops are unable to quickly find all of Saddam's 
     capabilities, requiring a long, labor-intensive search and 
     anxiety as to when the task is complete.
       Regional leaders, for money or to gain influence, retain 
     caches of WMD and transfer some to terrorist groups.
       Saddam attacks Israel with missiles containing weapons of 
     mass destruction. Israel retaliates. Arab countries, notably 
     Saudi Arabia and Jordan, come under intense political 
     pressure to withdraw their support from the U.S. war effort. 
     U.S. forces are forced to reposition operational centers into 
     Iraq and Kuwait, complicating reconstruction and transition 
     efforts.


                             oil resources

       Saddam sabotages a significant number of wells before his 
     defeat. Current estimates indicate he may already have wired 
     up to 1,500 of these wells. The damage takes years to contain 
     at great economic and environmental cost and removes a major 
     source of reconstruction funding.
       Internal groups, such as the Kurds, seize oil-rich land 
     before American troops reach the area, causing internal 
     clashes over these resources. Militant Shi'as seize other 
     wells in the South.


                         international support

       The United States takes immediate control of Iraq's 
     administration and of reconstruction. The United Nations 
     can't agree on how involved to get given the divisions among 
     the Security Council about the need for conflict. The lack of 
     UN involvement in the administration makes the European Union 
     and others less likely to give. This situation delays 
     reconstruction and puts more of the cost on the United States 
     and a smaller number of partners.
       U.S. reconstruction efforts that give U.S. corporations a 
     great role at the expense of multilateral organizations and 
     other participation--as was detailed in yesterday's Wall 
     Street Journal--spur resentment and again limit the 
     willingness of others to participate.


                          american commitment

       Stabilization and reconstruction prove more difficult than 
     expected. U.S. troop requirements approach 200,000--the 
     figure General Shinseki has mentioned--for a sustained 
     period. This puts pressure on troop rotations, reservists, 
     their families, and employers and requires a dramatic 
     increase in end-strength.
       Required funding reaches the figure suggested by a recent 
     Council on Foreign Relations assessment--20 billion annually 
     for several years. During a period of economic difficulty, 
     the American public calls for greater burdensharing.
       It is my hope that none of these eventualities comes to 
     pass. But as you and all military leaders know, good planning 
     requires considering the range of possibilities. It also 
     requires advance preparation of the American people. You have 
     regularly outlined the reasons for why the United States must 
     disarm Iraq. I urge you to do the same in explaining why we 
     must stay with Iraq for the long haul, even with the economic 
     and military burdens this will entail.
       As always, I am willing to help in any way I can to make 
     this case to my colleagues and the American people.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ike Skelton,
                                                 Ranking Democrat.

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee for allowing me to take a little time early in this debate, 
although I know the Armed Services Committee is going to come up a 
little later. And I wanted to talk about this war and touch on some of 
the subjects that my good friend Mr. Murtha has brought up over the 
last 15 or 20 minutes.
  I was a new Member of Congress in 1983 when I went over to Beirut 
with a lot of those great members of the Armed Services Committee, and 
we got over there a couple of weeks before the Marines were blown up in 
the terrorist act that all Americans now have heard about and 
understand. And the reaction of the United States to that was basically 
to move out. And I know we all remember the Khobar Towers going up and 
a similar nonreaction from the United States. And we remember the 
embassies going up in North Africa and the national derision that 
followed the sending back of a couple of cruise missiles, one of which 
was alleged to have hit a drugstore, which was at most a symbolic 
response to the blowing up of those embassies in Africa. And I remember 
the Cole, and we all remember the Cole, and the destruction of that 
ship and the ensuing American casualties and the nonaction by the 
United States.
  And then we were struck on 9/11, and we realized that it was wrong 
for us to treat these terrorist acts as isolated, compartmentalized 
acts that were unrelated. And at that point we struck back. And we 
undertook a mission first to Afghanistan, secondly a mission to Iraq.
  And I do not think we have to plow old ground about Iraq. I think 
everybody understands Saddam Hussein, Gulf I. But I think it is 
important and it is good that my friend Mr. Murtha has pointed out 
that, in fact, even as we drove that armored spearhead north in this 
war against Iraq, taking Baghdad, Tommy Franks was intercepting 
communications even then from Iraqi officers to the effect that they 
were on the verge of using the ``special weapon,'' which we interpreted 
to be poison gas, a weapon of mass destruction, and he gave out orders 
that were right down to platoon and squad level, get ready for those 
weapons of mass destruction.
  I can also remember giving a briefing, giving an invitation to every 
Member of this House, Democrat and Republican, before we voted on 
taking military action in Iraq, to come over and listen to intelligence 
experts in a closed briefing with no handlers, no White House 
personnel, and ask any question they wanted to ask about weapons of 
mass destruction. And they did that. Lots of them. We had over 100 
Members at several of the briefings. And we had members of the 
intelligence apparatus of this country laying out differences. They 
talked about the aluminum tubes, how some people thought those were to 
be used in centrifuges for the conversion of uranium, the enrichment of 
uranium. Others thought they were to be used for rocket bodies. But we 
invited all the Members before they made that vote to give the 
President license to go into Iraq. They did that vote from an educated 
standpoint. They had an opportunity to pull all the information that 
they wanted.
  Now, it has been stated that we did not have enough troops going into 
Iraq. And I remember, as we were driving that armored spearhead north, 
and the Marines taking a piece of it, the Army taking a big piece of 
it, we had a number of experts appearing on national forums on a daily 
basis saying there were not enough troops. They used the term we are 
going to get ``bogged down,'' and what was interesting is even as they 
were on talk shows saying that there were not enough troops, the talk 
show would be interrupted with a news flash to the effect that Tommy 
Franks had taken yet another stronghold. And it was stated at the end 
of that drive toward Baghdad with what was described by some of the 
observers, some of the so-called experts, too few troops, that that 
lightning attack taking Baghdad would go down in history as an example 
of a low casualty level, and we did have an extraordinarily low 
casualty level, and a lightning advance in which the enemy in many 
cases was destroyed long before the American columns got to their land 
forces.
  Now let us talk about troops in the occupation and the level of 
troops in the occupation because that has been brought up a number of 
times, and General Shinseki's statement about needing more than the 
number of troops that we had there has been used many times. There have 
been two arguments: one, that we needed to have more troops to make 
sure we could suppress the insurgents; and the other statement that was 
made, sometimes in the same speech, would be that we needed to put an 
Iraqi face on the security apparatus. Well, you can't have it both 
ways. You cannot have an American on every street corner and have an 
Iraqi face on the security apparatus.
  And let me just say one last thing, which is a hard, tough truth for 
this House. But when the gentleman from Pennsylvania and I, as we 
watched the last of the 1990s unfold and the Clinton administration 
left the White House, we noticed in our defense committees that we went 
into that administration in the early 1990s with 15 American Army 
divisions. We came out of that administration with 10, count them, 10. 
Roughly 33 combat brigades. That is a fact of life. That is what we had 
to go into this operation with. Now we are moving and we are building 
toward 43 combat brigades right now. But we cut

[[Page 11420]]

the military, we cut the U.S. Army, by almost 40 percent, and that is 
what we had to go into this war with.
  Now, with respect to the gentleman's statements that in the first war 
we got lots of folks to chip in and pay for this thing, that is right. 
On the other hand, you had lots of self-interest. You had Saddam 
Hussein's tanks in third gear before we threw the 82nd Airborne in 
between him and his objectives, and you had everybody that had an oil 
well in that region scared to death and willing to pour money into this 
operation. So it is no surprise that countries out of self-interest 
will pile on and will help out. It is also no surprise that we have had 
lots of times in our national history when it has been tough to bring 
allies on board, when we had to have big pieces of this operation by 
ourselves and go it alone. And yet we were able to bring at least 
20,000 coalition members into this operation.
  And it is true we did not have the French and the Germans. But the 
French and the Germans were looking forward to major oil contracts with 
Saddam Hussein, and they did not want to go this time against their 
pocketbooks, and that is a fact of life.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague's yielding.
  You and I have had a great opportunity to work together in the 
defense arena in recent years. My chairing our subcommittee in 
Appropriations brought in clear form to me the contribution you have 
made to the strength of America and our role in the world.
  I may not be able to speak later, but let me say to the gentleman 
that very early on in this process, one of the great trips I have ever 
taken was with a cross-section of this House, people who voted against 
the war, people who were in the center somewhere, people who supported 
the President from the beginning, all of them over a long weekend. And 
together we saw Saddam Hussein for what he was, visiting killing fields 
with 500,000 people that this guy murdered, of his own people, while he 
was building golden palaces.
  As we left, we came together to see what we would do about that big 
supplemental on the war. To a person, Democrat and Republican, one of 
our Members summarized it by saying this: All of you know where I have 
been coming from. I voted against the war. It is going to be very 
unpopular when I go home. But after seeing what Saddam Hussein is 
really about, how could we do anything else?
  And all 13 of those Members came in that great debate and supported 
the President's fight against Saddam Hussein because it was a fight 
against the war on terror.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. And, you know, that takes me to 
another point, which is the Iraqi Army. It has been said many times, 
and probably will be said again in this debate, that we should have 
kept the Iraqi Army intact.
  Now, the road that is not taken is always the smoothest. But looking 
at the Iraqi Army, at Saddam Hussein's army, he had 15,000 Sunni 
generals. How are you going to maintain an efficient Iraqi Army that is 
responsive to a new fledgling civilian government with 15,000 Sunni 
generals running this thing?
  We have had to build this army from the ground up. I think that 
history will show that that was the right thing to do. To have an 
efficient army, you have got to have a couple of things. You have got 
to have an army that has a chain of command which is responsive, that 
means that the private does what the sergeant says and the sergeant 
does what his platoon leader says, and right up the chain of command.
  And you have also got to have an army that is responsive to the 
civilian government, to that new defense minister that was just put in 
place. I do not think you are going to do that with 15,000 Sunni 
generals. I have seen that statement tossed around so much that I hope 
to be able to talk to some of the folks a couple of years down the line 
when it is reflected.
  Incidentally, people like Barry McCaffrey who have not been great 
friends of the administration's operation have said that looking at the 
Iraqi Army now, they see a core of strength, they see leadership 
emerging, and they see an Iraqi Army that is becoming effective.
  So what are we doing? We have a mission, and the mission right now 
for the military is to provide a shield for this fledgling government 
as it goes into place, this new government. We are nation-builders. We 
are building a nation. It is also to train up the Iraqi military, and 
we are going to hand off this defense burden, that means our people 
come home after we train up and mature the Iraqi military.
  If the question for us is, who is best equipped to decide when we 
take the training wheels off, when we let the Iraqi military go 
forward, I think we should leave that judgment up to the people who 
tracked down and brought to justice Mr. Zarqawi, a gentleman who said 
that he was going to take this war to Washington, DC, and London.
  He is going to be a little late for that one, because we have an 
extremely competent American military on the ground in Iraq right now. 
I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania would agree with that.
  So let's use that same judgment of those combat commanders who are 
training those Iraqi units in their areas of operation who say, okay, 
this battalion is just about matured, this one is not, this one needs 
more equipment, this one needs some more training. Let's rely on their 
judgment as to when we can hand that load off to them and let them bear 
the security burden.
  Why should a Senator from Wisconsin or a Congressman from California 
try to impose an arbitrary date on when that maturity takes place. You 
cannot do it. So I would just ask my friends to give to those great 
Americans who are over there working this mission right now, let's send 
a united statement to them that there is value in this mission, there 
is value in their operation.
  We are going to complete this mission. You know, they are lacking 
something that the Greatest Generation had. The Greatest Generation in 
World War II had a united American public. When the 101st went into 
Northern Europe, they had a united American public. Let's give the 
101st Airborne now in Mosul, and in that tough Sunni Triangle, let's 
give them the same support we gave them in Europe, a united American 
public and a united American Congress.
  Let's give the 1st Marine Division that is out there in that tough 
province in the al Anbar Province out in Fallujah the same support we 
gave them when they were fighting Guadalcanal. The 1st Marine Division 
deserves a united American public and a united American Congress.
  So let's send a message. The main message that is manifested in this 
resolution is that we should not have an arbitrary cut-off point, an 
arbitrary deadline, and, secondly, that we will complete this mission. 
Let's send this message to every soldier, every marine who is watching 
this thing from the mess halls in Mosul and Tikrit and Baghdad and 
Fallujah, the message that the United States House of Representatives 
stands with them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we send them a message when we vote on the 
armed services bill. Very few people voted against it. I believe we 
voted, in the defense subcommittee of appropriations, only 15 or 16 
people voted against it. But Theodore Roosevelt said, ``If you disagree 
with a policy and you do not say anything, you are actually 
treasonous.''
  I disagree with the policy. I do not disagree with supporting the 
troops. There is no one that supports the troops better than the 
Members of this Congress. And that is shown by the few people that vote 
against the bill.
  One other thing: I think the gentleman made a mistake when he said we 
are for the war, against the war on terror. We are actually fighting 
for the

[[Page 11421]]

war on terror is what we are doing. But I appreciate what the gentleman 
is saying.
  I appreciate the fact that he and I both asked for more troops at one 
point. He was the lead sponsor at that particular time.
  I recognize the gentleman from California for 13 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, before we went to war, President Bush and 
other administration officials made three promises to the American 
people: one, we would find weapons of mass destruction; two, we would 
be welcomed as liberators; and, three, the reconstruction of Iraq would 
pay for itself.
  Well, all three promises proved to be false. Today I will focus on 
the reconstruction effort in Iraq and the massive waste, fraud, and 
abuse that have undermined our efforts.
  Stuart Bowen is the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
reconstruction. He often talks about the reconstruction gap which is 
the chasm between the President's promises and reality.
  Mr. Bowen is absolutely right: the gap is enormous. But it is dwarfed 
by the incompetency and corruption gaps in Iraq. The consequences of 
mismanagement and corruption are serious. Waste, fraud, and abuse have 
flourished. The taxpayer has been repeatedly gouged.
  Iraq is not being rebuilt. We have lost credibility and are now 
viewed in Iraq as occupiers, and our troops did not get essential 
equipment when they needed it. We have now spent $50 billion on Iraq 
reconstruction, including $30 billion from U.S. taxpayers.
  Let's look at what we got for the money. Despite spending $2 billion, 
Iraq's oil production is still well below prewar levels, running about 
a half million barrels below 2003 levels. We have invested $4 billion 
into improving electricity generation.
  Not only is the administration 2,000 megawatts short of reaching its 
goal for peak output, but generation is actually below prewar levels. 
And we spent $6 billion on oil production and electricity generation. 
And we have actually lost ground.
  The situation is the same for drinking water. In essence, we have 
squandered $50 billion. Profiteering has been rampant, and the taxpayer 
has gotten gouged and the work has not gotten done. And what is 
especially shameful about the wasteful spending is that we needed this 
money for our troops. When we first went into Iraq, our troops did not 
have enough body armor.
  Families had to purchase armor off the Internet and ship it to Iraq 
in a desperate attempt to protect their loved ones. On congressional 
delegations, individual servicemembers have taken our staffs aside and 
begged for more night vision goggles.
  Patriotic Americans even had to donate their frequent flier miles so 
troops who were dumped at the Baltimore airport by the Pentagon could 
make it home for the holidays. This should never have happened. It is 
inexcusable that our troops face desperate shortages of essential gear 
while billions of dollars were frittered away.
  To understand the magnitude of this, there is no better place to 
start than Halliburton. Halliburton is the largest private contractor 
operating in Iraq. The company has three contracts that total more than 
$20 billion. We now know that political appointees, not career civil 
servants, decided to give Halliburton a secret no-bid contract for $7 
billion to operate Iraq's oil fields.
  As GAO has reported, the key decision that led to the award of the 
secret contract violated Federal procurement law. When a career 
attorney properly objected, he was simply overruled. And despite 
statements from the Vice President, we know now that his chief of 
staff, Scooter Libby, was personally briefed on this entire plan months 
before the war.
  The decision to give those lucrative contracts to Halliburton has 
been expensive. According to Pentagon audits, Halliburton's total 
unreasonable and unsupported charges exceed $1.4 billion. Well, the 
examples of waste, fraud, and abuse are numerous. Halliburton charged 
$45 for a case of soda; $100 for a 15-pound bag of laundry.
  When they had brand-new $85,000 Halliburton trucks, they abandoned 
them or torched them if they got a flat tire or experienced minor 
mechanical problems. Halliburton's contracts are cost-plus. That means 
that Halliburton is reimbursed for all of its costs, and then receives 
an extra percentage as additional profit.
  In practical terms, this means that the more Halliburton spends, the 
richer it gets. Now we talked to former Halliburton employees who 
worked in Iraq. They told us the informal company motto was: ``Do not 
worry about price, it is cost plus.''
  Halliburton was supposed to be in Iraq to provide support for the 
troops, but the company used one standard for the troops and a 
completely different standard for its own executives. Halliburton 
employees stayed at the five-star Kempinski Hotel in Kuwait, where it 
costs taxpayers $10,000 per day. This is the five-star Kempinski. This 
gorgeous hotel offered maid service, complimentary fruit baskets to 
Halliburton employees.
  Our troops stayed in tents in the desert. At one point, a cost-
conscious Army official asked Halliburton to move its employees into 
air-conditioned tents, but they refused.
  To their credit, career government auditors identified these 
overcharges. When they examined Halliburton's second oil contract, they 
harshly criticized Halliburton's performance, citing profound systemic 
problems and exorbitant indirect costs. But their recommendations were 
rejected.
  After reviewing Halliburton's first oil contract in Iraq, auditors 
recommended that the Army not pay $263 million in unreasonable and 
unsupported charges. But the Army ignored those auditors and paid 
Halliburton $254 million, over 95 percent of the disputed charges.
  And in spite of the auditor's findings, Halliburton was paid nearly 
$100 million in profits and bonuses for overbilling taxpayers.
  Well, Halliburton symbolizes what went astray in Iraq, but it is not 
the only contractor abusing the system. Parsons received the contract 
to rebuild health clinics throughout Iraq. But despite spending $186 
million, Parsons completed just 20 of 142 health clinics they promised 
to build.
  Another firm, Custer Battles, received two security contracts. A 
Federal jury recently found that the company committed 37 separate acts 
of fraud. These are not isolated instances. There are over 70 
corruption investigations currently under way in Iraq. These cases 
involve allegations of fraud, false claims, theft, bribery and 
kickbacks. Some of the worst problems in Iraq are almost beyond 
comprehension.
  The U.S. management of the Development Fund for Iraq, which was the 
fund that held the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales, is a classic example of 
what not to do. The Coalition Provisional Authority handed out over 
$8.8 billion in cash, in cash, to Iraqi ministries. And they had no 
idea what happened to the money: $8 billion in cash simply vanished.
  One former U.S. official who was in Iraq at the time, Frank Willis, 
described conditions as the Wild West. He said the lack of controls 
effectively created a free fraud zone.

                              {time}  1345

  Iraq was awash in brand-new $100 bills with no accountability to 
prevent corruption. All the while, the White House looked the other way 
and Congress put its head in the sand.
  Under the Constitution, we are supposed to be a check and balance, 
but we have abdicated this responsibility. The Republican majority is 
terrific at applauding the President, and they are proving it again 
today with this dishonest resolution.
  Congress isn't doing the serious and important work it must do to 
protect our troops, rebuild Iraq, look out for American taxpayers. 
Congress must be more than a cheerleading section for the White House.
  The fiasco in Iraq was a windfall for some. Halliburton made more 
than $2 billion in profits last year. Its total revenue has increased 
by 66 percent since 2002. Another beneficiary was David Brooks. He is 
the CEO of a company that makes bulletproof vests. In

[[Page 11422]]

2001, Mr. Brooks reportedly earned $525,000. In 2004, he earned $70 
million. Last year, the U.S. Marines recalled more than 5,000 of the 
company's armored vests. But by that time Mr. Brooks had pocketed $186 
million.
  Well, the American people might think that Congress would rise up in 
the face of such unconscionable profiteering. When our troops are 
willing to sacrifice so much, and they do sacrifice so much, how can we 
let others create cynical fortunes off their blood?
  As we debate this resolution, 2,500 of our bravest men and women, 
have been killed in Iraq. Over 18,000 have been wounded, and the total 
cost of the Iraq war is over $300 billion. Those of us privileged to 
serve here have been spared any of the personal consequences of being 
on the front line, but we should not be spared the responsibility of 
doing our job.
  We owe more to our troops than slapping ``I support our troops'' 
bumper stickers on our cars and extolling their courage. Instead of 
wasting time on bipartisan charades, we should acknowledge and fix our 
mistakes so that Iraqis can take over and our troops in Iraq can come 
home.
  We owe more than empty promises to American families who are paying 
for this costly war in Iraq. They count on us to make sure that their 
money is spent well, and we haven't done that.
  An honest unsparing look at the record of the past 3 years tells us a 
stark truth. The White House and Congress have failed our troops, the 
taxpayers and the Iraqi people. They deserve better than a partisan 
resolution that pats ourselves and the White House on the back.
  It is shameful that we are squandering money on Halliburton at the 
very same time that we don't have enough money to protect our troops. 
It is shameful that Congress has abdicated its oversight and 
legislative responsibilities to rein in the incompetence and corruption 
that has undermined our efforts in Iraq.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution in front of us today is about an urgent 
proposition. We are a nation at war, a nation at war with radical 
Islamists. The war was not of our choosing, but it is the central 
struggle of our time, the first major conflict of the Information Age.
  This debate is a defining one for the House and for our Nation. It is 
important to begin by explaining that the threats that we face are 
real. They are serious, and they are ongoing. We must address these 
threats by continuing to confront them aggressively rather than shying 
away from them because they are difficult. We begin the debate framing 
four fundamental issues that define the war with radical Islam.
  First, our Nation is engaged in a long-term war. That war didn't 
begin on 9/11. We should maybe look back to 2/26. February 26, 1993, 
perhaps is when this war really did begin to come into focus. What 
happened on February 26, 1993? That was when the World Trade Center was 
attacked for the first time.
  Second, al Qaeda views Iraq as a central front in its war against 
Western democracies. Bin Laden's stated goal is to establish a global 
Muslim caliphate whose historical center includes Iraq, and Zarqawi was 
operating in Iraq long before American troops entered that country.
  Third, al Qaeda is a sophisticated enemy in the first war of the 
Information Age. In a war against terrorism, a critical battle is over 
intelligence. We must use every means at our disposal to obtain 
information about our enemies and counter their sophisticated 
information war.
  Fourth, our Nation must recognize how this battle is evolving. We 
need to recognize the threat of home-grown terrorism, home-grown 
terrorism that has already been experienced in Spain, the United 
Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands and, most recently, Canada.
  We are a nation at war. America has been in an armed struggle with 
radical Islam for at least 15 years. The first clear declaration was 
the attack on the World Trade Center, 6 dead, 1,000 wounded. The Khobar 
Towers were attacked in June of 1996. Our ambassadors were attacked in 
Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998 and the USS Cole was attacked in 
October of 2000.
  In 1996 bin Laden declared war against the United States in its 
fatwa. Throughout the 1990s, there were multiple attacks. Almost 300 
people were killed, and there was a minimal U.S. response. No one in 
the 1990s connected the dots.
  But this war is not just limited to the United States. It is a global 
war against Western democracies. Our enemies are active across the 
globe, and they must be countered across the globe, not just by the 
United States but by our allies.
  I would like to yield to my colleague from New Mexico, the chairwoman 
of our Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, for a further 
explanation about the long-term focus of this war.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is important for Americans 
to understand that the war on terror did not begin on a cool September 
morning, that this was something that had been building over a decade 
or longer, that in February of 1993, radical Islamist operatives drove 
a truck into the basement of the World Trade Center and blew it up. One 
thousand people were injured and six people died, and we treated it as 
a crime, not an act of international terror.
  On June 25, 1996, American airmen who were conducting operations in 
the southern no-fly zone in Iraq were settling in for the night in 
their quarters in Saudi Arabia in a building known as the Khobar Towers 
when a sewage truck drove into the compound, backed up to the wall of 
that building, and the people who drove it fled in a white car.
  They were seen from the roof of the building by the security forces, 
and they started evacuating the building. They were about three floors 
down when the truck exploded and 19 airmen were killed.
  In August of 1998, we were here in this House when we got word that 
our two embassies, one in Kenya and one in Tanzania, had been attacked 
by bombs. The U.S. Attorney in the District of New York got 17 
indictments, one of them for a man whose name wasn't really well known 
at the time. His name was Osama bin Laden.
  In October of 2000, the USS Cole was in port in Aden, in Yemen when a 
small boat came up to it and exploded, tearing a gash 40 feet by 60 
feet long midships on the USS Cole, and 17 sailers died.
  All of these actions we treated as isolated instances. We played 
defense ineffectively against a transnational, loosely connected 
movement against extremists who exploit Islam and use terrorism to 
bring about their dark vision of the future.
  The adherents to this movement are parasites who thrive in weak 
states and in failed regimes. That is why the terrorists made Iraq a 
central front in their war. If they could foment civil war, if they 
could keep self-government in Iraq from being born, then they could 
thrive in the chaos and continue their attacks on us.
  That is why it is important to see it through in Iraq. We made a 
decision after 9/11 that we would play offense and not defense. As 
Americans, we know the enterprise that we are engaged in is difficult 
and requires persistence and resolve. That is very hard on some days. 
It is very hard for us to understand why it is important to stay the 
course.
  But we know this. Our enemies are persistent and will stay the 
course. They will not stop if we ignore them.
  So that is the choice we face as a nation and why this debate today 
is so important. It is a choice between resolve and retreat. For me and 
my family, I choose resolve.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments.
  A quote from Zawahiri to al Zarqawi in July of 2005: It has always 
been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a 
Muslim state is established in the manner of a prophet in the heart of 
the Islamic world, end of quote.
  Al Qaeda views Iraq as a central part of this global war on terror.
  I would like to yield to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

[[Page 11423]]


  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, 
despite what you hear and, despite the pointing out of problems in a 
very difficult task, we ought not to be asking politicians here in 
Washington, we ought to be listening to our enemy.
  Osama bin Laden, quote, this third world war is raging in Iraq. The 
whole world is watching this war. It will end in victory and glory, or 
it will end in misery and humiliation.
  With what you have talked about earlier, Mr. Chairman, from that 
letter from Zawahiri to al Zarqawi, he went on to say that prophet in 
the heart of Islam world, specifically Egypt, neighboring states of the 
peninsula and Iraq, they have declared war against the United States 
and all those who seek to find democracy and peaceful solutions.
  Terrorist Abu Nidal found safe haven in Iraq and was killed in 
Baghdad in 2002. Zarqawi and his network were operating in Baghdad and 
the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq a year at least before the start 
of the war. As a matter of fact, from that base of operations, they 
executed the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan in 2002.
  Our troops found a suicide vest factory that had 800 suicide vests 
equipped and ready to go in south Baghdad in April of 2003. Iraq was on 
the State Department sponsor of terrorism list. Saddam Hussein paid 
$25,000 cash to the family of suicide bombers in Israel.
  You know, with every sacrifice made by our great American soldiers, 
for every girl that now walks in Iraq and Baghdad and goes to school, 
for every young mother that goes to a medical clinic to get treatment 
where there was none before, for every dead terrorist in Iraq, we make 
progress every day.
  One platoon sergeant in Iraq, and I quote, I have yet to speak to an 
American here who thinks we are losing. Trust me, no soldier wants to 
be here. No one wants to cut and run either. Leaving would send the 
wrong signal to our enemies.
  There are only two groups of people who want America to leave and 
withdraw in humiliation, Mr. Speaker, from Iraq.
  President Bush met with the Shiia, the Sunnis, the Kurds just 
recently, just this last week. None of them, even the Sunnis, wanted 
the United States to leave. As a matter of fact, they asked for 
reassurance that we would stay with them in this difficult and tough 
struggle for freedom.

                              {time}  1400

  That would leave only the terrorists who want an early American 
withdrawal and some politicians in this town.
  I would listen to what our enemies said when Zarqawi declared, ``We 
have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all 
those who seek to enact it.'' They will kill American families at any 
given opportunity.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we should stand with our soldiers. We 
should stand with our families here that helped take the fight to the 
terrorists overseas. We should stand for victory, and we should stand 
with the United States of America.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague from Michigan for those comments.
  The other thing that we have learned is that this is the first war in 
the Information Age. The Information Age provides some unique 
opportunities to our enemy. As we work to deny the terrorists their 
physical sanctuary, radical Islamists, using the tools of the 
Information Age, are working actively to develop a virtual sanctuary on 
the Internet which enables them to grow their movement around the 
globe.
  Some have said, well, this is a battle that should be fought in 
Afghanistan. This battle is not limited to Afghanistan or Iraq. Tell 
that to the people in Spain, the Netherlands, the U.K., Canada or 
Australia that this is really just a battle about Afghanistan.
  The Information Age is making this a very, very different battle than 
we have ever fought before. To explain that in more detail is my 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  I yield to Mr. Thornberry.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, part of the job of intelligence is to understand our 
enemy, and what we should clearly understand about our enemy in the war 
on terrorism is that they are very sophisticated. They are 
sophisticated users of technology using, as Chairman Hoekstra just 
mentioned, the Internet in order to recruit, in order to train its 
people, in order to intimidate populations to go along.
  They use Internet video games in order to help train and indoctrinate 
people in the Arab world to their way of thinking. They use the 
Internet for communication. They use videotapes and DVDs to get their 
message out. They have very adept users of technology.
  But they are also adept at using media. As a matter of fact, Prime 
Minister Blair said recently that they play our own media with a 
shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. They know, 
for example, that one horrific act of cruelty shown on video will get 
far more attention than a thousand acts of kindness or patience from 
our soldiers.
  They are agile and clever in using cruelty through the media in order 
to achieve their ends; and, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the most 
important point we can make on their sophistication is that they know 
they cannot beat us militarily, and that is not their object. They are 
sophisticated enough to know that the way they can beat us is to 
influence our political decisions, to impact our political will.
  There has been a very, what has now really become a classic study of 
this sort of warfare, often called 4th-generation warfare, a book 
called ``The Sling and The Stone,'' which traces this sort of attack 
from Mao's Tse-tung all the way through al Qaeda and its affiliated 
groups. One of the key points that the author makes, unlike previous 
generations of war, it does not try to win by defeating military's 
forces. Instead, it directly attacks the minds of enemy decision-makers 
to destroy the enemy's political will.
  That is what is going on. Their use of technology, their use of 
cruelty, their use of the media has a target which is us because, as 
another author has written, it only takes a few hundred people in 
Washington, DC, to decide that this war is lost. So they are focusing 
their attention not on our strength, but on our weakness, which is 
potentially our political will.
  That is why this resolution is important. It is why in order to meet 
a sophisticated threat, a political threat, which al Qaeda and its 
affiliated groups try to pose to us, we have to resist that sort of 
manipulation. Part of that resistance occurs on the floor of the House.
  I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, this battle continues to evolve. We know 
that al Qaeda wants to attack us again in our homeland. That is why it 
is important to stay on the offensive, attacking them where they are 
and making sure that they do not have a safe haven to plan, to train 
and to develop the resources to attack us again.
  But the other thing that they are trying to do is to develop the 
concept of homegrown terrorism, and it is something that is evolving.
  I would like to yield to our chairwoman of the committee, Mrs. Davis.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, some of the worst acts of radical Islamic terrorism have 
been committed by homegrown terrorists, and homegrown terrorists are 
citizens or residents of the Western countries who, without any direct 
contact with al Qaeda, adopt a militant radical Islamic outlook, and 
they seek to conduct acts of terrorism in support of the global jihad.
  Propaganda on the Internet, as we heard from you and from Mr. 
Thornberry, drives the movement. Groups like al Qaeda and the Zarqawi 
network use it to distribute their slick videos, to glorify the violent 
jihad.
  Homegrown terrorists committed, as I think you have said before, 
recent acts in Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

[[Page 11424]]

  The Madrid attack, for instance, on March 11, 2004, a group of 
Moroccans living in Spain attacked passenger trains in Madrid killing 
190 people; and the plot was conceived, it was organized, and it was 
equipped with no support from international terrorist groups.
  Recent events have demonstrated that Europe is not the only place 
where homegrown Islamic militants can develop.
  On June 4, 2006, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested 17 
Canadians for planning to attack Canadian government buildings.
  We have seen homegrown Islamic extremist groups in the United States. 
Our Federal, our State, and our local law enforcement agencies have so 
far been able to stop them before they could launch attacks.
  In August 2005, for instance, the FBI arrested four members of the 
JIS plotting to bomb military recruiting offices and synagogues in 
southern California, and this is the interesting part: The JIS was 
founded by an inmate at the California State Prison in Sacramento, and 
most members of the JIS are American citizens who were born and raised 
in the United States. They were radicalized and recruited into JIS 
while they were in prison; and as far as authorities know, none of 
these members had any contact with foreign terrorist groups.
  Last February, the Justice Department indicted three men in Ohio for 
aiding insurgents in Iraq and planning to attack U.S. troops there. Two 
of the men were naturalized U.S. citizens, and one was a permanent 
legal resident. The men learned their craft by downloading terrorism 
instructional videos from jihadist Internet sites. They had no contact 
with al Qaeda. Had they not been arrested, they may have started 
looking for local targets that they could attack.
  We cannot ignore the threat of homegrown terrorism. It is imperative 
that we understand which elements of our society are vulnerable to 
jihadist propaganda, how radicalization occurs, and how we can prevent 
Americans from becoming pawns of al Qaeda.
  The British House of Commons concluded that the U.K. counterterrorism 
community did not anticipate the March 2005 suicide attacks because it 
did not understand homegrown terrorism and the radicalization process. 
We cannot make that same mistake.
  At the same time, we cannot let our concern about homegrown threats 
breed suspicion and distrust of our fellow Americans. The diversity and 
the harmony of the American people is our country's greatest strength, 
and the global jihadist network we are fighting wants to divide us by 
inspiring homegrown terrorists whose attacks will spread.
  And I think Mr. Thornberry said it best, they are using the media, 
the Internet. They are using that to divide our country, and that is 
what will take us down, Mr. Speaker. That is why it is imperative that 
we continue on this course and we continue to fight this war on the 
away front, not the home front.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague.
  Reclaiming my time, it is why this resolution is so important, to 
send a clear signal that we are going to win this global war on terror; 
that we are going to be successful in Iraq; that we are going to fight 
the enemy where they are using all of the techniques that they use in 
an Information Age; and why we need to redouble our efforts to make 
sure that they cannot attack us; and that we stop the development of 
homegrown terrorism in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This all sounds good. It is all rhetoric. It is rhetoric. The number 
of daily attacks in Iraq have gone from 2004, 53 attacks per day; May 
2005, 70 attacks per day; May 2006, 90 attacks per day. Electricity is 
less than prewar level. No water available to all, only 1 hour a day, 
Mr. Speaker, and the oil production which was supposed to pay for the 
war is less than prewar production.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is no more 
pressing issue in our country today than bringing an end to the war in 
Iraq as quickly as possible.
  I thank my colleagues on the other side who just completed their 
discussion of the war on terror. They remind us that it is a war in 
which we can never yield and about which we have no choice. They also 
remind us that Iraq has become a recruiting ground for those 
international terrorists; that Iraq has become a proving ground for 
those international terrorists; and that Iraq has become the motivation 
for many of those international terrorists, none of which existed 
before the President's choice to go to war, a war not of necessity, a 
war that was unjustified based upon falsified intelligence.
  In fact, we see the new CIA Director said that intelligence that the 
administration used to make the case for war was wrong, inaccurate, and 
misleading. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and 
there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
  The administration used fear to scare this country into war based 
upon those lies. He refused to properly prepare for the war and its 
aftermath, and now our soldiers, our families, and our Nation are 
paying an enormous price for this President's tragic blunder.
  Two thousand five hundred Americans soldiers, we are informed today, 
have died in Iraq. 19,000 American soldiers have been wounded, many of 
them missing limbs and suffering other very serious debilitating 
injuries that will afflict them the rest of their lives. The war has 
cost almost a half a trillion dollars in taxpayer money, and America's 
international reputation and respect in the world has been severely 
damaged.
  The President often says that he makes decisions about the future of 
Iraq based upon what the generals say; but when the time came to listen 
to the generals prior to Iraq, the President refused to listen to them. 
He refused to listen to them when they questioned the force structure 
that was available to us to go into Iraq at that time, but he went 
anyway. He refused to listen to them when questions were raised the day 
after we seized Baghdad.
  What we now see is massive national chaos for which our soldiers were 
not trained, not given any instructions on how to deal with, and 
certainly did not have sufficient numbers to deal with. The President 
sent the troops into that war with that poor planning, that poor 
structure, and that poor understanding of what would take place 
afterwards.
  The American public had to witness soldiers being forced to buy their 
own body armor, have their families buy it because we did not have a 
proper supply prior to going into that war. Many men and women were 
sent into battle with unarmored, old Humvees that were used for flood 
control in the California rivers before they showed up in Iraq, and 
those soldiers died because of that inadequate equipment and because of 
the roadside bombs that are the number one killer in Iraq.
  We see the torture of detainees was approved at the highest levels in 
the Pentagon; and this, again, has led to an undermining of our 
position in the world, our moral position in the war in Iraq and the 
war against terrorism.
  This is a policy blunder of historic proportions by this President, 
and it is very important that we understand that we are paying a huge 
price for these mistakes by this administration. Tragically, we stand 
here on the floor of this Congress today 3 years after the beginning of 
this war, but for 3 years questions were not raised in this Congress 
about that force structure, about that preparedness, about the detainee 
policy, about these actions that have so severely undermined us.
  Yes, we saw the taking of Zarqawi, and what do we have there? We have 
the real use of smart intelligence on the war against terror. As you 
pointed out, they are not going to come after the 130,000 troops. They 
are not going to come after our strengths, but that is what people have 
been saying for a long time. That is what people have been writing 
about at the military

[[Page 11425]]

schools, about the networking of terrorism and how you had to go after 
it. We went after it exactly the wrong way, in exactly the same way, as 
people who made these historic blunders throughout history, when 
confronting this kind of force.
  Yes, we should provide the special ops; yes, we should provide the 
surveillance; yes, we should provide the intelligence and we should 
work together. In the case of Zarqawi, we saw, once the Jordanians were 
insulted enough by the attacks on their land, they put their 
intelligence sources to work, combined with ours, and Zarqawi was run 
down, and we provided the 500-pound bombs. We provided the special ops.
  That is not what is happening day to day in the war in Iraq, and our 
troops are paying a horrible, horrible price for the lack of 
preparation, the lack of planning and the lack of prosecution of this 
effort and the initial mistake and lies by the President of the United 
States.
  The President's policies in Iraq have severely undermined America's 
national security and made the world less safe.
  In response to the clear failures in Iraq, the Republican Congress 
has acted like a rubberstamp for President Bush rather than the elected 
representatives of the people of America.
  Republicans in Congress have hid their heads in the sand and refused 
to question the President, instead sheepishly pretending success is 
around the corner.
  As a result, Iraq is engaged in a civil war that threatens to consume 
the country.
  Congress has done nothing to stop the civil war in Iraq, nothing to 
hold the President accountable for the failures in Iraq, and nothing to 
put our troops on a safe and speedy path toward home, or to other parts 
of the world where they are needed to fight against terrorism.
  The President and his allies in the Republican leadership in Congress 
have made up their minds.
  They have a plan for Iraq. It is the same failed plan they started 
the war with. It is chaos with no end in sight.
  There is no more that we can ask of America's troops. They have done 
everything they have been asked to do. It is time for them to serve 
their nation where they are needed most, and that is surely not in 
Iraq.
  Now is not the time to stay the course of failure.
  America needs a new direction in Iraq--a new direction that will make 
Americans safer.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. The historic blunder is that we didn't address this 
problem in the 1990s when it started rearing its ugly head.
  I yield to my colleague for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to place a 
statement concerning this resolution in the Record at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman's statement 
will be placed in the Record.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, much of this resolution is language that 
everyone supports, especially the praise for our troops.
  They do a great job everywhere they are sent, and it is certainly no 
criticism of them to criticize this war.
  In August of 2002, two months before Congress voted for the war in 
Iraq, Dick Armey, then our Republican Majority Leader, in a speech in 
Iowa, said:
  ``I don't believe America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack 
on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as 
a Nation.''
  Jack Kemp wrote before the war, ``What is the evidence that should 
cause us to fear Iraq more than Pakistan or Iran. Do we reserve the 
right to launch a preemptive war exclusively for ourselves or might 
other nations such as India, Pakistan or China be justified in taking 
similar action on the basis of fears of other nations?''
  Mr. Kemp said, based on evidence that he had seen, there was not ``a 
compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.''
  William F. Buckley wrote that if he had known in 2002 what he knew 
then in 2004, he would have been against the war.
  Last year he wrote another column against the war saying: ``A point 
is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but 
misapplication of pride.''
  The very popular conservative columnist Charley Reese wrote that the 
war was ``against a country that was not attacking us, did not have the 
means to attack us, and had never expressed any intention of attacking 
us, and for whatever real reason we attacked Iraq, it was not to save 
America from any danger, imminent or otherwise.''
  Many years ago, Senator Robert Taft expressed the traditional 
conservative position: ``No foreign policy can be justified except a 
policy devoted to the protection of the American people, with war only 
as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.''
  Millions of conservatives across this Nation believe that this war 
was unconstitutional, unaffordable, and, worst of all, unnecessary.
  It was waged against an evil man, but one who had a total military 
budget only two-tenths of one percent of ours.
  We are not going to be able to pay all our military pensions, social 
security, Medicare, and all the little things we have promised if we 
are going to turn the Department of Defense into the Department of 
Foreign Aid and attempt to be the policeman of the world.
  This is contrary to every traditional conservative position on 
defense and requires huge deficit spending.
  The conservative columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote: ``Critics of the 
war against Iraq have said since the beginning of the conflict that 
Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged 
by a minority in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they 
will see they have to have a government that provides services at home 
or one that seeks empire across the globe.''
  Mr. Speaker, we need to start putting our own people first once again 
and bring our troops home, the sooner the better.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our chairwoman, Mrs. 
Davis.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, an issue that hasn't 
received enough attention in the debate on the global war on terror is 
what happened to American intelligence during the 1990s.
  To effectively wage the war on terrorism, we need a robust 
intelligence community that is capable of gathering intelligence aimed 
at eliminating the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, as the war 
escalated in 2001, the intelligence community was still reeling from 
policies that were implemented in the 1990s which undermined the 
ability of our intelligence agencies to predict 9/11 and to effectively 
fight the war today. Simply throwing people and money at the issue, it 
doesn't solve the problem. Developing expertise to replace what was 
lost in the 1990s is a long endeavor. It takes 5 to 7 years of training 
and experience to bring an operations officer up to full performance.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to list a few examples of what happened in 
the 1990s that hampered our intelligence community efforts leading up 
to and at the onset of the war.
  Between 1992 and 1999, the CIA's presence overseas declined by almost 
one-third. Our intelligence agencies had their hands tied by the Deutch 
Doctrine, forbidding recruitment of sources that had shady backgrounds, 
limiting our ability to get information on potential terrorist attacks. 
The number of officers declined and overseas facilities were closed. 
And as a result of the crises in the Balkans and in Africa, et cetera, 
officers were sent to areas where many times they had little knowledge 
of the issues there and, in some places, the targets had little and 
sometimes no presence.
  As a result, overall intelligence collection was decimated. James 
Pavitt, the former CIA Deputy Director for Operations, told the 9/11 
Commission in April of 2004 that we were vastly underfunded and did not 
have the people to do the job, and noted that spending on CIA human 
collection was cut by 20 percent during the 1990s.
  Analysis suffered equally in the 1990s, with low priority accorded to 
terrorism analysis. Intelligence analysts were discouraged from writing 
original out-of-the-box assessments that might have raised awareness to 
terrorists staging unconventional attacks. And, instead, our analysts 
were pressured to craft politically correct analysis.
  The death of Zarqawi and the arrests of 17 terrorist suspects in 
Canada are recent successes in the global war on terror. However, we 
still have a long way to go to rebuilding our networks of human 
sources. Reform has to continue, and we must acknowledge that many of 
the problems facing U.S. intelligence agencies today are the product

[[Page 11426]]

of unwise and neglectful intelligence policies of the past.
  It is simple to destroy, but it is much more difficult to build. Over 
the past 6 years, we have worked to rebuild our Nation's intelligence 
capability, and it may take a few more years to complete. There is not 
a moment to waste in carrying out these essential reforms to our 
intelligence community.
  And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that we must continue this war. We must 
continue to let our intelligence community do their job.
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield myself 1 minute.
  One of the Members said, ask Spain about the threat. Fifty-six 
percent of the population of Spain believes the U.S. in Iraq is the 
most dangerous threat to world peace. They rank Iran lesser of a threat 
than the United States.
  And one other thing. When we look back at the intelligence cuts, 
President Bush I felt it was a peace dividend and started to cut the 
intelligence budget years ago. So we have to make sure we don't let our 
rhetoric get ahead of the facts.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, since day one of the war in Iraq, Democrats 
have provided the President with everything he asked for, yet 
Republicans have denied the President the one thing he needed: 
Oversight.
  In a post-9/11 world, the American people need the vigilance and the 
patriotic determination of every Member of Congress to demand answers 
to the questions their constituents are asking. Instead, the Republican 
Congress sat and watched the administration make mistake after mistake 
after mistake.
  And don't listen to just one Member of Congress. Consider the words 
of Three Star General Greg Newbold, top Operations Officer for the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. After a scathing critique of Secretary Rumsfeld, 
he says, ``The Bush administration and senior military officials are 
not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress defaulted in 
fulfilling their Constitutional responsibility of oversight.''
  General Anthony Zinni, former Commander of the U.S. Central Command 
in the Mideast: ``We are paying the price for the lack of credible 
planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years of planning were thrown 
away.''
  Major General Batiste, who commanded 22,000 soldiers on the ground in 
Iraq. ``Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a deliberate 
victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.''
  Eight generals have raised serious questions concerning Secretary 
Rumsfeld's leadership. I don't know, maybe the Pentagon suffers from 
the soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotion as a policy. 
Maybe these generals weren't just qualified; or maybe, just maybe, they 
had to speak up because the Republican Congress was silent. You have 
adopted an approach of ``see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil'' 
with abandon.
  America was told this would be a quick war, and it turned into a long 
war. This Congress walked away from its oversight responsibility. 
America was told 130,000 troops would be enough, but more were clearly 
necessary. This Congress, the Republican Congress, walked away from its 
oversight responsibility. America was told this would be a conventional 
war. It turned into an insurgency. This Congress walked away from its 
oversight responsibility. America was told oil would pay for 
reconstruction, and the taxpayers are left with a $480 billion tab. 
This Congress walked away from its oversight responsibility. America 
was told we would be greeted as liberators, but they have become and 
are treated like occupiers. This Congress walked away from its 
oversight responsibility.
  And when Don Rumsfeld, a man who expressed contempt for the idea of 
nation-building, was assigned the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq and 
mismanaged the war against the insurgency, this Congress, the 
Republican Congress, walked away from its oversight responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to portray the greatest foreign 
policy challenge of a generation as simply the choice between more of 
the same or a new direction. And we Democrats welcome that. The debate 
today is about whether the American people want to stay the course, 
with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its 
obligations, or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on 
terror.
  Twenty-five hundred brave Americans, male and female, have given 
their lives in trying to stabilize Iraq. Last month was the bloodiest 
in Iraq's history. According to Major General Rick Lynch, attacks 
against civilians increased 80 percent since November 2005.
  We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, 
stand pat, the status quo. That is the Republican policy. Democrats are 
determined to take the fight to the enemy. In the words of President 
John Kennedy, ``We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any 
hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the 
survival and success of liberty.''
  Democrats will never put American servicemembers in harm's way 
without a plan and without support. For that, you need the sit-and-
watch complacency of a Republican Congress.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. This Congress will not walk away from a mission, it 
will not walk away from its troops, and it will not walk away from its 
allies.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit saddened by 
the comments of the gentleman from Illinois. You know, our enemies do 
not have a first Tuesday in November plan. They have a plan for a 
caliphate. They have well established themselves to murder Christians, 
Jews, Muslims, women, and children. They will behead you, they will 
shoot you, they will blow you up. They do not care.
  To have the talk of rhetoric, because the electricity isn't where it 
is, let's come home in defeat; because the oil isn't going exactly the 
way we would like it, let's come home in defeat; that is no standard 
for victory.
  What is the standard for victory? Where were we 4 years ago? Let us 
look at it in the global war, this World War III that Osama bin Laden 
declared in his own words. Pakistan, 4 years ago, was the only 
government supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were working 
against the United States in Afghanistan. They supported, financed, 
gave as much comfort as they could to the enemy to produce terrorists, 
to attack Americans and Westerners all over the world. In Iraq, we know 
that Zarqawi was there a year before the war; that they used that 
operation to kill an American in Jordan, a diplomat of great service to 
our country. In Libya, they had a nuclear weapons program and self 
declared they would share it with anyone.
  So 4 years later, not because I gave a great speech on the House 
floor but because very brave men and women put on the uniform and 
fought the terrorists with a military uniform so our children wouldn't 
have to fight it in a school uniform here at home, and now what has 
happened? Pakistan has joined us in the fight against terror. There are 
our allies just 4 years later in hunting down al Qaeda.
  Afghanistan is now an ally in the war on terror. Their intelligence 
services, their military, as a matter of fact just this morning, 
launched a 10,000 troop crackdown on terrorists. This morning. Last 
week, Iraq launched a 70,000 security personnel crackdown on 
terrorists. This week, they are our allies now in the war on terror.
  Libya. That is the components of the nuclear weapons program of 
Libya. It is now in the possession of the United States of America. 
They gave it to us not because we stood here and debated but because we 
had brave men and women with boots on the ground who showed courage and 
commitment and said we will take the fight to you. We will not allow 
you to take the fight to us.
  Which country would you have go back? Which one would you say, ah, it 
wasn't important that they became an ally? Four Muslim nations have 
stood

[[Page 11427]]

up against the ravages and the terror and the brutality of terror today 
because of actions our brave soldiers take overseas.
  So don't get confused in every little problem that happens, and there 
are a lot of them. Sir, you served in Vietnam. You know this challenge. 
They are great, they are hard, and sometimes they are disappointing, 
yes. But at the end of the day, every great victory, every great 
victory ends with our heads held high and safety and security for the 
United States.
  Let us not come home in humiliation. Let us not tell all of those 
families that their loved ones died in vain because we have a November 
time frame and not a time frame for victory.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask Members to address their 
comments to the Chair.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  This is rhetoric. It is not getting better. I spoke out November 17, 
and things have gotten worse than it was 6 months ago. They are worse 
today than they were then.
  When I left Vietnam in August of 1967, they gave me this bullet, and 
they said in this bullet that everything is going to be all right. The 
President of the United States said we just had an election, and we 
have a new election in Vietnam, and this was a month after I got out of 
Vietnam, and everything is going to be all right. We lost 37,000 
people.
  It is not a matter of whether we want to prevail in this operation, 
it is a matter of how we are going to do it, and I disagree with the 
way we do it. I disagree with the policy. That is what I disagree with. 
I think our troops have become the targets. Incidents have increased 
every day, and more Americans are being killed every day. And we are 
going to pay a heavy price in people being killed and also we are going 
to pay a heavy price for the individuals in the future with the debt 
increasing at $8 billion a month.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is to my great regret that at key 
moments like this the President of the United States does not seek to 
unify the country. He does not use these moments to bring people 
together, to strengthen us. He does not rally the country behind our 
men and women in arms and in harm's way.
  We applaud our troops. Thank God for their willingness to sacrifice 
for our Nation. I take every moment to support them and their families. 
But the President and the Republican leaders, within moments of our 
soldiers' valor in eliminating one of the worst terrorists, is rushing 
for some political advantage, some way to hurt the Democrats and raise 
the President's poll numbers. Our country deserves so much better.
  The President wants this Congress to simply applaud his current 
course in Iraq, which is an indefinite, open-ended commitment of U.S. 
troops in the middle of a sectarian religious war. By the President's 
own words, 3 more years, with generals now talking about 10 years and 
permanent bases.
  I want to be clear. I do not want to stay the course with this policy 
which will make us less safe, undermine our military, help the 
terrorists, cost many thousands of lives and cost another trillion 
dollars. This Congress has never held the President and his 
administration accountable, even when there were no plans.

                              {time}  1430

  This President, more than any other, has politicized this war, 
ignoring the advice of the military at every step, from General 
Shinseki's call for more troops to General Casey's admission that our 
troops' presence was inflaming violence. They have imposed political 
judgments from ideologues at the White House at the expense of our 
military's best advice.
  And this Congress supported the White House politicians, not the 
generals when our course was set. This Congress supported the White 
House politicians when they did not give our troops the body armor and 
Humvee armor they needed. Now, when the President says just support the 
politicians in the White House one more time, they are here with this 
resolution.
  What our troops need is a policy that is good for America and for our 
military. Being bogged down in Iraq indefinitely will make us less 
safe. All of the countries in the world and the region and the Iraqi 
people need to hear that America will redeploy over a responsible 
period. The current course allows countries a free ride at the expense 
of American troops and taxpayers. A policy of responsible redeployment 
will force others to play their role.
  No one on this floor is for a precipitous withdrawal, and the 
President's statements are reckless, political and a disservice. We all 
agree, as did both bodies of the Congress, that 2006 would be a turning 
point. The White House politicians have ignored that resolution.
  I support a redeployment of our troops to meet critical security 
needs over the next 12 months, with a significant reduction by the end 
of 2006. Others support redeployment by the end of 2008, and some by 
the end of 2007. But we all believe America's interest and our troops 
are served by a new course.
  So I ask the President to change. Why not speak to the country's 
better virtues and unite the country? We want you to succeed. We should 
work together for a stronger America.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a colleague from the 
Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, in November 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the 
former radical Islamic leader, seized power in Iran, riding the slogan, 
``Death to America.'' Just 4 months after his rise to power, it became 
evident that agents of radical Islam would stop at nothing to kill 
Americans. This doctrine of hatred resulted in terrorists killing over 
600 people prior to 9/11.
  My colleagues, my chairman has mentioned this, Congresswoman Wilson 
mentioned part of this, and I wish everyone who got up here would go 
over this list.
  In April 1983, 63 people died at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. That is 
not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.
  In October 1983, 241 died at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. That 
is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.
  In February 1993, six people were killed at the World Trade Center. 
That is not rhetoric; that is dead Americans.
  In June 1996, 19 American servicemen died after a truck bombing at 
Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. That is not rhetoric; that is dead 
Americans.
  In August 1998, 224 died at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 
That is not rhetoric either; that is dead Americans.
  In October 2000, 17 died on the USS Cole in Yemen. That is not 
rhetoric either; that is dead Americans.
  If some people continue to preach cut and run from this war, then 
they will continue to kill Americans, kill Americans and kill 
Americans. The global war on terrorism must be fought. We can do it on 
the streets of our hometowns, or we can take the war to the terrorists. 
Either way, it has to be done; and personally, I prefer doing it over 
in Iraq rather than in New York or Washington, D.C. or San Francisco.
  For the first 20 years, we allowed the terrorists to fight this war 
on their terms. 9/11 served as a wake-up call for us in the sense that 
we could no longer afford to sit on our hands and let the terrorists 
continue to kill innocent Americans. Under the leadership of the Bush 
administration, and with the support of this Republican-led Congress, 
we took the fight to the terrorists, wherever they may be.
  Mr. Speaker, right now their choice is Iraq. It is the central front 
in the war on terror. In fact, Osama bin Laden has said he believes the 
war going on in Iraq is nothing short of the Third World War. The 
importance of Iraq in achieving al Qaeda's objectives of killing 
Americans is clearly spelled out in a 2005 letter from Ayman al-
Zawahiri, bin Laden's closest advisor, to Musab al Zarqawi, the man 
tapped by bin Laden to head al Qaeda operations in Iraq. He said that 
getting the U.S. out of Iraq is critical if they are to turn Iraq into 
a permanent base of recruitment, training and operations just like the 
one they had in Afghanistan.
  This is why it is imperative that we stay the course and ensure that 
the democratically

[[Page 11428]]

elected government can take hold. A democratic Iraq will be the death 
of al Qaeda, and those aren't my words Mr. Speaker, they are the words 
of Zarqawi.
  Mr. Speaker, we have accomplished so much in the global war on 
terror, highlighted by the recent death of Zarqawi. We have 
significantly degraded the al Qaeda network by denying them a safe 
haven in Afghanistan and capturing or killing many of their leaders and 
associates. We have also built an unprecedented international coalition 
to combat and prevent terrorist financing and dismantle terrorist 
support networks.
  Mr. Speaker, America is safer, but we are not yet secure. The enemy 
we are fighting is determined and serious about its desire to kill 
Americans. We can not allow Iraq to become a breeding ground for 
terrorist activity.
  A free and democratic Iraq is absolutely essential to fighting the 
terrorist threat and building long-term peace and stability in the 
region. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I was in Beirut 
the day after the attack, and I recommended to President Reagan, I 
recommended to the President of the United States, get out of Beirut 
because we didn't have enough troops; 2 months later he got out of 
Beirut because he didn't have enough troops.
  I know what rhetoric is, and I know what fighting on the front lines 
are. I know the difference between them. I know that standing here does 
not solve the problem, and it has gotten better, it has gotten worse. 
That's the problem. And you are not talking about Iraq. The gentleman 
up there was talking about the war on terror. I am talking about Iraq. 
That's what I am talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Clyburn) for 4 minutes.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank Mr. Murtha for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I visited the Johnson VA Medical Center in 
Charleston, South Carolina. That medical center is named for a young 
man who is the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor because 
just out of high school he went off to fight in Vietnam and he threw 
himself on a grenade to save the others in the foxhole with him.
  I went to the hospital last Saturday to visit one of my heroes, 
Joseph Henry Washington. Joseph Washington was on the USS Arizona on 
that fateful day at Pearl Harbor. I went because I wanted to report to 
Joseph Henry Washington on my recent trip to Iraq because he questioned 
the wisdom of my going there.
  I said to Joe that I was very pleased with what I had found 
militarily in Iraq. I told him that I thought that our military forces 
were doing an admirable job, and I thought they were meeting with 
significant success.
  But I said to him, Uncle Joe, I am very, very disappointed in what I 
have found on the domestic front. We are not going to win the hearts 
and minds of the people of Iraq until we can give them a police force 
that believes and is committed to law and order, not one that is 80 
percent corrupt.
  I said to him that I did not think that we were going to be 
successful in Iraq until we involved the Iraqi people in the 
reconstruction efforts. We see $9 billion that we can't account for. We 
see construction going on up in the northern part of the country. But 
in Baghdad, in and around that part of the country, we see a failed 
policy. That is what is causing the problem in Iraq. We must begin to 
involve the Iraqi people in the reconstruction of their country.
  Eighty-five percent of the country is without electricity. Almost 60 
percent of the country is without drinking water. We are never going to 
be successful until we tackle these problems, and that is where we are 
failing because there is no accountability on the domestic front in 
Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I go back to Charleston the day after tomorrow because 
we are going to bury Uncle Joe. He stayed alive long enough for me to 
make my report to him. And for over 45 years in my consultations with 
him, he never wanted to talk about his experiences on the USS Arizona 
or his experiences after returning home. Why? Because he was never 
sufficiently included in the building of this great Nation. And the 
people of Iraq are not being sufficiently included in the rebuilding of 
their country. Until we do that, we will never be successful with this 
policy.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), my colleague from the committee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important week for us to have this debate on 
the necessity of the global war on terror, a war that we did not ask 
for, but a war that came to us.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out that after Beirut, we 
left. We did not react to it. Several other instances like that 
occurred during the 1990s. We were attacked at the Khobar Towers; we 
did not react. We were attacked at the Kenya embassy; we did not react. 
We were attacked the first time at the World Trade Center; we did not 
react. The Tanzania embassy was bombed; we did not react. The USS Cole 
was bombed; we did not react. What did it yield us? A continuing battle 
against terror around the globe.
  I would remind my fellow colleagues that one such incident of 
attacking Americans happened in the Philippines when Gracia and Martin 
Burnham were kidnapped, along with a constituent from Representative 
Bono's district. The leader of the Abu Sayyaf Group, ASG, was trained 
by al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That training occurred because we did not 
respond to these prior attacks. We left them alone.
  In the Indonesian al Qaeda training papers they found, they said one 
of the things that America is vulnerable about is they don't follow up. 
You can attack them, and they withdraw. They withdrew from Vietnam, 
they withdrew from Beirut, they withdrew from the Cole, the Kenya 
embassy, and Khobar Towers. They did not react the first time when they 
attacked the World Trade Tower. We have continued to make ourselves 
vulnerable by not responding to the worldwide war on terror.
  Thanks to American training and intelligence aid, the Philippine 
Government was able to rescue Gracia Burnham. Martin Burnham died in 
the rescue attempt. It was probably because we couldn't get close 
enough into the fight.
  But the important thing that we need to remember is if we back off 
now, according to the paper, or the letter that was written from al 
Zawahiri to the now-deceased al Zarqawi, it will be considered a 
victory for al Qaeda if we leave. Al Qaeda is the one that has decided 
to bring this war to Iraq and to fight Americans. That information is 
available on their Web sites and in the information that we collect. It 
is what the captives tell us when we interview them.
  They want to take this fight to the Americans in Iraq. I tell you, if 
we are going to have to fight terrorists, I would rather fight them at 
a place where every American carries a gun rather than on the streets 
of New York or Washington or Wichita because they have brought the 
fight to us. It is not we who decided to do this.
  I think it is very important as we pursue this worldwide battle 
against terrorism that we insist on doing it with our full resources, 
with full dedication, and that we disrupt their finances, that we 
disrupt their places of safe haven, that we disrupt the countries that 
are providing protection for them, and that we go to the terrorists and 
we find the root causes of this terrorism and sever the root.
  I think the reason we have seen so much money from al Qaeda going to 
Iraq, the reason that they have sent so many weapons into Iraq, the 
reason so many foreign fighters have gone into Iraq is because that is 
where they want to fight this battle.
  If we leave now, it would be giving them a victory and we would be 
once again putting another picture on the board here saying we should 
have fought harder; we should have stopped it back in 2006.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The problem is that the opposite is happening. That is the problem we 
have. We can stand here and say we

[[Page 11429]]

want to fight the terrorists in Iraq. Actually, al Qaeda we think is 
less than 1,000.
  We think we are caught in a civil war. It is the way that we are 
doing it. The military cannot win this war. The military commanders, 
even General Pace admits we cannot win this militarily.
  What we are caught in, we have become the target of the insurgency of 
the sectarian violence. It is the way that we are doing it is what I 
disagree with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Murtha for having 
the temerity to speak truth to power. Thank you for having the temerity 
to separate the war on terror from the travesty that is taking place in 
Iraq.
  It is amazing to me, and this used to be a place, as Professor Remini 
writes, where Members would come down, unrehearsed, without charts or 
graphs. They would speak from their heart. They would talk about this 
institution and what it means to democracy all over the world.
  What a sham today. We should all glorify in the aspects of democracy 
that take place all around the world and in Iraq. But what a sham this 
is today when we are denied any alternative resolution.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Lantos eloquently stated that earlier today, when he talked about 
Bob Michel and his eloquence standing on this floor, talking about 
speaking truth to power. And that is what is so upsetting to the 
American people and why Mr. Murtha has been recognized all around this 
country for standing up and speaking the truth to the American people, 
something this administration and, frankly, this Congress, has been 
unable to do. Level with the American people. Let's start with leveling 
with the American troops, leveling with all of those families of 
reservists and National Guardsmen who I speak with on a regular basis, 
who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed and redeployed again many 
times because we haven't had a plan.
  Here we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe, and you 
guys bring to the floor a political document not designed for a new 
direction or to bring the country together to discuss this issue the 
way it should be, but instead as talking points outlined by Karl Rove 
in New Hampshire, sandwiched in between the President's photo op and a 
picnic this evening.
  Americans are outraged that we don't have a citizenry and Members 
here who are willing to stand up and have accountability. We all 
support the war on terror. And this party, from Roosevelt to Truman to 
Kennedy, to Jack Murtha, has stood on the watch wall of freedom and 
stood there valiantly, but collectively with the American people and in 
this body and in this Chamber, but that is not going on here today. 
Instead it is right out of the playbook, attack Jack Murtha. Attack the 
messenger. That is a formula that works. It worked against Max Cleland. 
It worked against John Kerry. Geez, that will work against Jack Murtha 
also. Discredit this guy. Discredit what he has had to say because he 
had the temerity to speak truth to power in an administration that 
can't level with the American public, can't level with you.
  Why don't you criticize General Baptiste, General Zinni, General Van 
Riper, all of these generals? Are they all wrong too for speaking truth 
to power? Shouldn't we be talking about how we can collectively move 
forward in a new direction for this country, instead of a tried and 
true playbook of political jargon on a resolution that is nonbinding? 
Speak truth to power.
  I am proud to associate myself with Mr. Murtha and everything he 
stands for.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would renew his 
request that all Members should address their comments to the Chair and 
not to other Members.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the defense appropriations 
subcommittee, Mr. Young.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about politics. 
This debate is about America. It is about Iraq because Iraq is one of 
the many battlefields on which we fight the global war on terror. 
Afghanistan is another battlefield on which we fight the war on terror. 
But there are many battlefields on the war on terror, and we don't want 
any of them to be here in the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a lot about America, not only America 
today, America past, but America in the future. The world still 
remembers, and many Americans still remember December 7 of 1941 when 
American territory was attacked by an enemy. An America that was built 
out of the wilderness and was built by settlers, that was built by 
industrialists, that was built by just plain ordinary people, brick by 
brick, block by block, business by business, school by school, hospital 
by hospital, an America that many Americans paid a great price to 
create, to achieve. And that America has come under attack in many 
ways.
  As I said, December 7, 1941, some of us remember that day and where 
we were. Others will never forget September the 11th of 2001, where we 
were, what we were doing and what it did to this great country of ours.
  The global war on terror must be won. It is real. The threat is real. 
If you don't believe the threat is real, look at the old news reels of 
the Twin Towers in New York City or the field in Pennsylvania where 
Flight 93 crashed into Mr. Murtha's district to avoid that aircraft 
from attacking this United States Capitol.
  And just a few minutes ago I came from the Pentagon where a 
celebration of the dedication of the Pentagon Memorial was unveiled 
where 184 Americans lost their lives in that vicious attack on the 
Pentagon.
  Mr. Speaker, this war has to be won. All over the world there are 
cemeteries where Americans lie in rest, Americans who lost their lives 
in different parts of the world to keep America what it is, to keep 
America what was created at so many sacrifices. And many of us have had 
the opportunity to visit those cemeteries and to pay our respects to 
those fighting warriors who went ahead and did what was necessary to do 
to preserve this great America.
  There are American heroes in Iraq today and American heroes in 
Afghanistan today. And as Mr. Murtha said earlier, he and I have spent 
a lot of time visiting with a number of those wounded heroes at our 
military hospitals. But they will tell you, and they will be the first 
ones to tell you, we have got to win this war. And the attitudes of 
these young men and women are outstanding because they will tell you 
that what they want is to be healed from their injuries and to get back 
to the fight because they believe in their country. They love their 
country, and they believe that it is important that we stop the threat 
to this great Nation of ours from those terrorists, the terrorists who 
attacked us on September 11 in New York, in Pennsylvania, at the 
Pentagon, those terrorists who attacked the USS Cole, killing many of 
our sailors and wounding many more, those terrorists who blew up the 
Khobar Towers, which was a home for American airmen in Saudi Arabia, 
those terrorists who blew up the American embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania. These young troopers, these warriors understand the threat. 
America understands the threat. And ladies and gentlemen, it is 
important that we stand up to that threat and that the America that we 
know is the America that our kids will know and that our grandkids will 
know in the years to come.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Harman) for 30 minutes.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and, as 
prior speakers have done, I commend him for speaking truth to power.
  Mr. Speaker, 1,184 days ago American troops invaded Iraq to rid 
Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction.
  The weapons weren't there. But American troops still are. I have met

[[Page 11430]]

some of those troops on my three trips to Baghdad and Afghanistan, as 
well as Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Our Armed Forces and 
intelligence personnel are extraordinary. Many are on their third or 
fourth tours.
  As a mother of two sons and two daughters, and as a newly minted 
grandmother, my heart goes out to families who have lost their dear 
ones. I am deeply moved by the courage, dignity and patriotism of the 
men and women recovering from grievous wounds at Walter Reed and other 
U.S. hospitals. And I have visited with them.
  Our action in Iraqi created a failed state and, tragically, our 
postwar mission, as presently defined, cannot succeed. There are too 
few troops to stabilize the country. They are inadequately equipped.
  They are fighting an insurgency we didn't predict, at constant risk 
from IEDs we can't find, with no clearly developed goals to help the 
new Iraq government achieve political and economic security, and no 
exit strategy.
  Two major failures led us to war, and we had best learn some lessons 
or risk making the same mistakes again. As ranking member on the 
Intelligence Committee, these failures haunt me.
  Had we got the intelligence right, I believe we could have made 
different choices, and the pain and loss and anger many feel could have 
been avoided.
  First was a massive intelligence failure in assessing Saddam's WMD 
capability. The second, equally grave, was the politicization of 
intelligence by the President and a White House determined to push us 
toward war.
  The failure to assess Saddam's WMD capability accurately has been 
well documented. As CIA weapons inspector David Kay put it, ``we were 
all wrong.'' Overriding the advice of intelligence professionals, 
administration officials put stock in bogus sources like CURVEBALL, and 
self-promoters like Ahmed Chalabi.
  But simply calling Iraq an intelligence failure ignores the larger 
policy failures that created the false momentum toward war.
  The administration cherry-picked intelligence and hyped the threat. 
They talked in ominous tones about ``mushroom clouds,'' even though 
many questioned evidence suggesting Saddam had nuclear weapons 
capability.
  They made a mantra of the claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met 
with Iraqi agents in Prague, a claim that has been thoroughly 
discredited.
  Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz famously predicted we would 
be greeted as liberators, that Iraqis would throw rose petals, ignoring 
intelligence community assessments about the potential for armed 
resistance.
  Writing in Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar, the intelligence community's 
senior Middle East analyst, described how the Bush administration 
disregarded the community's expertise, politicized the intelligence 
process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence to make its 
public case.
  To date, nobody has been held accountable for this misuse of prewar 
intelligence.
  The intelligence failures did not end when we invaded Iraq. Our 
President declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in May 2003. Senior U.S. 
officials in Iraq asserted in July 2003 that insurgent attacks 
represented ``a limited problem of some bitter-enders'' loyal to 
Saddam.
  Yet, 3 years after Saddam's fall, 2,500 U.S. troops are dead, a 
number confirmed by the Pentagon just today, and insurgents appear more 
active than ever.
  We have surged intelligence resources into Iraq in a frantic effort 
to find the next IED. As a result, we have taken our eye off the ball 
in Afghanistan, where Taliban fighters are reconstituting themselves, 
even as the United States reduces the number of troops there. Osama Bin 
Ladin and Ayman al Zawahiri are still at large, inspiring a new 
generation of recruits to the jihad.
  Just as constant deployments to Iraq cause burnout in the Army, 
National Guard and Reserves, we are also burning out large numbers of 
intelligence professionals. And assigning them to Iraq means they are 
not available to address other national security challenges, like Iran 
and North Korea.
  There has been good news. U.S. intelligence agencies operating with 
Special Operations Forces have tracked down many key terrorist leaders. 
The takedown of Zarqawi showed the importance of fusing human 
intelligence, imagery, signals intelligence and a military strike 
capability in real time. That is how intelligence ought to work. It was 
a huge tactical victory.
  But tactical victories alone are not enough. We need a new strategy 
for Iraq, a dramatic change of course. We need to hold senior officials 
accountable for massive policy and management failures. Replacing 
Donald Rumsfeld, the chief architect of the postwar policy, is long 
overdue. He ignored the advice of senior military advisers, ignored the 
careful recommendations of those who understood nation-building, and 
ignored those horrified by a prison situation careening out of control. 
And he prides himself, even now, on refusing to change a failed policy.

                              {time}  1500

  Congress must also provide aggressive oversight to learn why the 
administration erred so grievously.
  Since I returned from my third trip to Iraq last September, I have 
been calling on the administration to develop an exit strategy, and I 
believe it is now time to begin a phased, strategic redeployment of 
U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq on a schedule designed by 
military commanders. A schedule designed by military commanders, not 
designed by the U.S. Congress.
  I believe the U.S. is part of the solution in Iraq, but our large 
military presence is part of the problem. Beginning to reduce the 
``footprint,'' while maintaining an over-the-horizon strike force, will 
improve our chances for success.
  I think we have 3 to 6 months to advance three objectives: first, 
helping the new Iraqi Government provide electrical power, particularly 
in Baghdad, and deliver other critical economic and social services to 
the Iraqi people. Second, supporting the Iraqi Government in its effort 
to disarm Shiite militias and integrate them into a trained Iraqi 
national security force. Third, continuing the process, begun by our 
able Ambassador Khalilzad, of obtaining buy-in from Sunni political 
leaders. Achieving these objectives will enable us to leave Iraq in 
better shape than we found it.
  Mr. Speaker, the next 3 months are critical. We have a moral 
obligation to assist Iraq on its path to democracy. But if clearly 
defined minimum objectives cannot be achieved within that time frame, 
the prospects for success in Iraq could all but disappear.
  So a change in course is urgently needed. The President's visit to 
Baghdad was important, but it is not a substitute for needed policy 
changes. And Congress cannot be infinitely passive. This debate today 
will only have meaning if, in fact, it leads to a change of course in 
Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to lead. This resolution, in my 
view, is a press release for staying the course in Iraq. It does not 
signal a change in policy, and thus I cannot support it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Arizona, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Renzi.
  Mr. RENZI. I thank the chairman.
  I have respect for the gentlewoman from California. I also listened 
to her words carefully, and I want to remind her that on October 9 she 
spoke about Saddam Hussein and his development of weapons of mass 
destruction, saying that he is impulsive, irrational, vicious, and 
cruel and that left unchecked, he will grow stronger, only to develop 
the capability to match his disdain for America and his Middle East 
neighbors and that he poses a clear and present danger.
  Those were the words of the ranking member. That was the belief of 
Bill Clinton. That was the belief of Hillary Clinton. That was the 
belief of Madeleine Albright. And yet we are told today that this is a 
press release.
  al Qaeda is a cancer. It has metastasized itself throughout the 
world.

[[Page 11431]]

There is a lot of negativity, whether or not we want to join and take 
the war in Iraq and link it with terrorism. It is a cancer. It needs to 
be carved out, and the American people need to show the will and the 
endurance. Our troops do. Our people at home, I believe, have that 
will.
  I believe there should be no arbitrary date set for withdrawal and 
yet no permanent, unending deployment. No cut and run, yet measured 
progress in helping a people who want to be free without an illusion of 
overnight success.
  This enemy wants to take the fight into the later rounds. They want 
to prey on what they perceive is our lack of concentrated focus, and 
their captured documents refer to the U.S. being worn down and 
quitting.
  Today's resolution is very similar to Rosie the Riveter. We bring out 
and ask the American people to stay strong. During World War II, we 
fought an enemy whose goal was to invade and dominate the land and the 
geography and to gain power and spread fascism. Terrorism is like 
fascism. While different tactics may be in place, Islamofascists want 
to establish a caliphate covering Southeast Asia, Southern Europe, and 
North Africa, very similar to the same geography that we saw in World 
War II.
  Zarqawi died in Iraq. Saddam was pulled out of a spider hole in Iraq. 
The Taliban was defeated in Afghanistan. Taking the fight to them 
works. With continued detainee reporting, coalition and allied sharing 
of intelligence, the Iraqi people working with us to identify 
safehouses, and the greatest group of unsung Americans sequestered in 
the backrooms of our intelligence agencies, we can keep the pressure 
on.
  This resolution is about prevailing against our enemies, about 
achieving a shared success, Republicans and Democrats with the Iraqi 
and the Afghanistan people. This is about taking the fight to those who 
will strike America again and will wound this Nation and kill our 
innocent civilians.
  America must endure, endure and prevail.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman 
from California control the 30 minutes and yield to people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time of my 30 minutes remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 21 minutes remaining.
  Ms. HARMAN. It is now my intention to yield to members of the 
minority of the House Intelligence Committee who are here.
  First, I would yield 3\1/4\ minutes to Representative Boswell who is 
ranking member on our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, 
Analysis and Counterintelligence.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to say to Mr. Murtha, I 
salute you, sir. We both served in Vietnam. I had two tours. I never 
told you this. I don't go around talking about it much. You don't 
either. But Charlie Beckwith, you remember that name, don't you? In the 
Iron Triangle? Sometimes we had those assaults and sometimes we had to 
go bring them out. When we had to bring them out, there were lots and 
lots of casualties. We did not like to do that.
  So this exercise we went through a few months ago, saying that you 
wanted to make an immediate withdrawal, that is not what you said. I 
know that, and we all know it because that would be chaos. It needs a 
plan.
  So I come today to share that little bit with you. I finished up my 
tours in the military as an instructor at the Command Staff College, 
Department of Tactics. We rewrote 101-5. We might want to talk about 
that sometime. You might find it interesting. And I would say without 
reservation, Leonard Boswell, Jack Murtha, and probably everybody in 
this Chamber support our troops, absolutely, 100 percent. That is not 
on the table, as far as I am concerned. They are in a difficult 
mission. They are performing superbly. And we are very, very proud of 
them. That is not the question.
  Last December Ike Skelton and, I do not know, 12 or 15 of us, and I 
do not know how I got invited, but we got invited to the White House to 
meet with the President, the Vice President, Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, 
General Pace. And the whole conversation was everything is going 
really, really good in Iraq. And I got a chance to engage in 
conversation with the President, and I said it seems to me what I am 
hearing here is we have got 90-plus battalions, at that time, and now 
it is over 100, 20-something brigades, several divisions, armed, 
equipped, and in the field. And I have been to Iraq. A lot of us have. 
I am not sure about that, but if that is true, then why don't we start 
a withdrawal program carefully?
  Do you know when we do best? We do best when we are under a little 
bit of pressure, when we know we have got to perform, we got to get the 
job done. And I think that applies to everybody in my life experience, 
Iraqis included. Under pressure, we went through the liberation from 
Saddam, regardless of how we decided to make the decision. We can 
debate that if you want to, but I do not want to do that. I supported 
the resolution based on what information I had. But regardless of that, 
if we would look at it in this sense: we have liberated the people from 
Saddam. He is in jail. He is on trial. Now we are occupiers. We want to 
help them get settled. They had a great election. We all understand 
that. They have established a government. And it is pretty tough. They 
got it done, I am told.
  You know, it is kind of like putting the team on the field. You 
haven't seen them play yet together. Maybe they will do well, or maybe 
they won't. I don't know. We don't know. But we wish them well. We want 
them to succeed absolutely.
  My point is this: they need to take some responsibility and the 
pressure is on to do it. They have got 254,000 troops trained, 
equipped, and in the field. We have a right to start, orderly, with a 
plan, bringing our troops home. We ought to do that. Not run, but an 
orderly withdrawal.
  And I salute you for that, Mr. Murtha.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of our committee and a member of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time 
on this very important matter.
  To my good friend Mr. Murtha, I also salute you as a Vietnam veteran, 
one that knows what the cost of war does to a family and to our 
country.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that 
this is a simple choice between retreat and resolve. This is a false 
choice. It is a political stunt. This is about respect. This is about 
respect for our role to do our jobs as a Congress in oversight.
  We can win this war with a comprehensive and reasoned approach to 
deployment of our troops. But the President's supporters characterize 
any disagreement as cutting and running. It does not wash. This is 
unfair and it is disingenuous and this is unpatriotic.
  The real choice is between blind adherence to Secretary Rumsfeld's 
ill-conceived strategy and the somber assessment of the proper way to 
fight against an insurgency. Congress has an important role to play in 
this process, and that is what today's debate should be about.
  In my role as a member of both the Intelligence and Armed Services 
Committees, I traveled to Iraq and paid a great deal of attention to 
the effects of this war and their impact on our military, on their 
families, and our intelligence apparatus. There have been and continue 
to be critical gaps in our intelligence system in this war.
  When the Vice President says that our troops will be greeted as 
liberators, I have to think that we were not prepared. When the Army's 
chief of staff tells us that a successful campaign would require many 
more troops than we were planning to deploy, I have to think that we 
were not prepared. When the administration cannot get its story 
straight about the rationale for war and the connection between Iraq 
and al Qaeda, I have to think that we were not prepared for this war.

[[Page 11432]]

  These mistakes, these gaps in our knowledge, frankly, cry out for 
oversight. It is not about resolve versus retreat. It is about respect 
for this Congress doing its job in oversight. This Congress could have 
and should have done a better job of conducting oversight and 
vigorously questioning the statements that have been made by this 
administration: statements about the presence of WMD or about 
connections to 9/11 or about the war taking no longer than 6 months.
  In fact, when I asked the administration, before we went to this war, 
whether there was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, the answer 
was no. We could have made America safer by conducting vigorous 
oversight, but we as a Congress have failed to do that.
  At the same time, while most of our men and women have served 
honorably and bravely, the unsustainable pace of our operations 
combined with an overstressed force has led to major problems. It led 
us on the road to Abu Ghraib and to some of the most heinous 
allegations lodged against our American troops in history.
  Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the conduct of this war has made us 
less safe. This is what this debate should be about. It has distracted 
us from the global war on terror. It has hurt recruiting and retention 
in the military. It has broken our Army for possibly the next decade or 
more. It has hurt our ability to work with other nations. I think that 
is where the real debate should occur.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my California sister, a 
member of our committee, the ranking member of the Technical and 
Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member of 
the House Intelligence Committee and Congressman Murtha. We salute you 
for your extraordinary leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the majority has brought a 
resolution before the House. It is a resolution. It is a nonbinding 
resolution. For those that are listening in, it just means that we are 
going to talk. There is not any action that will come out of it.
  Let us think about the context, the broader context of where we are 
today, June 15, 2006. Across this magnificent country, almost two-
thirds of the American people, it matters not where they live, what 
their economic background is, what their political affiliation is, have 
now lost faith in the President's war in Iraq.
  They have also lost faith in the President. He had high ratings. He 
is now down to about 33 percent. And it is about this issue of war in 
Iraq. Why? Why? Because what was advanced? We had to go in because 
there was an eminent threat. If we did not get them, they were going to 
get us. Except that premise, the President even acknowledged, did not 
turn out to be so.
  We all honor and support our troops. None of us will stipulate to 
anything less. We all honor the tradition that they have set. We all 
stipulate to that. We know that there are terrorists in this world. And 
we will pursue them in the pursuit of the protection of our Nation.
  But there is a difference between Iraq and the war on terrorism. And 
some people in the Congress, unlike people in the country, do not want 
to acknowledge that. So where are we today? Our intelligence agency 
demoralized, intelligence manipulated, the American people ashamed of 
what we are doing instead of being proud.
  It is too bad, my friends, that the term ``cut and run'' is ever used 
against a man that has served so honorably and has the medals to show 
them. I submit that it is the Congress that has cut and run on 
accountability, on not doing oversight, on not watching where the money 
is going.
  Potable water has not been improved in Iraq. Even retired generals, 
for the first time in my life of 63 years have I ever heard retired 
generals that have spoken out and said this is not a policy, stay the 
course is not a policy.
  Yes, we need a debate. We need a debate about alternatives. About 
alternatives. This is a regrettable instrument that you have brought to 
the floor today. I think two-thirds of the American people understand 
it.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to Mr. Holt of New 
Jersey, ranking member of the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee.
  Mr. HOLT. I salute Mr. Murtha, and I salute the servicemen and -women 
in the field, recovering at Walter Reed, and waiting to serve.
  This is a critical matter that we waited far too long to debate on 
this floor. And instead today we now get a meaningless resolution that 
says, well, stay the course, whatever that means.
  Well, today I was meeting with some seventh and eighth graders. And I 
asked them to help me put in perspective what we are talking about here 
today, what would we say that 10 years from now we wish that we had 
said about the war in Iraq.
  The first one said, too many lives have been lost already. The second 
one said, the reasons for going to war were wrong, maybe even 
deceptive. The third said, the Iraqi people are worse off today than 
they were before.
  We should ask ourselves how posterity will regard Congress for giving 
President Bush everything he asked for without oversight, without 
accountability. There are shifting rationales for war: oh, it was 
weapons of mass destruction; oh, no, it was retribution for September 
11; no, actually it was about human rights abuses under Saddam; no, 
actually it was containment and disarmament and the U.N. were not 
working.
  No. No. It was to stand up a democracy that could be emulated 
throughout the Middle East. No, it was to protect America's strategic 
interests, including oil. And today we have heard over and over again a 
response that this is about terrorism.
  No, it is not about terrorism. This is not about Khobar Towers. It is 
not about the USS Cole; it is not even about the World Trade Center. 
Today's debate is about Iraq, a war of choice. And this is a resolution 
that says, stay the course.
  The other side, Mr. Speaker, is engaging in classical misdirection. 
This has nothing to do with terrorism except that Iraq has now become a 
breeding ground and a training ground for terrorists. And meanwhile the 
war has warped American priorities and cost us dearly.
  Numerous powder kegs around the world are being ignored. 
International standing and our ability to counter terrorism is hurt. 
Here at home, I must say, Hurricane Katrina crystallized American 
thinking when they realized that the President and Congress were 
putting our attention, our resources in Iraq and not for the needs of 
the people here at home.
  History will remember this war as a colossal blunder. When we leave 
Iraq, and I hope we will begin immediately, no one will wish that we 
stayed longer. No one will look back and think the current course could 
ever have been successful. This war is not making us safer. It is not 
making Iraq safer.
  The generals understand that. You have heard that today. The large 
majority of the Iraqis understand that. The U.S. public understands 
that. And, yes, even seventh graders in New Jersey understand that.
  Let us begin our redeployment immediately, rather than approve a 
meaningless stay-the-course resolution.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague from 
California, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Issa.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly think it is important that this 
debate go back and forth as it has between the defeatist attitude of my 
colleagues and what I believe is the appropriate stay the course of 
this side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, we are often alleged of only doing two things in the 
Congress, either nothing or overreacting. Today, by a measured response 
of saying stay the course, we are doing exactly what we need to do. 
This is not meaningless.
  Just in the last week a declassified document taken from the 
safehouse in which Zarqawi met his appropriate punishment, and I will 
read just short excerpts, our time is short, but they

[[Page 11433]]

are meaningful and I think many Members listening throughout their 
offices and here on the floor probably have not yet read this.
  Zarqawi says, however, here in Iraq, speaking of why time is on the 
side of al Qaeda, however, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of 
service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the 
following reasons.
  He goes on to talk about the formation of the National Guard. He goes 
on to talk about the impact on the resistance of various improvements 
there. He goes on to talk about how we the Americans and the Iraqis 
have undertaken a media campaign against the resistance and it is 
working.
  He goes on to say, the resistance has had its financial outlets cut 
off and restricted. He talks about how, in fact, we have been effective 
in creating big divisions among the ranks of what he called the 
resistance.
  He then plots to find a way to get America embroiled in yet another 
conflict with another enemy. And he is speaking of Iran. He then plots 
on how he might convince us that Iran was further along in its weapons 
of mass destruction. He then plots no more.
  Mr. Speaker, we have done, for once, the even, middle-road thing we 
have to do. We did not go into this war the way we went into, as 
Congressman Murtha said, Beirut, only a little bit, only not enough, 
and only for a little while.
  We have gone into the war on terrorism with commitment from this 
Congress, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in the South of the Philippines, 
wherever the terrorists may be; and we said we will stay the long haul 
in each of these places.
  My time is short. I just want to do two things. One is, to say that, 
unlike Congressman Murtha, I did not serve in combat. But I entered the 
Army in 1970, and I entered as a grandson of Lebanese immigrants.
  And throughout the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, I visited Lebanon, and 
I visited the region, and I got to know my fellow Arabs of the world. 
And I knew there was a problem and they knew there was a problem and we 
were not addressing it. We are now addressing it.
  So we will be punished by the opposition any time we either do 
nothing or do something. But I would rather do something in the 
interests of freedom.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, many on this side advocate a strategy for 
success.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another member of our committee, 
Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, whether you are for or against the 
war in Iraq, the fact is we are there now and we must support our 
troops. We must give them the resources they need to protect 
themselves.
  In Congress and across the country, we all want the same thing. We 
all want the Iraqi military to be able to take control of their own 
country and secure their cities so that we can bring our men and women 
home that are in uniform.
  What we disagree on, though, is strategy. We have been staying the 
course and continuing down a bumpy, dangerous and deadly road for a 
long time. The American people are losing confidence in the war in 
Iraq. Americans are turning on the news and opening up the newspaper to 
see more and more stories about troops being killed by roadside bombs 
and suicide bombers.
  The Department of Defense released today that 2,500 troops have died 
in the war in Iraq since it began more than 3 years ago, and more than 
20,000 have been injured.
  The only people sacrificing in this war are the troops and their 
families. I have been to Iraq four times and just returned from my most 
recent trip over the Memorial Day recess. I also serve on the House 
Select Intelligence Committee where I am briefed often on the situation 
in Iraq and the global war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we need a new strategy in Iraq. I believe we 
must have the Iraqi security forces take on more responsibility in 
securing their country. I believe we must move American troops to the 
perimeter of the urban areas and let the Iraqi military patrol the 
streets in their cities.
  Under this perimeter strategy, the American military will still back 
up the Iraqis in an emergency. This will reduce the Iraqi dependence on 
Americans and help them gain confidence in their own ability to secure 
their country.
  This perimeter strategy will free up American troops to start the 
process of bringing our servicemen and -women home. Having the Iraqi 
military patrol their own streets will show the Iraqi people that their 
new government has been created and their own forces are now protecting 
them.
  It will also give the American public new hope that the Iraqis are 
taking more control of their country and U.S. troops are not put in the 
dangerous situation of patrolling the Iraqi streets every day.
  This perimeter strategy will allow the American military to do what 
it does best. Our intelligence analysts can use technology to locate 
insurgents and al Qaeda operatives.
  Our special operations forces can focus on high-value targets, and 
our air power can be used to take them out. Changing the mission of 
U.S. forces, redeploying them to perimeter areas, and lowering the 
profile of the U.S. forces in urban areas will break the dependency the 
Iraqi military has on U.S. forces.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, it is not about being a Republican or 
Democrat. It is about having the right strategy, it is about having the 
Iraqi military secure its own cities, and it is about bringing our men 
and women in uniform home.
  I believe this new perimeter strategy will help us do that. I also, 
with the remaining time that I have, want to talk about the issue of 
the Iraqi war versus terrorism. There is no one that I know in the 
Democratic Party that is not behind the United States fighting the war 
strongly against terror.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the rookie on our committee, Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, regretfully this debate on America's role 
in Iraq has been converted into a debate on the war on terror.
  The Republican leadership has mimicked this divisive White House and 
sought a political squabble instead of a policy debate. The majority 
leader's memorandum that was circulated directing his Members to 
politicize and name call and obfuscate the issue is a disservice to 
this House and to the country as a whole.
  Nothing was gained when the administration first conflated the issue 
of Osama bin Laden and terrorism with Iraq, and nothing is gained here 
today by this bald attempt to avoid discussion of Iraq policy and again 
try to conflate the issue of international terror with Iraq's 
insurgency.
  Our country's democratic system requires the active involvement of 
Congress on key policy questions, particularly the issue of war. Its 
Members have a patriotic duty to hold the executive branch accountable, 
especially during a time of war. Troops as well as our citizens at home 
deserve and expect no less.
  Back in 2001 this entire Congress went into Afghanistan against al 
Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and essentially every Member, 
Republican, Democrat or Independent, agreed with the international 
community, rallying to the side of Americans, rallying to our aid. Our 
intelligence personnel, special ops forces, military and our allies 
were there.
  But it was not the same case in Iraq where this President, President 
Bush, prematurely diverted troops and resources out of Afghanistan, 
before that mission was completed, before Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and 
Taliban leaders were captured, and before Afghanistan was stabilized.
  President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld chose to start the Iraqi 
conflict on selective and incomplete intelligence when there was no 
imminent threat to the United States, without letting the international 
inspections run their course, without building international support, 
without a plan to stabilize and

[[Page 11434]]

rebuild the country and bring our troops home, and ignoring the advice 
of leading generals about troop strength and strategy.
  As a result of those failed judgments made over and over again, our 
troops have suffered in the field, not having adequate body armor and 
vehicle armor. They have been deployed an unreasonable number of times, 
and they are under unbelievable stress and danger. Our veterans have 
received inadequate care, some $3 billion short of what they should be 
having, and we have experienced a harmful lack of oversight and 
accountability.
  The Iraqi people, more than half of them, are without clean water, 85 
percent lack electricity, oil production is less than what it was 
before the war started, and there is unemployment of up to 40 percent 
and billions of dollars of American taxpayer money being spent without 
getting it where it is supposed to go, our troops not getting the 
safety equipment, Iraqis not getting the reconstruction done, and the 
American taxpayer $360 billion out of pocket. The policy of the Bush 
administration has done more to harm our military strength and more to 
harm and misdirect resources away from terror.
  United States troops have done their jobs. They got rid of Saddam 
Hussein, they allowed for the constitution to be drawn and elections to 
be held, and they trained Iraqi security. The time has come for Iraqis 
to have the incentive to take control and responsibility for their own 
security. This idea of an open-ended commitment to stay the course just 
impedes this goal.
  The troop presence of our country impedes success and fuels the 
insurgency. Nine out of 10 Iraqis want a timeline for withdrawal. 
Seventy percent, including the Prime Minister, want a time set for 
withdrawal. It appears that the Bush-Rumsfeld group wants to be more 
Iraqi than the Iraqis.
  It is time to shift the focus to political and diplomatic solutions. 
It is time we disavow any intention to permanently remain or to keep 
permanent bases. It is time to revitalize our military, refocus on 
Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and secure our own 
country by fulfilling the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Zarqawi's document:
  However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the 
American forces, harmful to the resistance, for the following reasons.
  Time is on our side. We are making progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today we have heard a lot about who is 
right and who is wrong. Let me quote, at the outbreak of the Civil War, 
from Leroy Walker, who later became first Confederate Secretary of War. 
He said that he could wipe up with one handkerchief all the blood that 
would be spilled in the coming dispute between the North and the South. 
He was wrong.
  We have been wrong, too. We were wrong about weapons of mass 
destruction. We were wrong about the costs, and we were wrong about the 
tenacity of this insurgency. But Tony Blair came here about a year and 
a half ago and he gave a great speech, and he said something very 
important we ought to be reminded of.
  He said if we were wrong about weapons of mass destruction, and all 
we did was liberate a noble people from a brutal dictator, he said that 
history would forgive. But had we failed to act, and had we been right 
about weapons of mass destruction, he said that history would not 
forgive.
  So this debate about who is right and who is wrong, I think, 
misplaces the interest of the United States. We were right that Saddam 
Hussein and his sadistic sons were a clear and present danger to his 
people, his neighbors, the region, and to American interests. Saddam 
Hussein plotted to kill a former U.S. president.
  And just like megalomaniac leaders of the past, he attacked his 
neighbors in Iran, and he invaded Kuwait. Some prefer to ignore the 
historic comparisons to the Sudetenland and Liebensprau. Montezuma was 
right, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
  Dr. Henry Kissinger was right, too, when he said that with domestic 
policy, actions have consequences. But with foreign policy, inaction 
can have consequences. We are now seeing the suffering played out in 
Darfur and Somalia because of inaction.
  Millions of innocent women and children are now at the mercy of the 
followers of bin Laden and al Zarqawi, and al Qaeda understands what 
some in this body refuse to acknowledge, that Iraq and Afghanistan are 
part and parcel of their war against us. When they are defeated there, 
and I pray that they will be, their ability to wage terrorist war 
against us will be diminished dramatically.
  When we talk to the troops who come home from that region, they talk 
about progress. They talk about schools and hospitals that are open. 
Members, let me read for you from an e-mail that came back from a 
Minnesota soldier back to Minnesota. This was after the first election 
in Iraq.
  He said, despite everything that has been going on around them, they 
still voted. Despite all the violence, they stood in line to be heard. 
Word is that despite the insurgents' best efforts, voter turnout may be 
as high as 72 percent across the country. Shoot, even in the States, 
that would be a great turnout.
  All I can say is that together we, the United States and the Iraqis, 
no kidding, we did it. I know full well that this doesn't solve 
everything. Sure, there will be tough days yet to come. But for today, 
we won, we all won.
  Our returning military personnel tell us something else. Iraqi and 
Americans have one thing in common. They want American forces to come 
home, but not just yet. Members, now is not the time to go wobbly. 
Let's give victory a chance and a lasting peace will surely follow.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to explain to our 
colleagues that this side is not trying to go wobbly. We are trying to 
articulate what we believe would be a better strategy for success in 
Iraq.
  For our final 2 minutes, I will yield the first minute to 
Representative Crowley of New York, a member of the International 
Relations Committee.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were going to start this 
debate this evening to talk seriously about the problems we are facing 
in Iraq and begin to talk about our constitutional oversight powers to 
begin to address this situation. I was wrong.
  The American people want a change in our Iraq policy, and as their 
representatives, we have an incredible opportunity to speak to those 
concerns. But, quite frankly, we won't do that today.
  As a New Yorker, and as the only Member of this House to lost a 
relative on 9/11, I am sickened that once again my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle continue to try to spin this as an answer to 9/
11.
  If we thought that Ann Coulter's criticism of the Jersey girls who 
fought for an independent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks was bad, today 
Ms. Coulter pales in comparison to this Republican-led Congress. They 
still use the victims of 9/11 as a reason for being in Iraq in the 
first place, when all evidence, all evidence says otherwise.
  When I hear my colleagues continue to talk and say that Iraq is a 
stop in the war in terrorism, what happened to the first stop? What 
happened to Osama bin Laden? Five years later, we have yet to capture 
or eliminate the person responsible for that action in the first place. 
But yet we find ourselves in a quagmire in Iraq. I intend to vote 
``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McHugh), a member of the committee.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to make a 
couple of observations. To my colleagues on the minority side, ladies 
and gentlemen, debate what you wish to debate. No one is telling you 
what to debate here today. All I have heard you do is

[[Page 11435]]

complain about what you can and cannot say. I very much want to hear 
your strategy.
  Ms. Harman talked about we have a strategy for success. The gentleman 
from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel, talked about we want to take the fight to 
the terrorists. I would love to hear how.
  That is what we are doing at this moment. There is an old country and 
western song that teaches you, you know, while I was busy dreaming 
about yesterday, tomorrow hit me right between the eyes.
  What you are doing is dreaming about yesterday. We are in Iraq. Mr. 
Holt had it right. It is today a training ground, a recruiting ground 
for terrorists. It is interesting, it is instructive, and we should 
talk about how that happens so we don't repeat it in the future.
  But it is the reality for the moment. What do we do to end it? Where 
do we draw the line? Where do we say this is where we have to win? It 
is Iraq, and we better get it right.
  Ms. HARMAN. To the prior speaker, we are trying to articulate exactly 
what we should do.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield the final minute of the Intelligence 
Committee's time to Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland, a member of the 
National Security Subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee.
  I thank Mr. Murtha for yielding me the 30 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we can say what we want on the floor of 
this House. We can debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions like this. 
But what is most important to the American people is not what we say 
here but what we do here.
  This resolution does not commit this House to do anything. It does 
not require this Congress to take any measures to hold the Bush 
Administration or ourselves accountable for what is happening in Iraq.
  The Bush administration was totally wrong about weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq. No one has been held accountable. The Bush 
Administration totally miscalculated the number of troops that would be 
required to provide greater stability on the ground in post-invasion 
Iraq. No one was held accountable. The Bush Administration got the 
costs of the war totally wrong. Again, no one was held accountable.
  It is a simple principle. If you reward and ignore failure today, you 
are going to get more failure tomorrow. This House has ignored those 
failures. While our men and women have been fighting bravely in Iraq, 
this House has been AWOL when it comes to providing oversight.
  Instead of providing a system of checks and balances, this Congress 
has been a blank check and a rubber stamp.
  If we were a board of directors, we would be sued by shareholders for 
gross negligence.
  I proposed a simple amendment to this resolution. It would have 
required this Congress to actually do something--to conduct adequate 
oversight and to implement the 9-11 Commission's recommendations, 
including those requiring this body to reform its own intelligence 
oversight process. The Republican leadership refused to allow us to 
debate or vote on my amendment. It apparently wants this House to 
remain an accountability free zone.
  Ten hours of debate does not excuse years of giving the 
administration a blank check on Iraq. A non-binding resolution is not a 
substitute for an action plan. Let's start doing our job. We owe it to 
our troops and the American people. Shame on this House for abdicating 
its constitutional responsibility.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Thank you Mr. Chairman, for yielding me a few moments today 
to speak with our colleagues and with the American people.
  As I traveled with seven colleagues earlier this year to visit our 
troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, I learned a great deal 
about the American spirit, the spirit of our volunteer servicemen and 
women and what drives them to risk it all. It is the defense of 
freedom. It is the understanding that vigilance and sacrifice are 
requirements for our Nation's security.
  Back home in the comfort of their living rooms though, many Americans 
lack that focus. They forgot about Iraq's violation of U.N. Security 
Council resolutions and the mounting incidence of attacks on our Nation 
leading up to 9/11. They began to loudly dissent and doubt and distract 
from our mission in Iraq.
  One of the generals who I spoke with while I was in Kuwait took the 
opportunity in a quiet conversation to ask a very pointed question. He 
said, is America fighting this war, or is it just our military who is 
fighting this war?
  We today, together with all Americans, must answer that general's 
thoughtful question. We must answer it for him, for ourselves, for the 
rest of the world, but especially for our enemies, so they know America 
is truly committed to liberty and the victory of civility and 
opportunity for all who love freedom and support democracy.
  These enemies have long been committed to robbing the world of 
liberty. The United States and others have been targets of these 
terrorists many times leading up to 9/11 because of our commitment to 
the ideal of freedom. These enemies include regimes which harbor 
terrorists, but most especially those loosely connected terrorist 
organizations operating outside a national framework who share an 
ideology of oppression, tyranny, control, hatred resentment. They value 
no life, no man, no woman, no child.
  We Americans cannot continue to be free if we spend all our time 
questioning our mission. Many Americans want to debate the validity of 
prewar intelligence or weapons of mass destruction. Whether one nation 
or another supported al Qaeda, how many troops do we need? Americans 
have to look beyond the tactical challenges.
  We must do as Tony Blair did. The people who are fighting us, he 
said, know what is at stake. The question is, do we?

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 60 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) from the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I ask 
unanimous consent she control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this resolution as the chairperson of 
the 72-member Out of Iraq Caucus of the House of Representatives. 
Tomorrow will mark the 1-year anniversary of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
  My colleagues and I joined together to form the Out of Iraq Caucus to 
pressure the Bush administration into telling the truth about what is 
going on in Iraq, to admit their mistakes, and to admit their 
misjudgments, and to force them to devise a plan to bring our troops 
home.
  The Bush administration cannot deny that they misled the world about 
the reasons we invaded Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction 
in Iraq. There was no connection between the unfortunate destruction of 
9/11 and Saddam Hussein. We have not been welcomed with open arms in 
Iraq. We have no substantial support for this war by other countries. 
Yet, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, Mr. Wolfowitz, and 
Mr. Karl Rove continue to squander the American taxpayers' dollars on a 
war that cannot be won with a military solution.
  Here we are 3 years later, 2,500 American soldiers dead, 18,498 U.S. 
soldiers seriously injured, and Congress has appropriated over $320 
billion for this war, and the costs will only continue to rise. Even 
Condoleezza Rice admitted there have been thousands of missteps. The 
American people are increasingly aware of this mismanaged, corrupt, and 
bungled war.
  The company that Vice President Cheney served as CEO of, Halliburton, 
has been awarded no-bid contracts for billions of dollars, and they 
have had over $400 million in unsupported costs and another $1 billion 
in questioned costs. In simple words, they are cheating the American 
people. Yet they are not being held accountable for their criminal 
actions, and the administration has facilitated these illegal actions.
  However, Congress has done virtually no oversight of this war, no 
hearing, no

[[Page 11436]]

acknowledging the generals that are trying to tell us about Mr. 
Rumsfeld's mismanagement of this war. We have not done the oversight, 
and today, we find that we have this debate. It is not sufficient, nor 
has it been properly characterized. This resolution we are debating is 
a sham.
  As a matter of fact, it is a trap. It is an attempt to force 
Democrats to sign on to a resolution that will do nothing to bring our 
troops home. Oh, they want to make us sound as if we are unpatriotic. 
They want to make us sound as if we do not support our troops. We love 
our troops. We are as patriotic as anybody, and so I would implore my 
colleagues not to get caught into this trap.
  This resolution is not intended to solve any problems or chart a new 
course that will permit us to preserve the lives of our troops or to be 
successful in Iraq.
  I know what is happening. My friends on the opposite side of the 
aisle are getting frightened. They went home on the break, and they 
heard the American people. They saw the polls, and they came back with 
a Karl Rove-constructed resolution to try and make it seem as if now 
they get it. But this resolution does nothing. It will only continue to 
mislead.
  We formed the Out of Iraq Caucus to oppose any permanent bases in 
Iraq. We support H.J. Res. 73 to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq, 
commonly referred to as the Murtha resolution.
  There are a lot of misconceptions about what the Murtha resolution 
is. So let us take a minute and explain clearly what the resolution 
says.
  Section 1 says: ``The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by 
direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are 
to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.'' They would have 
you believe this is meant to withdraw immediately. That is not what it 
says, and let us get that straight today. What that means is there will 
be no more U.S. troops sent to Iraq and that the troops in Iraq will be 
redeployed as soon as possible, a judgment that should be made by 
military officials on the ground. So stop misrepresenting what this 
resolution is all about.
  Section 2 says that ``a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-
horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.'' 
That means a group of marines will remain in the Middle East to respond 
to threats that destabilize our allies in the region or the national 
security of the United States.
  Section 3 says: ``The United States of America shall pursue security 
and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.'' This war cannot be won 
through military means alone. We must put the full weight of the United 
States behind diplomacy in order to end bloodshed in Iraq.
  The Murtha resolution endorses these principles, and there is no 
reason why the entire Congress of the United States cannot get behind 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the Out of Iraq Caucus supports the Murtha resolution as 
the clear plan for America. We support bringing our troops home, and 
stop saying we do not have a plan. We have a plan. It is a good plan. 
It is the Murtha resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
control the remainder of the Intelligence Committee's time on this side 
of the aisle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I commend the 
brave American and coalition soldiers who have risked their lives to 
fight terror and promote freedom around the world, including the 14 
courageous Delawareans who have lost their lives while honorably 
serving their State and this Nation.
  Despite weeks of significant progress, we are now facing a critical 
stage in the war on terrorism. I believe an immediate withdrawal or the 
establishment of a hard deadline to withdraw will be comparable to an 
abandonment of the new Iraqi Government and would encourage the 
terrorists and violent factions to bide their time, inviting mayhem and 
guaranteeing chaos.
  Such a decision may also embolden our enemies to, once again, attack 
our homeland and interests abroad, thus further endangering American 
citizens. The future of the Middle East and the security of free 
nations around the world depend upon the development of a strong and 
stable democracy in Iraq.
  Therefore, in order to reach an acceptable level of stability in 
Iraq, it is extremely important that we, as an international community, 
intensify our efforts to reduce the influence of militias, restore 
electricity, rebuild schools, and assemble a modern and sustainable 
economy for the benefit of all Iraq's citizens. A greater emphasis on 
the development of the Iraqi security forces, with a focus on the 
selection and education of effective military officers, is absolutely 
imperative so that we may begin supplanting our forces in the region 
with Iraqi troops at the earliest date possible.
  Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we honor our brave soldiers by 
continuing to work with our international partners to promote democracy 
and protect freedom around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and I commend the 
brave American and coalition soldiers and all other personnel who have 
risked their lives to fight terror and promote freedom both at home and 
abroad. These courageous men and women have made tremendous sacrifices 
to ensure our security, and they deserve our utmost respect and 
appreciation.
  There have been three successful elections held in Iraq since the 
overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and in recent weeks significant 
progress, both politically and militarily, has been made in the region. 
As a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, I firmly 
believe that the elimination of al-Zarqawi will prove to be a key 
psychological and organizational blow to al Qaeda's terrorist network.
  Still, the facts are undeniable--progress in Iraq and Afghanistan has 
come at a tremendous cost. My small State of Delaware alone has lost 
fourteen brave soldiers, each of whom honorably served their State and 
Nation. My heart goes out to these noble Delawareans and their 
families.
  And while elections and military victories are crucial, many 
challenges still lie ahead. We are now facing a critical stage in the 
war on terrorism, and it is essential that the international community 
come together to support Iraq's efforts to build a strong, unified 
government capable of steering the country toward a path of peace and 
democracy.
  Although, several of my colleagues have suggested that the U.S. 
should set a hard deadline for withdrawal from the region, I believe 
such a course would be unwise. An immediate withdrawal, or the 
establishment of a hard deadline to withdraw, would be comparable to an 
abandonment of the new Iraqi government and would encourage the 
terrorists and violent factions to bide their time, inviting mayhem and 
guaranteeing chaos. Such a decision may also embolden our enemies to 
once again attack our homeland and interests abroad, thus further 
endangering American citizens. The future of the Middle East, and the 
security of free nations around the world, depends upon the development 
of a strong and stable democracy in Iraq.
  Therefore, in order to reach an acceptable level of stability in 
Iraq, it is extremely important that we intensify our efforts to reduce 
the influence of militias, restore electricity, rebuild schools, and 
assemble a modem and sustainable economy for the benefit of all Iraq's 
citizens. A greater emphasis on the development of the Iraqi security 
forces--with a focus on the selection and education of effective 
military officers, is absolutely imperative. Over the last few years, 
we have trained and equipped thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police 
officers and it is now crucial that we do more to improve this process, 
so that we may begin supplanting our forces in the region with Iraqi 
troops at the earliest date possible.
  Mr. Speaker, the thousands of Americans who have served in the war on 
terrorism exemplify the very courage and honor on which our Nation was 
formed. It is essential that we recognize their service by continuing 
to work

[[Page 11437]]

with our international partners to promote democracy and protect 
freedom around the world.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
and for her leadership and her strong voice over the years on so many 
issues, especially with regard to this unnecessary war.
  It has been almost 4 years since Congress authorized this unnecessary 
war, and we are really still not having a debate on Iraq policy. So, 
quite frankly, this debate is a sham. It attempts to, and you have 
heard this before and you will hear it again, it attempts to link the 
war on terror with the bloodshed and violence and killing in Iraq. How 
deceptive can you be?
  As a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I believe that we 
should be debating and passing the Murtha resolution today. The Murtha 
resolution would redeploy our troops from Iraq at the earliest 
practicable date and pursue security and stability in Iraq through 
diplomacy.
  Instead, the Republicans continue to play political games at the 
expense of our brave troops.
  This resolution is a disingenuous attempt by the Republicans to 
really rewrite history by claiming that Iraq is linked to the terrible 
tragedy of 9/11. This is deplorable. We all know that Iraq had nothing 
to do with the tragic attacks of 9/11. Yet, the President misled the 
American people into a war of choice, with no end in sight.
  We could have avoided this, and you remember Congressman Spratt and 
myself, we introduced substitutes to the use of force back in 2002, 
which would have allowed the United Nations' inspectors to ensure that 
Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction.
  And what is the cost of finding out that there are no weapons of mass 
destruction? Today, we reached the sad milestone of 2,500 American 
brave troops who have given their lives; and by the end of the year, we 
will have committed close to $400 billion.
  Are we any safer as a result of this purposeless war in Iraq? Not 
according to the 9/11 Commission, whose report card gave the 
administration a failing grade in virtually every category relating to 
terrorism preparedness.
  The Republicans try to claim that Iraq is the central front on the 
global war on terror, but the fact is that it has undermined our 
ability to protect our Nation. National security professionals 
recognize this, Mr. Speaker, and let us be clear: we are spending 
billions of dollars to occupy a country that did not have weapons of 
mass destruction or terrorist ties. At the same time, we are cutting 
programs to secure our ports and keep nuclear materials out of the 
hands of terrorists. There is something really wrong.
  Worse still, this President and the Republican majority really refuse 
to level with the American people about when our troops are coming 
home, also really if they are coming home.
  While we are debating this very bogus resolution, the most 
substantive decision on Iraq policy in very recent days was taken out 
by the Republican majority behind closed doors. They stripped from the 
war supplemental an amendment that we offered to prevent the 
establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq.
  The American people do not want an open-ended war and occupation. 
Quietly removing a measure that was approved by both the House and the 
Senate is a gross abuse of the democratic process and is further 
evidence that Republicans are afraid to level with the American people 
about their real plans for Iraq.
  Let me tell you, there will be a day of reckoning. The American 
people are demanding answers. They deserve a truthful accounting of how 
we got into this unnecessary war, how the billions of dollars have been 
misspent and when our troops are coming home, and also, they really 
deserve to know if our troops are coming home, given recent reports 
that the administration is considering leaving a permanent force of 
50,000 troops in Iraq and indications that establishing permanent 
military bases are not off the table.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the American people will not forget that, instead of 
answers to their questions, the Republican majority keeps giving them 
rhetoric and posturing like they are doing today, and the American 
people deserve better.
  This sham resolution, it really should be rejected. We should support 
the Murtha resolution. That is what we should talk about today. That 
will take steps to end this war. It would take steps to bring our young 
men and women home; and I tell you, if we do not debate this, we do not 
know when the opportunity to debate or to have a real debate will take 
place.
  It should have been a real debate today. Unfortunately, this has 
deteriorated into posturing into rhetoric and into misrepresenting what 
the facts are.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Maryland, I yield myself 30 seconds to read a quote we mentioned 
earlier in this debate from Osama bin Laden. He said, ``This Third 
World war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war. It 
will end in victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'' That is not 
this side of the aisle. That is Osama bin Laden.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As we debate the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism, 
there will be strong, heartfelt feelings and expressions on this House 
floor. Let us, however, as we debate have a powerful sense of 
resolution, a powerful sense of urgency, a powerful sense of urgency to 
end the war and to end the war successfully.
  A stable, free Iraq, a stable, free Afghanistan will be a blessing to 
the Iraqis, a blessings to the Afghanis and a blessing to the region 
and the world at large.
  The war on terrorism is the next stage of the Cold War. Civilized 
people who believe in the rule of law, justice, equality and freedom 
cannot allow self-anointed fanatics to rape, pillage and murder at will 
around the globe.
  A great Islamic theologian once said, ``One hour of justice is equal 
to a hundred-year prayer.'' The world wants to hear from us. It is our 
job to end the war in Iraq successfully. The United States, with the 
assistance of and for the good of the civilized world, can and will 
defeat terrorism. This debate is our hour of justice.

                              {time}  1600

  General Eisenhower said, ``The emphasis of the military is on 
authority and obedience; the emphasis on public office is communication 
and consent.'' As we craft this resolution, I urge you to keep these 
themes in mind.
  And as we will eventually walk across the graves in Arlington 
Cemetery, listen to these words: ``We are the dead. Short days ago we 
lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved and were loved. And now we lie 
in Flanders Field.'' Let us work together through this debate to figure 
out how to end the war.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California, 
Representative Woolsey, 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, many of us voted against this war from the 
very beginning. In fact, 60 percent of the Democrats voted ``no'' to 
the war in Iraq. Since then, we have hosted informal hearings, we have 
founded the Out of Iraq Caucus, we forced a debate and vote on the 
House floor, Mr. Murtha offered his intelligent proposal to redeploy 
our troops, and last night I gave my 151st 5-minute speech on Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 39 months since our troops were sent 
to Iraq, and today, more than 37 months after the President declared 
``Mission Accomplished,'' our troops are still there.
  Just this week, the President of the United States said this about 
Iraq, and I quote: ``My message to the enemy is don't count on us 
leaving before we succeed. Don't bet on American politics forcing my 
hand, because it is not going to happen.'' Except, Mr. Speaker,

[[Page 11438]]

it is completely unclear what constitutes success or when the mission 
will be accomplished under these circumstances. Saying we will stand 
down when the Iraqis stand up? Well, that is just talking points that 
give the American people no clear guide as to when they can expect this 
war to end.
  By leaving this question vague, by defining success entirely on his 
own terms, the President is allowing himself an open-ended commitment 
and a blank check in Iraq. As for his hand being forced by American 
politics, what the President calls American politics is actually a 
majority of our citizens outraged at the loss of life, the hundreds of 
billions spent, and the global credibility we have squandered.
  The American people, as of this morning, see 2,500 U.S. troops 
killed, more than 18,000 U.S. soldiers gravely wounded, and thousands 
more mentally and physically traumatized from their experience in the 
war. They see the United States losing an equivalent of one battalion 
every month in Iraq, and the American people want answers. They do not 
want partisan resolutions like the one before us today, a resolution 
that does nothing to end this war.
  They see all the sacrifices, Mr. Speaker, and they ask, for what? 
They know none of it is making Americans in Iraqi safer. In fact, the 
presence of nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq has become a 
rallying point for anti-American extremists in the Arab world. The 
people of this country support our troops. They see nothing 
inconsistent about having the deepest contempt for this war while 
expressing the utmost admiration for the soldiers on the front lines.
  Last fall, I traveled to Iraq and I visited with our troops. My 
conversations with them confirmed what I already knew: These are 
uniquely loyal, intelligent, and courageous Americans. If only those 
civilians who are running this war had half the honor and integrity of 
the men and women who are fighting it.
  It is time, Mr. Speaker, this Congress caught up to the American 
people. It is time that the Commander in Chief stepped up by offering a 
solution, instead of dismissing American anxiety as just politics. It 
is time to establish a multilateral security force to keep the peace in 
Iraq while shifting the U.S. role from military occupier to 
reconstruction partner. It is time to give Iraq back to the Iraqis, not 
continuing to occupy the bases, not attempting to control their oil.
  This is what the American people want, Mr. Speaker. They want an end 
to this war. They are not certain exactly how or when, but that is our 
job to execute those details. They are looking to us for leadership. It 
is time this Congress and the President of the United States provided 
the leadership to bring our troops home.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi, a leader on national defense affairs, Mr. 
Wicker.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, what is the status of our effort in Iraq 
today, and where do we go from here?
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle see the situation 
getting worse and worse. I see real progress. I see three successful 
elections, I see the completion of a national unity government, and I 
see the elimination of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. But more than anything 
else, Mr. Speaker, it is the returning troops I talk to who convince me 
that our mission is succeeding and that their sacrifice is 
accomplishing a valuable service for our effort and for our people. I 
haven't surveyed many seventh graders, but the soldiers I see express 
support for what we are doing and frustration over the coverage they 
see in the media.
  Now, as to the question of where we go from here, two things are 
certain: Iraq is ground zero in our global war on terror. And the 
decisions we make will affect U.S. credibility for decades to come.
  Al Qaeda attacked our homeland unprovoked on 9/11, and it is that 
same al Qaeda we fight today in Iraq. We must defeat them there and 
anywhere else until their terrorist threat has ended. But make no 
mistake, this is the same enemy that demolished the World Trade Center 
and attacked the Pentagon.
  Another argument we have heard today is that this war was a mistake 
to begin with; that it was unnecessary; that it was in fact based on a 
lie. This view, of course, ignores the fact that intelligence agencies 
not only in the U.S. but from Israel, Great Britain, Germany, and 
France, to name a few, were unanimous in their conclusions that Iraq 
had weapons of mass destruction. President Bill Clinton and Secretary 
of State Madeleine Albright cautioned that it was a real possibility 
Saddam would use these weapons or share them with terrorists intent on 
attacking the U.S. again.
  But if you think about it, Mr. Speaker, what such an argument really 
advocates is a present day Iraq with Saddam Hussein still in power. 
That would have been the logical result of their point of view. An Iraq 
still ruled by intimidation, humiliation, rape, and torture. A Saddam 
Hussein still free to continue his proven network of chemical and 
biological weapons research. A Saddam Hussein with plans and advanced 
designs for long-range missiles to threaten our allies and our 
interests.
  To some, this may be an acceptable alternative. But it is not to me. 
The world is a better place because Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein, and 
the world will be safer if we maintain our resolve. The administration 
has embarked on a sound plan for freedom and stability in the region 
and for better security for our citizens. Stay the course.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the State of 
Washington, Representative McDermott, 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this debate begins with one fundamental 
truth. We are in Iraq and our leaders have no plan to get us out of 
Iraq.
  The President says U.S. soldiers will stay in harm's way for as long 
as he says so. ``We will stand down,'' our leaders say, ``when the 
Iraqis stand up.'' In other words, Iraqi clerics and the factions they 
control and the decisions they make about whether to cooperate with the 
Iraqi government will determine what we can do. The extent of our 
involvement, the length of our stay, the number of our dead is 
controlled by religious clerics in Iraq because we have no strategy 
except to wait for the Iraqis to stand up.
  Republican leaders in this Chamber say we will stay because Iraq is a 
model of success and it is helping us win the war on terror, as if a 
resolution they alone write will somehow make Iraq the role model for 
projecting U.S. influence around the world.
  Today, the American people say with a growing voice that Iraq was a 
mistake, and staying with no plan or timetable is the wrong course for 
our soldiers and our Nation. The unending war, the permanent bases, the 
fortress embassy we are building all make a powerful argument that our 
involvement in Iraq is more an occupation than a liberation. This 
promotes terrorism. This helps recruit terrorists. It doesn't help end 
the terrorism.
  U.S. soldiers in Iraq are doing an heroic job, but we are not doing 
ours. It is not partisan politics to insist that a nation at war have a 
plan to achieve the peace. The resolution and its backers seem to think 
it is unpatriotic to ask questions and to demand a plan. That is not 
true. Our foreign policy fails when we fail to ask enough questions, 
not too many.
  American soldiers are falling every day, and there is no one, not a 
single person in this House who does not respect and support our 
soldiers. But this resolution is intended to paper over the truth about 
the Iraq war and it does not support our soldiers and will not make a 
difference in winning the war. Our soldiers need and the American 
people expect their leaders to develop a battle plan that will work in 
the field because it is based on military intelligence, not political 
expediency.
  We are in a war and we need a battle plan from the President, not a 
message memo from the House majority leader. War isn't waged by a 
political party nor is it won by political ideology. Iraq needs a 
credible battle plan. There is only one at the moment, and we should be 
debating it.

[[Page 11439]]

  John Murtha put forward a plan 6 months ago and only today are we 
able to discuss it at all, with no ability to alter the resolution 
before us. This is not an honest debate, an honest attempt to seek 
answers for our problems in Iraq. It is a debate about a letter of 
endorsement for the President, not an examination of our options.
  Jack Murtha has emerged with a battle plan, and it is no surprise. He 
is a decorated combat soldier who reflects what the best military minds 
believe. As a veteran myself of the Vietnam era, I must say that Jack 
is a soldier's soldier, a combat hero who has one and only one goal: To 
defend our Nation with the finest military and the best plan.
  Jack has a plan: Strategic redeployment. It is smart, proud, honest 
and effective. You can't win a war with rhetoric and resolutions. You 
win with a thoughtful plan. I support the Murtha resolution that puts 
in place a plan to protect our soldiers, protect American interests in 
the Middle East, and protects American people here at home. It is a 
battle plan that resolves to bring our troops home on a timetable 
driven by the United States, not subject to the approval of Iraqi 
clerics. It is a commitment to secure the peace by being smart about 
the war.
  The American soldiers need a battle plan, not a resolution that 
reflects a bunker mentality of the Republican Party losing its grip on 
political control.
  Two grim things came out of the Pentagon today. When the President 
declared ``mission accomplished,'' 141 people had died. Today, the 
2,500th person died. The other thing that came out was a 74-page 
booklet to help Republicans manage spin control during the Iraq debate 
on the floor. It is called ``The Iraq War Debate Prep Book.''
  The Defense Department is putting out PR pieces. That is an affront 
to the American people. It is not a front on the war. The American 
people want change because the Pentagon under this administration 
distributes PR plans. Debate talking points. What is the military doing 
with that kind of stuff up here on the Hill in this body? We see no 
military plan.
  Support U.S. soldiers by passing Jack Murtha's plan to get out of 
Iraq.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. After September 11th, Mr. Speaker, bin Laden's deputies 
said, ``People of America, your government is leading you into a losing 
battle. Remember, your government was defeated in Vietnam, fled in 
panic from Lebanon, rushed out of Somalia, and slapped across the face 
in Aden. Your government today is leading you into a losing war.''
  And no wonder. Look at our past. November 1979: 52 Americans taken 
hostage at the U.S. embassy in Iran. We had a failed response. April 
1983: 17 Americans killed at our embassy in Beirut. We took no action. 
October 1983: 241 Marines killed, 100 wounded. Our Marines were 
redeployed. April 1988: 259 killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. 
We sought indictments. February 1993: Six killed and a thousand injured 
after the explosion of the first World Trade Center bombing. We took 
them to court. October 1993: 18 U.S. servicemen were killed and 84 
wounded in Somalia. We withdrew our troops. August 1998: 224 killed at 
U.S. embassies. We fired cruise missiles in Afghanistan and Sudan.

                              {time}  1615

  October 2000, 17 U.S. killed and 30 wounded in the USS Cole attack. 
We took no action.
  However, since September 11 we have been much different. We fought 
the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, 
and the U.S. is sending a message to the terrorists and the world, and 
we are different and we will respond.
  Now, there will be disagreements between leaders who are retired and 
current ones. This is part of history. Witness the disagreements 
between Lincoln and McClellan, Patton and Montgomery, MacArthur and 
Truman.
  But now we are having success. Our troops are being redeployed 
outside of the cities of Iraq. We are transferring the battle to Iraqi 
security forces and their police, and now they have a government where 
they must face the scourge of al Qaeda, and we cannot let them face it 
alone.
  I wish we could finish quickly, but I know we cannot finish hastily. 
I think one wounded soldier said it to me, summed it up best, he said, 
I want to go back and finish the job, I want to fight them there, not 
in our suburbs.
  I know we cannot fight them in our courts. I know we cannot fight 
terrorists with our police in our streets. I know surely we cannot 
fight terrorist murderers with diplomacy. Let's finish the job of 
terrorism, then we bring them home.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as a founding member of the Out of Iraq 
Caucus, I rise in strong support of our brave troops and in strong 
support of Congressman Murtha's plan for a responsible redeployment 
from Iraq.
  Americans want the truth about the Iraq war. Americans deserve the 
truth, and despite all the talk from those who declared this war, 
ineptly pursued this war, and still today justify this war, the 
American people in overwhelming numbers have determined for themselves 
the truth about this war.
  Polls taken even after the killing of al Zarqawi show that only 33 
percent of American adults think that the results of the war were worth 
the loss of life and other costs. Only 33 percent approve of the way 
George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. Only 26 percent of 
Americans feel that the United States is better off because of the war.
  The American people in their wisdom have been able to distinguish 
reality from rhetoric. The truth has been a major casualty in the war 
of Iraq.
  It is worth reviewing just a few of the statements presented as truth 
that have been proven to be not true, never true, and still today not 
true:
  Dick Cheney said in August 2002, ``Simply stated, there is no doubt 
that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.''
  In March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said, ``We know where they are. 
They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and 
north somewhat.''
  The President said in May 2003, ``We found the weapons of mass 
destruction.''
  And Donald Rumsfeld on the cost, ``Well the Office of Management and 
Budget has come up with a number that is something under $50 billion 
for the cost. How much of that will be the U.S. burden and how much 
will be other countries is an open question.''
  Dick Cheney said May 30, 2005, ``I think they are in the last throes, 
if you will, of the insurgency.''
  And what happens to those experts who tell the truth? Are they heeded 
and embraced by the Bush administration? Hardly. Although it is now 
universally agreed we didn't have enough troops to avoid the chaos and 
violence after the initial invasion, when the Army's top general, Eric 
Shinseki, testified in February 2003 ``something on the order of 
several hundred thousand soldiers'' would be necessary to achieve 
victory in Iraq,'' he was immediately and publicly repudiated by 
Secretary Rumsfeld who said that ``the idea it would take several 
hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark.'' Shinseki 
was quietly ushered into retirement, and Secretary Rumsfeld remains in 
place leading the failed Bush administration policy in Iraq.
  When Dr. Lawrence Lindsey, former assistant for economic policy to 
the President, told the Wall Street Journal in September 2002 that the 
war's cost could reach $200 billion, he was fired by the President.
  Yet by the end of this year we will have spend $450 billion in Iraq. 
Some say at the end of the day the war will cost $1 trillion taxpayer 
dollars.
  Since the time the President announced on May 1, 2003 that ``major 
combat operations in Iraq have ended,'' more than 2,350 U.S. soldiers 
have lost their lives, and the President has not attended a single one 
of their funerals. And the United States is spending in

[[Page 11440]]

excess of $8 billion a month to wage the war. That is $266 million a 
day, $11 million an hour, $185,000 a minute and $3,100 a second, every 
second for this war. Certainly we could have afforded body armor and 
proper Humvees for our soldiers.
  We could have insured 165 million children for 1 year, provided more 
than 13 million American students with 4-year scholarships at public 
universities, fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years, 
give basic immunization to every child in the world for 92 years, and I 
believe that would have bought us more security than invading Iraq has 
done.
  Our military men and women have done a magnificent job in the Iraq 
theater and deserve better. The civilian leadership in the White House 
and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon have failed. Time after 
time they have been wrong. They projected the cost of the war and got 
it wrong. They predicted the length of the war: wrong. They predicted 
the existence of weapons of mass destruction: wrong. They predicted the 
Iraqi reaction to our occupation: wrong. They got the reconstruction of 
Iraq wrong. When it came to providing needed equipment, they got it 
wrong.
  And who will pay the price for those mistakes? None of the architects 
of this war. No one of them has been held accountable. The only ones 
paying the price are dead and wounded soldiers, our men and women in 
uniform.
  We need a new direction in Iraq. The majority has nothing to offer in 
terms of a plan, just more political ploys, more talk, more mistakes 
like those cited today.
  It is time to redeploy our troops from Iraq. There is a plan, the 
Murtha plan; and we should make sure that we are not establishing a 
permanent military presence there.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, a while ago one of the members of the Armed Services 
Committee said under the rules of the debate today that we can discuss 
anything we want to, debate anything we want to.
  It occurs to me while this is not a proposal for statutory change, it 
is a sense of the House resolution. Under the rules of this debate, may 
I present my amendment to reestablish the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations in the House Armed Services Committee so we may properly 
provide oversight? Is that allowed under the rules of this debate 
today?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Under House Resolution 868, 
the previous question has been ordered on adoption of the resolution 
without intervening amendment.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this debate, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to terrorism and in support of honoring our 
commitments. I rise in support of this resolution.
  It is clear that one-half of those engaged in this debate believe we 
need to get out of Iraq and believe we need to get out soon. In support 
of their position, they cite mistakes that were made leading to the war 
and mistakes that have been made in conducting the war, and they cite 
the recent increase in terrorist attacks and incidents.
  Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, reneging on our commitment to 
defeat terrorism in Iraq now would be a mistake of monumental 
proportions for which future generations would pay and pay deeply.
  Of course mistakes have been made. In every human endeavor, mistakes 
are made. That is the nature of human endeavors.
  I personally am convinced we had too few troops in Iraq when Baghdad 
fell. I joined my colleague John McCain in visiting Iraq. I have been 
there multiple times, and it was obvious to me we needed more troops 
there. I have joined his call for sending more troops repeatedly, and I 
join those who call for sending temporarily more troops now to take 
advantage of the death of Zarqawi as an opportunity to crush the 
insurgents. And no doubt, other mistakes have been made. But whatever 
mistakes have been made, they do not justify cutting and running.
  Recently, a constituent of mine, a Vietnam War helicopter pilot, 
approached me in Phoenix and said, This war is unlike Vietnam. It is 
unlike Vietnam, he explained, because were we to abandon this effort 
without succeeding, make no mistake about it, the consequences would be 
far reaching and disastrous.
  Let's talk about some of those.
  First, it would be a humiliating defeat for the United States. Look 
no further than the words of Osama bin Laden. He said: ``The whole 
world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory 
and glory, or misery and humiliation.''
  Future commitments by the United States could be scoffed at by our 
allies and by our enemies around the world for generations to come. It 
would shatter the trust we have built amongst our allies in the region. 
The newly elected Iraqi Government, and I find it ironic that we are 
having this debate within days of its selection, would collapse and we 
would have the creation of a radical, oil-funded terrorist state. But 
sadly and most importantly, to fail now would establish beyond a shadow 
of a doubt that our brave soldiers, men and women, who gave of their 
lives or who suffered grave injuries that will be with them for the 
remainder of their lives did so in vain.
  Most importantly, it is not necessary. We can succeed, but the path 
to defeating terrorism in Iraq is not surrender; it is resolve. The 
opponents argue that we have suffered recent increases in violence and 
insurgent attacks. The increase in those attacks is not proof that we 
are losing, and it is certainly not proof that we cannot prevail. 
Rather, I submit to you it is proof that the insurgents understood that 
the period leading up to the election of a permanent representative 
government in Iraq was their best chance, and they took their best 
shot. And they failed.
  For all that is rational, for that is honorable, we must not now 
within days of the election of that new permanent government cut and 
run. No, indeed, we must give it an opportunity to do its job, an 
opportunity to succeed.
  Now, those who say that we are losing ignore that by their own 
admission al Qaeda is acknowledging that it is failing in Baghdad. I 
urge us not to cut and run now for our children and for our 
grandchildren.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first let's note what a 
degradation of democracy is taking place here.
  The majority party has put forward a resolution that allows no 
amendment. There will be a debate in which those of us who think some 
things are good and some are bad, contrary to every reasonable 
democratic procedure, will have no opportunity to say so.
  Here is the tactic that is being used: they take a number of things 
that people agree with, they mix in with them things which are quite 
controversial. They treat them as if they were not separable.
  Let me say what I have said again before. The majority party thinks 
the way to legislate is the way you feed a pill to a dog: you take the 
unpalatable with the popular.
  Now I will have to say this: one of the things we are trying to do is 
to persuade the people in Iraq to be able to work together and make 
democracy work. We are trying to persuade, we are told, the Shiia and 
the Sunni to work together. We are trying to tell the majority Shiia to 
share power.
  Mr. Speaker, how can you and your party believe that we inspire 
people to share power by giving the example of its monopolization in an 
abusive fashion?
  I just hope that the members of parliament in Iraq who may hear about 
this will remember a very important point: please do not try this at 
home.
  Now let's get to the substance.
  This war in Iraq came after September 11. It was not the response to 
terrorism the war in Afghanistan was. I am struck in listening to the 
Members on the other side of the aisle that

[[Page 11441]]

Afghanistan appears to have too many syllables for them to pronounce. 
What is in fact happening is that the war in Afghanistan, which was the 
response to the terrorist attack, which was almost unanimously 
supported here and by Democrats in the Senate, is in fact not going as 
well as it should.
  One of the prices we are paying for the war in Iraq is the 
deterioration in Afghanistan. Now, the war in Iraq was launched based 
on a couple of lies we were told. And I am struck to hear people still 
defending the arguments about the weapons of mass destruction. It seems 
my colleagues on the other side have decided to adopt a Marxist idea. 
The Marx in question, of course, is Chico, and the mantra is: Who are 
you going to believe, me or your own eyes? Having been repudiated 
overwhelmingly by the facts, they stick to the rhetoric.
  Here is the price we are paying. We shouldn't have gone in. Of course 
having gone in, we are victimized by one of the most incompetently 
administered examples in American national security history. But here 
is the price we pay: the war in Afghanistan deteriorates our ability to 
protect ourselves at home. Every time you hear that we can't afford 
communications, we can't afford more people at the border, we can't 
afford port security, every time people hear that we can't afford 
something that would enhance our security at home, understand that it 
is the war in Iraq that makes it impossible for this Nation to afford 
it.

                              {time}  1630

  If we did not have these hundreds of billions being drained there, we 
could take care of the agenda.
  Finally, it constrains us elsewhere in the world. It has led to an 
increase in anti-Americanism which I deplore, with which I disagree, 
but it is a fact.
  Our ability to deal with the potential Iranian nuclear weaponry is 
constrained by the fact that we are in Iraq. In fact, the Iranians have 
been among the major beneficiaries of what we have done in Iraq.
  So you went into a war on the basis of two lies. You have handled it 
incompetently. We are now at the point, well, does that mean you pull 
out? And here is the point. You tell us on the one hand that there is 
great success. We have built a government, et cetera, et cetera. But 
also, you tell us simultaneously that if we withdrew American troops 
the house of cards falls. Well, which is it? Have you built a 
successful entity in Iraq? If you have, why can't we pull out? Why 
can't 28 million people in Iraq, with a couple of hundred thousand 
Iraqis under arms deal with 15 or 18,000 terrorists?
  The fact is that this is a failed policy that gets worse every day.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution, the President's plan, and our troops.
  In recent days U.S. and Iraqi forces have dealt terrorists in Iraq a 
decisive blow. The brutal leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu al Zarqawi, 
responsible for untold deaths and inciting widespread unrest has met 
his end, and none too soon, thanks, mainly to our troops, courageous 
men and women in the field who got the job done.
  And let us not forget, Ramzi Yousef, the man who plotted and 
attempted the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center that could have led 
then to tens of thousands of deaths, was an Iraqi intelligence agent.
  And let us remember the great accomplishments of our troops in the 
field. For too long U.S. news media has focused only on the negative 
and has chosen only to report bad stories, stories of terrorist 
attacks. Indeed, for every story that reports heroism and 
accomplishment of our troops in the field, our American news media 
focuses 9 or 10 stories on terrorist attacks and the failings of our 
military. Where our military can accomplish great things over and over 
again, the American news media ignores it and instead looks for a 
negative story to report.
  Well, I want to report on one good story, a great story that shows 
that we are getting the job done and the Iraqi people are with us. And 
indeed, this was reported by our news media. 60 Minutes in March 
reported about our efforts in a town called Tal Afar. In 2005, al Qaeda 
ran the town of Tal Afar in Iraq. It is a great example of how our U.S. 
troops can get the job done. Prior to the U.S. victory there, al Qaeda 
had unleashed a reign of terror on Iraqis that defies adequate 
description. Decapitated heads were left in the streets to intimidate 
residents. Decapitated children were often left in the streets by 
terrorists to bait their parents to come in so they could kill them. 
Terrorists roamed the streets, kidnapping and publicly executing 
people.
  For 3 days in 2005, U.S. troops led the successful assault on Tal 
Afar to liberate innocent men, women and children from their terrorist 
captors. Thanks to our brave soldiers, schools in Tal Afar are now 
open. And once terrified Iraqi citizens are now able to shop, travel 
the streets openly, go outside their homes.
  And as 60 Minutes noted, some of our American soldiers involved in 
the liberation of that town now have throngs of Iraqi children follow 
them admir-
ingly in the streets.
  Mr. Speaker, Tal Afar is just one example of the great job we are 
doing there. There are many, many more. We need to stay the course, not 
cut and run.
  I support the resolution.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and 
I agree with most of what has been said.
  I support the Murtha proposal for an immediate and orderly 
redeployment. There is one subject I would like to raise which has not 
been discussed very much here, however, and that is the role of the 
American oil barons who have contributed greatly to the colossal mess 
of the war in Iraq.
  Our troops today are as good as they were when they were labeled the 
greatest generation and defeated Hitler. But in Iraq, today's 
counterparts of Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, the Colin Powells, the 
John Murthas, they were not allowed to take charge. Lust for control of 
the oil made the oil barons push everyone capable of carrying out a 
reasonable destruction of Saddam Hussein aside. This administration 
encouraged the oil barons to overrule the military professionals.
  Lust for oil is still the problem. Seldom discussed in America, but 
very much on the minds of the people of Iraq. We cannot succeed as long 
as the ordinary Iraqi people see us as oil thieves responsible for the 
terror and their day-to-day misery.
  We went into Iraq fighting fanatics, fighting Saddam Hussein and his 
oligarchy of brutal, decadent killers. No great crowds greeted our 
troops with flowers. But there is good reason to believe that the 
masses of citizens were hoping for some real improvements. But we 
guarded only the oil wells, while the water systems and the electricity 
grids collapsed.
  As the people observed our preoccupation with oil, the insurgency 
began to grow. The leadership of the oil barons could not run a 
country, and they could not manage an occupation.
  Oil revenues must be addressed in order to regain the confidence of 
the Iraqi masses. We need a transparent, open, full discussion of what 
are the arrangements that have been proposed, what is being proposed or 
what contracts are already in place.
  Chevron, BP, Exxon, they are there. Contracts have been written. Is 
there a committee in this House or a subcommittee that knows what kinds 
of contracts have been written? What will the Iraqi people have left 
after these contracts are executed? They were executed before the 
government was in place.
  Oil is the greatest resource that Iraq has, of course. They are 
number four among the nations of the world. To what degree is 
Halliburton going to control the revenues as their payment for 
reconstruction of some of the oil wells? To what degree are the foreign 
oil companies going to control revenue because of their arrangements 
for the

[[Page 11442]]

pipelines and the shipping and retail outlets? What is going to happen 
to the oil? These are the questions that the Iraqi people are asking. 
Everybody in every section of the country wants to know how are the oil 
revenues going to be distributed? If I live in a province where there 
is no oil, will my area benefit?
  These questions need to be answered honestly. Congress must seize the 
initiative from the American oil barons and demand justice for the 
Iraqi citizens. The oil belongs to them.
  We must win their trust and separate the masses of the Iraqi people 
from the fanatical murderers. Follow the logic of the Murtha 
resolution. Give the people control of their oil revenues and get out 
of Iraq. We can do that when we have the trust of the Iraqi people.
  When the Iraqi people have their own revenues, they can equip their 
own police forces. They can take charge of their government in a 
competent way. They don't need us, and they will be less likely to join 
hands with the insurgents and protect the fanatical murderers that have 
now found greater receptivity in the population than ever before.
  Get out of the Iraq. Give the people control of their oil revenues.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished 
member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. 
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, especially after my recent visit, that 
progress is being made in Iraq. But much of that would be lost if we 
prematurely remove our troops before the Iraqi people are fully capable 
of governing and securing their own country.
  Success in the global war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is the 
defining challenge of our generation, whether some war opponents like 
it or not.
  Bin Laden's deputy has declared Iraq to be the place for the greatest 
battle, where he hopes to expel the Americans and then spread the jihad 
wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq. Such statements reaffirm 
why withdrawing our troops would be a disaster for the future of Iraq.
  Our own national security can actually embolden those who hate our 
way of life to further harm us. A premature withdrawal or premature 
deployment home would represent a clear defeat for American interests, 
not just in Iraq, but in the wider region around the globe. Terrorists 
everywhere would take heart at this serious blow to our credibility.
  Frankly, if we were to abandon the Iraqis now, who in the world would 
openly assist us in the global war on terror? What country would allow 
our military to deploy and operate on its territory? Worse yet, who 
would dare to be seen as our partner, ally or friend?
  As even the Washington Post said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in its lead 
editorial, Iraq's new democratic government deserves a chance to 
succeed. And yes, this is the time to support our brave young 
warfighters, who are truly doing the work of freedom, and not undercut 
their service and sacrifice.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I might offer that I am 
proudly a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus out of a duty and a sense of 
patriotism and love of my country. And so this is a very somber debate.
  And I remind my colleagues of the very tense moments of the 
presentation of Secretary Powell before the United Nations. All of us 
were in a sense of awe, listening to the devastating evidence of why we 
should go to Iraq. So I come to this podium today with a very heavy 
heart because we are constrained, not Members of Congress, we are of no 
relevance, but the American people are constrained in not allowing a 
debate or dissent. That is what we are showing here today, that we can 
have no dissent, we can have no recognition that Democrats and others, 
we do have a plan.
  And so, on the birthday of the Army, I want to salute the Army. Mr. 
Murtha, I want to salute you for your service and your plan. And I want 
to salute all of the United States military. And might I say that our 
soldiers are doing their job. They have done their job. And out of 
doing their job, the casualties are some 19,000, and today, I am very 
sad to say that 2,500 of them are now dead.
  And so I come with a heavy heart to suggest that there are myths that 
we need to overcome. And one of them is that there is something called 
``cut and run.'' It is not ``cut and run.'' It is the opportunity of 
involvement, debate and patriotism, a belief that we can put forward a 
plan that the American people will believe in.
  The Bush Iraq policy has harmed the United States military, and I 
might say that I am glad to stand with a retired Marine Lieutenant 
General, Gregory Newbold, who says, ``my sincere view is that the 
commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a 
swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to 
execute these missions or bury the results.''
  And so I come again to suggest that no, there is no ``cut and run.'' 
There is reality. A Pentagon commission study concluded that the Army 
cannot maintain its current pace of operation in Iraq without doing 
permanent damage to the quality of the force.
  We realize that the large and extended deployment of the National 
Guard units overseas has undermined the ability of the United States to 
deal with terrorist attacks or natural disasters. We realize that 
resources are being diverted and, therefore, we are not able to fight 
the global war on terror.
  I don't want my friends to pigeonhole us. We want a debate and a plan 
to save lives, and we want a free, independent and democratic Iraq. 
That can happen with a new change, a new day, Democrats and others, who 
believe in leading this country to a new future.
  I don't want the same old plan, and I am not ashamed of saying so. 
That is why I am here to open the doors to dissent, tell the American 
people to come marching into the United States Congress. Don't let us 
talk for you. You want redeployment. You want the troops out. You don't 
believe the Democrats believe in ``cut and run.'' You understand that 
the General, Lieutenant General, has said we are careful about this 
war. Come home.
  Murtha plan, the Out of Iraq Caucus is proud of our patriotic stand.
  Thank you Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise 
to speak on H.R. 861, a resolution which declares that the ``United 
States will prevail in the Global War on Terrorism.'' I believe that it 
is the resolve of all Members of this House and of all Americans. But 
to prevail in the global war on terrorism, we must remain focused on 
the global war on terrorism, and not allow ourselves to be diverted or 
distracted.
  Unfortunately, we have been distracted from waging a full-scale, all-
out global war on terrorism by the President's fateful decision to go 
to war in Iraq. Before and after 9/11, Iraq was not a part of the 
global war on terror, much less the central front. It only became so 
when the President launched his ill-advised preemptive attack.
  I am proud to be among the majority of House Democrats who voted 
against the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force, AUMF, in 
2002, which authorized the President to use military force to disarm 
Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, WMD. I voted against 
going to war in Iraq because I thought it a diversion from the 
important task facing the Nation and that was winning the global war on 
terror. History has shown that we were right. The ill-advised rush to 
war in Iraq has not only been a diversion from the war on terror but a 
strategic disaster of epic proportions. As Thomas Jefferson would say, 
to prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world.

         (I) The Bush Iraq Policy Has Harmed the U.S. Military

  We just learned today the sad news that the 2,500th soldier has been 
killed in Iraq. More than 19,000 others have been wounded. The Bush 
administration's open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq has 
weakened the U.S. Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserves. 
The extended deployments in Iraq have eroded U.S. ground forces and 
overall military strength. A Pentagon-commissioned study concluded that 
the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without 
doing permanent damage to the quality of

[[Page 11443]]

the force. So more than 3 years of a continuous deployment of U.S. 
troops to Iraq has:
  Contributed to serious problems with recruitment, with the U.S. Army 
missing its recruitment targets last year;
  Forced the Army to lower its standards for military recruits; and
  Led to military equipment shortages that hamper the ability of U.S. 
ground forces to do their job in Iraq and around the world.
  The large and extended deployment of National Guard units overseas 
has undermined the ability of the United States to deal with terrorist 
attacks or natural disasters. For example, State officials in Louisiana 
and Mississippi struggled to overcome the absence of National Guard 
members from their States in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In 
Louisiana, about 100 of the National Guard's high-water vehicles remain 
abroad--even as the State continues to rebuild from Hurricane Katrina. 
Coastal North Carolina is missing nearly half its Humvee fleet, and 
Guard officials there say shortages have forced the State to pool 
equipment from different units into one pot of hurricane supplies.
  In addition, the equipment the Guard needs to help in the aftermath 
of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina is in shorter supply 
because the gear is in use in combat zones, is battle-damaged, or has 
been loaned to cover gaps in other units.
  (1) War in Iraq has diverted resources and attention from other 
fronts in the fight against global terrorist networks.
  The killing of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi last week was a major success for 
U.S. troops, but it is not likely to diminish Iraq's insurgency. Iraqis 
make up 90 percent of Iraq's insurgency, unlike foreign fighters like 
Zarqawi, and a primary motivation for Iraq's insurgency is the U.S. 
troop presence. Even after the Samarra shrine attack in February 
threatened to push Iraq into all-out sectarian civil war, the vast 
majority of attacks still target U.S. forces.
  Outside of Iraq, the Bush administration has failed to present a 
realistic strategy for countering the threat posed by the global terror 
networks. In a recent survey of more than 100 of America's leading 
foreign policy experts conducted by Foreign Policy magazine and the 
Center for American Progress, eight in 10--84 percent--do not think 
that the United States is winning the war on terror. The war in Iraq 
has not helped America win the broader fight against global terrorists. 
Instead:
  By invading Iraq without a realistic plan to stabilize the country, 
thei Bush administration created a new terrorist haven where none had 
previously existed.
  By maintaining an open-ended military presence in Iraq, the Bush 
administration is presenting U.S. terrorist enemies with a recruitment 
tool and rallying cry for organizing attacks against the U.S. and its 
allies.
  According to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the number of 
large-scale terrorist attacks in Iraq increased by over 100 between 
2004 and 2005, with a total 8,299 civilians killed in 2005.
  Osama bin Laden remains at large and Al Qaeda offshoots proliferate.
  By diverting resources and attention from Afghanistan to an 
unnecessary war of choice in Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration has 
left Afghanistan exposed to a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. 
The United States needs to complete the mission in Afghanistan and 
cannot do it with so many troops bogged down in Iraq.
  By focusing so many U.S. resources on Iraq, the Bush administration 
has taken its eye off the ball in places like Somalia, which was 
overrun by Islamist militias tied to Al Qaeda last week.
  (2) The War in Iraq has increased the burden on U.S. taxpayers 
without stabilizing Iraq or making Americans safer.
  Over the last 3 years, the United States has spent more than $300 
billion in Iraq, yet the investment has failed to stabilize Iraq or 
improve the overall quality of life for most Iraqis. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, total assistance to Iraq thus far is 
roughly equivalent to total assistance, adjusted for inflation, 
provided to Germany--and almost double that provided to Japan from 1946 
to 1952. Yet on key metrics like oil production, Iraq has failed to 
advance beyond pre-war levels, and quality of life indicators remain 
dismal:
  Oil production is below pre-war levels--2.6 million barrels per day 
in 2003 vs. 2.1 million barrels per day in May 2006;
  The majority of water sector projects and health care clinics planned 
in 2003 remain not completed, despite spending hundreds of millions of 
dollars;
  One in three Iraqi children is malnourished and underweight, 
according to the United Nations Children's Fund.
  Rather than a record of progress and achievement, the Bush 
administration's record is one of corruption and waste:
  $8.8 billion given to Iraqi ministries by the Coalition Provisional 
Authority, CPA, remains unaccounted for, according to the Congressional 
Research Service;
  Iraqi Defense Ministry officials spent $1 billion on questionable 
arms purchases;
  The Interior Ministry has at least 1,100 ghost employees, costing 
$1.3 million a month.
  In short, we have no strategy, no support from allies or friends in 
the region, a nascent civil war in the country we are supposed to be 
helping, an overstretched military, a misdirected counterterrorism 
effort, and a massive diversion of funds in support of a failed effort.

         (II) Responding to Administration Myths and Fantasies

  The Bush administration and its rubber-stamp Republican allies in the 
House have politicized national security in the past. They have used 
national security as a wedge issue to divide the country and push for 
policies that have not made Americans safer. But today a majority of 
Americans are now skeptical about the Bush administration's Iraq 
policy.
  Myth 1: Democrats want to quit while we are ahead and the Iraqis are 
just getting started.
  Conservatives argue that Democrats who criticize and offer 
alternatives are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, retreating 
just as the Iraqi Government needs the most help.
  Fact: The time has come for the United States to give Iraqis the 
incentive to stand on their own two feet and take control of their own 
affairs. In a few short months, the U.S. military involvement in Iraq 
will be longer than it took the United States to win World War II. The 
open-ended commitment of U.S. troops fuels as much as it retards the 
insurgency and civil conflict in Iraq. Nearly 9 in 10 Iraqis approve a 
time line for U.S. withdrawal, and 70 percent of the Iraqi public 
supports the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces by the end of 2007. A 
growing number of Iraqis, including the new prime minister, are saying 
that Americans must begin to leave.
  U.S. troops have done their share. By getting rid of Saddam Hussein, 
they have given Iraqis an historic opportunity to take charge of their 
destiny.
  By fostering the birth of the constitution and the holding of 
elections, they have assisted in the building of a new democracy. They 
have trained more than a quarter of a million Iraqi security forces. It 
would be self-defeating for the United States to want Iraq to succeed 
more than Iraqis do.
  Myth 2: Democrats offer only ``cut and run'' and ``retreat and 
defeat.''
  Facts: Belittling opponents will not divert attention from a failed 
policy. Staying the course and offering a vague and open-ended 
commitment of U.S. troops gives Iraqis a blank check and a veto of 
America's national security.
  The future of Iraq cannot be more sacred to Americans than to Iraqis. 
Responsible redeployment offers Iraqis a chance to take responsibility 
for their political and security future after we have already aided in 
the creation of a new constitution, the staging of two elections, and 
the training of a quarter of a million security forces.
  Myth 3: Democrats who raise questions and oppose the Bush Iraq policy 
are unpatriotic.
  Over the past 3 years, the Bush administration has questioned the 
patriotism of its critics.
  Facts: Our country's democratic system requires the active 
involvement of Congress on key policy questions--particularly at a time 
of war. The United States has a strong tradition of its Congress asking 
tough questions. During a time of war, including the hearings organized 
by Democratic Senators like Senator Harry Truman during World War II 
and Senator William Fulbright during Vietnam, even though the White 
House was controlled by Democrats.
  It is the patriotic duty of Members of Congress to hold the executive 
branch accountable, especially during a time of war. Two prominent 
Vietnam war veterans, Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat John Murtha, 
have recently argued that it is unpatriotic not to raise questions in a 
time of war. America suffers when Congress and the public are silent.
  Myth 4: Democrats reject the Bush administration's efforts to advance 
freedom.
  Facts: The Bush plan for Iraq is solidly grounded in a flawed view of 
combating terrorism, arguing that promoting a narrow vision of 
democracy will crowd out and defeat terrorists.
  The United States must and should support real democratic transitions 
around the world. But the Bush administration's naive approach to 
democracy promotion--narrowly focused on elections--has failed by 
giving terrorist organizations an opening to seize the reins of power, 
as seen by the Hamas victory in the

[[Page 11444]]

Palestinian elections earlier this year. Terrorists have been 
exploiting the Bush administration's flawed and narrow strategy focused 
on the most ostensible images of democracy, like purple fingers in 
elections.
  Despite impressive gains in Iraq's political transition, the country 
remains in the very early and fragile stages of a long-term process of 
building a real democracy. Contrary to the rhetoric put forth by the 
Bush administration, Iraqis do not live in freedom, according to 
Freedom House, which measures trends in political rights and civil 
liberties over the past three decades. The rights of women and 
minorities are not protected; the rule of law is honored more in the 
breach than the observance; and political violence remains rampant. 
Despite much work left undone, the Bush administration has cut funding 
for programs to support freedom and democracy in Iraq this year.
  Myth 5: Democrats who criticize the Bush policy hurt the morale of 
the troops.
  The Bush administration and its conservative allies have said that 
offering criticisms and concrete policy alternatives on Iraq hurts the 
morale of U.S. troops.
  Facts: There is no evidence that debate at home has any effect at all 
on the morale of troops. But other factors directly impact the lives of 
U.S. troops and morale--including going to war without the equipment 
and armor, not having a realistic strategy for Iraq and not taking care 
of the troops after they come home.
  Not equipping the troops. When asked by a soldier in the field why 
U.S. troops did not have the right armor for their vehicles, Secretary 
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, ``As you know, you have to go to war 
with the Army you have, not the Army you want.'' Iraq was a war of 
choice, and the Bush administration had time to get ready.
  Not taking care of the troops when they come home. The Bush 
administration has not developed policies to take care of the troops 
when they return from battle. Health care has proven inadequate, and 
wounded veterans have been hounded by debt collectors because of 
inefficiencies in the Pentagon's administrative systems.
  Myth 6: Democrats who oppose the Bush Iraq policy are ignoring and 
not listening to the generals.
  Facts: It is the Bush administration that has failed to listen to top 
U.S. generals before and during the invasion by not sending enough 
troops to stabilize the country. It is Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld 
who has constrained free expression in the military by firing or 
forcing out those who disagree.
  Nonetheless, even the current commanding officers argue that the 
United States needs to take realistic steps to reduce its military 
presence to remove the fuel that fires the insurgency. For example, in 
October 2005, GEN John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command 
Forces, argued that the United States must reduce its ``military 
footprint'' in Iraq and the region as a means to create more stability, 
but President Bush has continued to stick with a ``stay the course'' 
message.
  Myth 7: Democrats who criticize the Bush Iraq policy are helping the 
terrorists and giving them what they want.
  The Bush administration has argued that questioning its plan 
emboldens America's terrorist enemies, an unconstitutional argument 
aimed solely at shutting off real debate at home. Harkening back to 
2002, when Bush officials warned that people should ``watch what they 
say,'' President Bush and top officials in his administration have 
warned against ``irresponsible'' debate to limit and control democratic 
political debate at home, even while the Bush administration purports 
to advance democracy abroad.
  Facts: Bush policies at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib do more to 
undermine our place in the world than any words spoken by 
administration critics. The Bush administration policies that coerce 
rather than create cooperation through dialogue and common purpose 
undermine how others view us. A new poll by the Pew Research Center 
finds that America's image has slipped further, and global support has 
declined for the U.S.-led war on terrorism.
  Myth 8: Democrats prefer a world with Saddam Hussein still in charge 
of Iraq.
  Facts: Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, and it is a good thing 
that he is no longer in power. But that is not the key question today. 
The key question is: Where is Iraq now, and where does it go from here? 
And the many mistakes made by the Bush administration--including 
sending in too few troops to secure the country and invading without a 
clear and realistic plan for Iraq's reconstruction--have made the 
situation in Iraq much worse off than it should have been.
  Iraq has become a failing state and is suffering from several major 
internal conflicts--in large part the consequence of the Bush 
administration's failure to plan for the post-war situation. And moving 
forward requires Iraqis, not Americans, to be in charge of the future.
  Myth 9: Democrats just want to criticize and politicize Iraq and do 
not have plans about what to do.
  Facts: This is simply not true. A growing number of leading Democrats 
and other progressive leaders have offered sensible alternative visions 
about what the United States should do next to set the right course in 
Iraq. Nearly all progressive plans recognize that the United States 
must intensify its political and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and that 
the commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq should not be permanent or open-
ended.

                               Conclusion

  Mr. Chairman, I close by quoting from the Declaration of Independence 
and the motto of the U.S. Army, which marks its 231st anniversary 
today. It may seem odd to quote the two together. But I do so because 
real patriots have courage--courage to face the truth and the courage 
to speak truth even when it is unpopular. The Declaration of 
Independence, with its affirmation of the inalienable human rights to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gave patriots the courage 
to fight for a cause that was just but at the time thought by most to 
be unattainable. A motto of the U.S. Army is ``We will not falter, we 
will not fail.''
  The war in Iraq does not help us in the global war on terror. There 
are only two directions to take in Iraq: President Bush's plan of 
staying the course and letting a future President clean up the mess, or 
the Murtha plan to change the direction of that course. I stand with 
Representative Murtha in calling for the redeployment of U.S. forces 
from Iraq to make our country safer, our military stronger, and the 
region more stable. I support the Murtha plan. It is the only plan for 
success in Iraq that is worthy of the sacrifices made by our troops. 
And I support a plan for greater coalition support for Iraq as it moves 
to protecting itself as a soverign nation.
  Our troops in Iraq have never faltered and they have never failed. 
They were never defeated in battle. They won the war they were sent to 
fight. They completed their mission. They performed magnificently. Well 
done. Well done. Well done.
  Our troops have earned the right to return home and be reunited with 
their families and loved ones. Now is not the time for us in Congress 
to falter or fail. Now is the time to embrace a plan for our troops in 
Iraq that offers a chance of success. We need a plan that will work. 
There is only one such plan. It is the Murtha plan that allows for 
redeployment of our troops as soon as practicable and allows for 
redeployment of troops at the perimeter of Iraq to be used in time of 
crisis. This is a plan that will work.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the resolution. In my capacity as chairman of the Veterans Affairs 
Subcommittee on Health, I was fortunate enough to visit the American 
cemetery in Normandy, France that is located overlooking Omaha Beach. 
Our brave soldiers during World War II were in France not to fight the 
French, but to fight the Nazis that had occupied France.
  Today our soldiers are not in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the 
citizens of those countries, but we are there to fight the insurgents 
and the Taliban. In listening to the debate today, it reminded me of my 
visit and reading some of the names of the brave soldiers that fought 
for our Nation during World War II.
  Mr. Speaker, there are over 9,300 patriots buried in Normandy today. 
Those brave souls fought in a war against the forces of evil then, just 
as our soldiers in Iraq are fighting against the forces of evil today.

                              {time}  1645

  What would have happened back then if America had pulled out of the 
World War II before the mission was accomplished? What kind of world 
would we be living in today?
  As many of my colleagues have done, I have personally visited Iraq. I 
have seen the progress, and I have seen the good job that our brave men 
and women are doing for us and for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. 
I was

[[Page 11445]]

proud to sit down and share a meal with many soldiers from South 
Carolina's First District. And the question that many of our soldiers 
kept asking me was ``Why are none of the good stories making it back to 
the folks back home?''
  Mr. Speaker, I think many of us today are trying to share some of the 
good stories and recognize all of the positive things that our soldiers 
in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing for us.
  The good news is that now women in Afghanistan are able to vote in 
democratic elections for the first time in their lives. The good news 
is that Iraqi citizens are now able to protest and let their opinions 
be heard in public.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I represent the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I 
support the Murtha resolution.
  This war of choice so far has cost us the lives of close to 2,500 
American men and women, let alone tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and 
has cost us $320 billion and has weakened the United States' prestige 
and brought our interests and our values into question to a degree not 
seen since the Berlin Wall divided Europe.
  It is our failure here in Congress to perform our duty of oversight 
which has cost America most. From the beginning of the march to war, 
the President and his advisers blundered into failure after failure. 
False claims about African uranium and mobile anthrax labs. Unlikely 
claims of Saddam's leaks to al Qaeda. Stubbornly ignoring the advice of 
the uniformed military about troop levels. Turning a blind eye to the 
venal corruption that swallowed $9 billion of Iraqi money, U.N. Oil-
for-Food money, without a trace. Shame on us.
  Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers in their wisdom gave us a 
mechanism, a defense against tyranny called congressional oversight, 
and it is about time we start doing our duty to the American people by 
performing that oversight. While I welcome this debate, it is a poor 
substitute for what we really should have been doing.
  I call upon you to withdraw this empty resolution, this meaningless, 
self-congratulatory, fraudulent scam and let us work together to 
examine our mistakes, fix them, and bring our troops home. Let Iraqis 
rebuild their own nation.
  The President says we need to stay in Iraq until the mission is 
complete, but the President cannot explain to the American people 
exactly what the mission is, let alone tell us when he expects to 
complete it.
  Let us take credit towards victory by sighting the completion of a 
democratic government in Iraq and killing the biggest terrorist there, 
claim these as a victory, and keep our word by honorably deploying our 
forces. Three and a half years is hardly cutting and running.
  We all share the same dream that the Iraqi people do. We want them to 
live in peace in a secure and prosperous society where they are free to 
choose their government. But the presence of our troops and our 
occupation of Iraq has become such an obstacle to that future that we 
can no longer ignore reality. How can we win a war against terrorism 
when terrorism is a concept? You must change the hearts and the minds 
to succeed.
  So let us work together to bring our courageous troops home and put 
an end to this devastating war of choice.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that I would speak on 
this issue. I do support this resolution, but more than that, I would 
like to remind people why we are here.
  There are not many in this room, but there are a few that remember 
1939. I lived in that era and I listened to people speak about 
``Hitler's really not a bad guy. He's just minding his own business. 
He's taking care of his people. We shouldn't be involved.'' Fifty-two 
million people later, we won World War II. We should have knocked him 
in the head when we had a chance instead of listening to Chamberlain, 
the Prime Minister of Britain. We should have aggressively pursued him 
as we did Saddam Hussein. In my heart of hearts, I believe that we 
would be, in fact, in a nuclear war if we had allowed him to continue 
his trek.
  But this President stood up and he was a leader and he stopped it. 
Now we have done that deed and we are in a place where we should 
continue and finish this job.
  Someone said this is not a cut and run, that we have been there 3\1/
2\ years. But I ask you to ask your military people, ask those people 
out at Walter Reed, as I have. Most of them are proud of their service 
and their duty. And I salute each one of them, him or her, and the 
commanding officers who fulfilled their duty.
  If you believe in democracy and believe in peace, we must continue 
this trip that we started. We must finish it and make sure that 
democracy reigns in the Middle East. If we do not do so, we would a do 
a great disservice to our armed services and America as a whole. 
Remember, ``He's really not a bad guy. He's just minding his own 
business. It's his country.'' Fifty-two million people later, the war 
was ended. Our people, their people. And I do not want to have that 
happen again.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, Representative Solis.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops and in 
opposition to the President's stay the course in Iraq.
  The war in Iraq was under taken with too few troops, not enough of 
the right equipment, and no plan for peace. Without a plan to secure 
the peace, 2,500 servicemen and women have been killed, including 10 in 
my district: Private First Class Jose Casanova, Jr., age 23; Lance 
Corporal Manuel Ceniceros, age 23; Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez 
Flores, age 21; Lance Corporal Benjamin Gonzalez, age 23; Corporal 
Jorge Gonzalez, age 20; Sergeant Atanacio Haromarin, age 27; Specialist 
Leroy Harris-Kelly III, age 20; Corporal Stephen Johnson, age 24; 
Corporal Rudy Salas, age 20; Marine Corporal Carlos Arellano, age 22.
  I have celebrated their sacrifices and mourned their passing with 
their families: with their parents, with their spouses, and with their 
children.
  Eighteen thousand four hundred and ninety servicemen and women have 
been injured during the war in Iraq, 8,501 so badly they will be 
permanently damaged from their injuries. I have visited with many of 
them at the Walter Reed Hospital.
  And even with more veterans returning from Iraq, President Bush 
refuses to provide adequate funding for their health care. At a time 
when more than 17 percent of the troops returning from Iraq suffer from 
post-traumatic stress disorder, this is the wrong course of action.
  No one can question the commitment of our troops, especially our 
green card soldiers like Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores, who 
was granted posthumous citizenship but could not realize the beauty of 
our citizenship because he was not granted that before he died.
  Since 9/11, 25,000 servicemembers have become U.S. citizens. Despite 
the commitment and sacrifices of thousands of green card soldiers and 
their families, many in this House are not willing to provide them with 
support because they lack documentation.
  Mr. Speaker, amid the doubt and anger I have expressed about the war, 
I have never ever questioned the commitment of our troops to this 
Nation. They deserve a real plan to secure the peace so that they can 
be redeployed, and I wholeheartedly support the Murtha plan.
  American taxpayers, Members, deserve accountability for the $17 
billion in no-bid contracts for Halliburton and real measures to 
protect the homeland and our port security. The Bush administration has 
failed to fulfill its responsibilities to our troops, veterans, and all 
Americans. This resolution fails them.
  It is a sad day when this resolution is the only thing that can be 
offered for our servicemen and women. Francisco

[[Page 11446]]

Martinez Flores did not die in vain. He deserves the very best. The 
American people deserve a real debate.
  Bring our troops home and no permanent bases in Iraq.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the families of East 
Texas, especially those with loved ones serving overseas, I strongly 
support this resolution.
  Despite what the national media portray, the inconvenient truth is 
this: Terrorists have been attacking America freely for more than two 
decades. We should have learned we cannot push America's security 
forward by retreating from terrorism. We cannot strengthen the world by 
weakening our resolve, and we cannot support our troops by belittling 
them at every turn.
  It is clear to all but perhaps us that the terrorists' strategy is 
not to defeat America in Iraq. They cannot do that. Their strategy is 
to defeat America in America. They are counting on the American public 
to lose its will and for Washington politicians to undermine the morale 
and support of our troops overseas.
  The truth is if America quits, if America turns back now, no nation, 
no community will be safe from terrorism again. Terrorists will learn 
that they can wait us out one public opinion poll at a time. And the 
next time America is attacked, the next time innocent people die and we 
vow justice, who will believe us then? Who will support us then?
  I stand with the President. We must persist in Iraq and Afghanistan 
until these nations are no longer safe havens for terrorism. We have 
``taken the hill'' against the terrorists. Too many Americans have 
sacrificed their lives for us to give it back now. Americans like Chief 
Warrant Officer Chuck Forten-
berry of Woodville, Lance Corporal Shane Goodman of Orange, Staff 
Sergeant Christopher Everett of Huntsville, Specialist Michael Weger of 
Spring, and Specialist Hoby Bradfield of The Woodlands, among many.
  Our troops have proven they will not quit. The question is will we? 
Our troops know what is at stake. The question is do we?
  Let us not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Let us put aside 
our partisan politics and unite until terrorism is truly and soundly 
defeated.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, Representative Kaptur.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding and for her leadership on a real strategy against terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. It 
contains no plan, no solution, no way forward. I support the Murtha 
plan, which clearly aims to more strategically engage U.S. forces to 
redeploy and be ready.
  Indeed, the invasion in Iraq has diverted our Nation from the war on 
terrorism and created a new terrorist training platform. Across the 
Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, United States 
policy has engendered more hatred, yielding a counter-reaction of more 
radicalism and protest.
  In Egypt, the most populous Arab nation and a key ally in the Middle 
East and Africa, recent parliamentary elections yielded a quantum leap 
in representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical anti-Western 
party. This group now comprises 88 members of their parliament, up 
nearly 25 percent from 17 in the 2000 election.
  In the Palestinian Authority, the peace process with Israel is dead. 
Rather than parties moving toward peace with Israel, we witness another 
tragic breakdown as Fatah and Hamas mass in the streets and Israelis 
and Palestinians shoot and kill with abandon.
  Mogadishu, Somalia has just fallen into the hands of Muslim 
extremists. That failed state is another breeding ground for terrorism.
  In Afghanistan more loss of life has resulted this year than at any 
time since the U.S.-led invasion and President Karzai remains a 
prisoner of circumstance, unable to move freely without heavily armed 
guards.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not winning the war on terrorism. The situation 
in Iraq teeters on all-out civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiias.

                              {time}  1700

  To win the war on terrorism, the United States must use our military 
assets wisely, not just robustly. We must transfer policing to Iraqi 
forces and remove ourselves as a source of friction.
  Secondly, we must decouple ourselves from the repressive oil 
dictatorships that create regional antagonisms there and become energy 
independent here at home.
  And, thirdly, the Palestinian-Israeli standoff must be elbowed to the 
peace table, because it is a primary lightning rod for unrest across 
the region.
  Our current presence in Iraq is counterproductive in the broader war 
on terrorism. Meanwhile, diplomatic channels are totally frozen by this 
administration. Unfortunately, this resolution offers no plan. It 
offers no solution. It offers no way forward.
  This Congress should support the Murtha plan for our military forces, 
redeploy and be ready.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself the remainder of 
the time allocated to the Intelligence Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the first 5 hours of 
this debate, trying to listen carefully to each speaker. And it seems 
to me that some people try, as best they can, to isolate Iraq from the 
rest of the war on terror.
  Now, that may be politically convenient for them to do, but it is not 
what the real world is like. As a matter of fact, it was not long ago 
that we found a letter from Zawahari, Osama's number two, to Zarqawi in 
Iraq talking about tactics.
  Just as the Cold War had several battles across the globe, the war on 
terrorism has several battlefields across the globe. And I believe that 
it is clear from their own words, the terrorists see Iraq as the 
central front in our war against them now and into the future.
  Secondly, we seem to have a lot of armchair strategists who want to 
redeploy this way or redeploy that way, because they say nothing is 
going right. I would recommend they read the document found this 
morning, or released this morning, that was found in Zarqawi's house.
  It says that things are going pretty well for us, and not so well for 
them. I think it is a little early to give up.
  Thirdly, there are a lot of people who want to debate the procedures 
or debate Congress's job or debate past decisions. And it is true, 
history will have to pass judgment on decisions that the military 
commanders and the President and the Congress have made in the past. 
They will do so when the air of partisanship has faded.
  But the truth is, however you feel about where we are, we are where 
we are. And the question is, do we leave a job half done? Do we leave 
early, and leave those Iraqis who are willing to put their lives on the 
line by being part of the government or part of the police force or 
part of the military, do we abandon them when they are trying to build 
a country? I think that would be a mistake.
  In fact, I think to retreat at this point, whether you call it a 
strategic retreat, a strategic redeployment, or whatever word you want 
to use to back up now, will only embolden the terrorists. We have seen 
time after time, when they sense political vacillation, they strike. 
They struck in Istanbul in 2003, in Madrid in 2004, in London in 2005.
  Where they sense weakness, it is like an animal. Where they sense 
fear, they attack. We have got to do better and make sure we win this 
war.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric on the other side of 
the aisle, ground zero on the global war on terror is not, never was 
Iraq. It was Afghanistan; 9/11, it was planned in Afghanistan by Osama 
bin Laden, al

[[Page 11447]]

Qaeda, with the complicit help of the Taliban.
  In a near-unanimous vote on the floor of this House, we voted to go 
in there and root them out and end that threat once and forever. But 
something bad happened on the road to victory, and the eradication of 
the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the capture, dead or alive, dead or 
alive, of Osama bin Laden. Remember that.
  We got mired in Iraq. And today the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Osama bin 
Laden are still at large and they are resurgent. I just saw 800 
Oregonians off to Afghanistan. We need more troops there. We need to 
finish the job we abandoned to go into Iraq.
  But 1,093 days ago, a complicit, compliant Republican-dominated 
Congress acceded to the Presidential demand to divert our energy into 
an unnecessary war in Iraq. I was one of the 60 percent of the 
Democrats to vote ``no.''
  Here we are, 2,497 troops have died, 18,490 seriously wounded. We all 
honor those troops and do not question that. But we disagree, not on 
the noble service of the troops, but the competence of the leadership 
of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld in 
initiating an unnecessary war in Iraq and insisting on an open-ended, 
indefinite commitment of U.S. troops in the middle of a civil war.
  The President has said, ``Bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq will be 
decided by future Presidents.'' That means after 2009. That is what 
George Bush is talking about. That is not acceptable.
  At its core, this resolution says stay the course indefinitely. We 
should be debating a real policy on Iraq, not a nonbinding politically 
motivated resolution. We should be debating the Murtha resolution, a 
real plan.
  As a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I resent the fact that we have 
here a meaningless, nonbinding Karl Rove-politically inspired 
resolution on the floor, not amendable, no substitutes allowed; and 
they call that a debate on the policy in Iraq.
  They say they are honoring the troops. That is a dishonor to the 
people of America and those who serve us. And they talk about cut and 
run. We have won. Saddam Hussein, he is on trial. They have a 
Constitution. They have a government. They have succeeded. We have 
succeeded.
  But they have a sectarian problem. They have been fighting for 1,400 
years. And they are going to continue fighting. We need to negotiate a 
timetable with their legitimate government to get the U.S. troops 
redeployed, out of Iraq, to other hot spots and bring the remainder 
home.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Middle East and Central Asia 
Subcommittee, I have traveled to Iraq, having led a delegation just 
this last January. And I met with officials again and received a wealth 
of congressional testimony here in DC. All confirmed that the U.S.-led 
liberation of the Iraqi people is having a positive reverberation 
throughout the broader Middle East.
  Iraq is a catalyst for hope, a vivid example that the future of the 
broader Middle East belongs to freedom and democracy. To fully 
comprehend just how far Iraq has come with the assistance of U.S. and 
coalition forces, we must consider the horror that was Iraq under 
Saddam Hussein: chemical attacks resulting in scores of innocent 
deaths; a gruesome campaign to exterminate Iraqi Kurds; the 
displacement of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees who fled 
Saddam's persecution; the deaths of 400,000 Iraqi children in his 
regime's final years killed by malnutrition and disease due to the 
failed policies of his regime; the use of rape and the beheading of 
women as tools of coercion and intimidation as part of their regime 
opposition.
  Mr. Speaker, now let us consider what has been accomplished thus far 
since we removed Saddam Hussein from power. The progress achieved 
serves to honor all of our men and women as this chart shows. They have 
fought, and some have fallen for the fulfillment of our noble, our 
just, and our necessary mission in Iraq.
  Some of the highlights of progress, Mr. Speaker: Iraqis participated 
in elections three times since 2005, with ever-increasing voter 
participation each time. The Iraqi press is free and it is growing. 
Iraqi women are playing an increasingly pivotal role in their society.
  A market-based economy is being established as Iraq emerges from 
three decades of Saddam's neglect. Over 260,000 Iraqi police and 
security forces have been trained and have been equipped. Iraq now has 
a democratically elected government for the first time in its history 
that includes all ethnic groups.
  We should therefore focus on what we need to do to help ensure a free 
and secure Iraq and not on how soon we can leave it, ignoring that it 
is in our national security interest to succeed there.
  The jihadists are determined and they have declared Iraq to be the 
central front of their campaign of terror. Are we to waver in front of 
these challenges? Absolutely not. Terrorist mastermind al Zarqawi, now 
dead, acknowledged in a February 2004 letter to al Qaeda the threat 
that success in Iraq posed to the extremist effort.
  He said, Our enemy is growing stronger by the day, by God, this is 
suffocation. One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote about 
Iraq a couple of years ago. And he said, a far more dangerous threat is 
secularist democracy, because it drives Muslims to refuse to take part 
in jihad.
  Mr. Speaker, this clearly demonstrates that our efforts in Iraq are 
serving long-term efforts of spreading democracy as an antidote to 
Islamic terrorism and extremism.
  Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of President Ronald Reagan's words in his 
first inaugural address when he said, ``Above all we must realize that 
no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenal of the world is so formidable as 
the will and the moral courage of free men and women.''
  Every day the Iraqi people are proving how true that statement is. We 
too must demonstrate the will to press ahead. Leaders from the Arab 
world have confided their views on how important it is for their own 
efforts to have the U.S. in Iraq. However, the best evidence that we 
are on the right path comes from those closest to me, including my 
stepson, Dougie, and his fiance, Lindsay, both marine officers, both 
who have served as fighter pilots in Iraq.
  And I hear it from one of my subcommittee staffers, Matt Zweig, who 
is currently deployed in Iraq. Their unwavering belief that success in 
Iraq will make us safer at home confirms that our strategy is correct 
and that our goals are sound.
  They remind me that we must heed the advice issued by Winston 
Churchill when he said, ``One ought never to turn one's back on a 
threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will 
double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, 
you will reduce the danger by half.''
  Mr. Speaker, we must not, we will not flinch in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution 
because we should not be echoing the lies we have been fed to justify 
this cruel and deceitful war. We should not continue pretending that by 
fighting the war in Iraq we are advancing the war on terrorism.
  Our intelligence tells us that only 7 to 8 percent of those we are 
fighting in Iraq are Islamic terrorists. The other 92 to 93 percent are 
fighting a war for power between contending religious groups.
  There is no compelling reason to send our young people to die to 
determine how to divide the spoils between the Sunnis and the Shiites. 
We should be redeploying our resources to fight the real war on 
terrorism, going after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, fighting 
jihadist ideas all over the Muslim world, getting the loose nuclear 
material out of the former Soviet Union before it is smuggled to al 
Qaeda to make

[[Page 11448]]

nuclear weapons, screening all of the shipping containers before they 
enter our ports, and protecting our chemical and nuclear plants against 
sabotage that could kill tens of thousands of Americans.
  But the Bush administration and this Congress will not vote the funds 
to fight the real war against terrorism. And every reason we were given 
for invading Iraq has been shown to be false. Weapons of mass 
destruction. Not there. Saddam Hussein working hand in glove with al 
Qaeda. Not true. And the more information that leaks out, the more 
apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies.
  But does this Congress get to the bottom of this? Not this Republican 
Congress. This Republican Congress sees no evil, hears no evil, and 
speaks no evil when it comes to a war that has already killed 2,500 of 
our young men and women and promises to kill thousands more.
  This Republican Congress asks no questions about what we can possibly 
achieve that can justify the continuing slaughter.

                              {time}  1715

  I ask you, if the President had gone to the American people and said, 
we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, we must 
sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government 
in Iraq, would we have agreed? I think not.
  As the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely 
to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a 
sectarian civil war, a side, moreover, that is increasingly cozying up 
to the mullahs in Iran who do pose a threat to us, should Congress 
continue to consent? I think not. This Congress should agree with the 
Out of Iraq Caucus. We should say enough already. Enough with the lies 
and the deceit and the evasions. Enough with the useless bloodshed. We 
should ensure the Iraqi people that we desire no U.S. military bases in 
Iraq.
  This Congress should adopt the Murtha resolution. We should adopt a 
swift timetable to redeploy our troops out of Iraq and bring them home 
and let the Iraqi oligarchs know they cannot depend on the United 
States forever.
  It is our crucial moment in American history to concentrate our 
resources on the real threats that face us around the world and at home 
and put an end to this bloody, senseless and diversionary war.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The 
gentlewoman has been a leader for freedom all around the globe, and 
this country should appreciate her for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to lead a bipartisan all-female 
Congressional delegation to Iraq. It was one of the most emotionally 
overwhelming experiences of my professional life. We met women of 
enormous courage and hope.
  They told us that they want to work, they want to vote. They want to 
be a part of their society, a democratic society. But we also heard 
about what life was like before the coalition came. We heard about the 
treatment of women under Saddam Hussein and during torture, oppression, 
that most of us could not imagine.
  We were told of the heart wrenching stories of husbands torn from 
their homes in the middle of the night by brutal, secret police, and 
the women left behind, usually with children, faced with the impossible 
burden of providing for their families in a society that doesn't even 
allow women to work. Some were raped, some were tortured, but that was 
before liberation.
  The road to liberation has been a rocky one. But our troops are doing 
good work every day in Iraq. We saw soldiers building schools and 
hospitals, vaccinating hundreds of children. They coach soccer. They 
tutor. They make a difference. They risk their lives every day to 
protect the newly acquired rights of Iraqis, but especially the women.
  If I were asked to give one good reason why we should stay in Iraq, I 
would tell you to stay. We need to stay for the women.
  Well, I saw women of diverse ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic 
classes. They were empowering each other with education, with hope, 
with friendship, just like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. 
Another courageous woman I met, Nasreen Barwari, the Minister of Public 
Works, was later the target of an assassination attempt. Her crime, 
being an outspoken woman in a important position. Thankfully she 
survived, but her bodyguard was killed. Her female colleague, Dr. Al-
Hashimi of the Iraqi Governing Counsel, was not so lucky. She was 
tragically gunned down.
  Ladies and gentlemen, if we stay in Iraq, one of the major reasons is 
to stay for the women.
  Just over two years ago, I was privileged to lead a bipartisan, all-
female congressional delegation to Iraq.
  It was one of the most emotionally overwhelming experiences of my 
official life. We met women of enormous courage and hope. They told us 
they want to vote, to work, to be a part of the democratic process.
  Some said they wanted to run for office and help create the laws that 
will build a new Iraq.
  But we also heard about life before the coalition came.
  We heard about the treatment of women under the Saddam regime--
enduring torture and oppression that most of us could not imagine.
  We were told heart-wrenching stories of husbands torn from their 
homes in the middle of the night by a brutal secret police.
  The women left behind, usually with children, faced the impossible 
burden of providing for their families in a society that didn't allow 
women to work or remarry.
  Some were themselves raped and tortured.
  But that was before liberation.
  The road since liberation has been a rocky one.
  But our troops are doing good work every day in Iraq.
  We saw the soldiers building schools and hospitals, vaccinating 
thousands of children, and putting an archaic infrastructure back in 
operation.
  They coach soccer, they tutor--they make a difference! And they are 
risking their lives to protect the newly acquired rights of all 
Iraqis--but especially women.
  If I were asked to give you one good reason why we should stay in 
Iraq, I would tell you we should stay for the women.
  If we can make the values of a free society--the rule of law--work 
for the women of Iraq, we create the conditions for these new 
democratic values to take root and spread.
  While there I saw women of diverse ethnicities, religions, and socio-
economic classes empowering one another with education, hope and 
friendship--much like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.
  In Mosul, we met with the Women's Social and Cultural Society. They 
had been meeting secretly, but now felt safe enough to be public and 
actually welcome our delegation.
  These women, accompanied by their wide-eyed daughters, are creating a 
new Iraq as they promote social, political and educational equality for 
all Iraqis. But they're not alone.
  One of my favorite stories of the trip was of two Iraqi women who 
arrived one day at a fountain in the town center of Hillah dressed in 
traditional Muslim women's clothes but with a decidedly non-traditional 
mission.
  A courageous woman I met, Nasreen Barwari, the Minister of Public 
Works later was the target of an assassination attempt.
  Her crime? Being an outspoken woman in an important public position. 
Thankfully, she survived, though her bodyguard was killed.
  Her female colleague, Dr. Al-Hashimi, of the Iraqi Governing Council, 
was not so lucky.
  She was tragically gunned down outside her home.
  The dangers Iraqi women face can't be underestimated nor can the 
obstacles put in their path to liberation. But these women remain 
undaunted!
  We also visited the police academy in Baghdad where 29 women were 
training to be the first female police officers ever in Iraq.
  These wonderful women told us how excited they were to be learning 
skills to hold their first job. Many had barely been out of the home 
setting before. Their exuberance was infectious.
  We also went to a residential area in Mosul to talk with a group of 
neighborhood women--some educated, but many not. We met in the crowded 
living room of one of the members. All the rooms were packed. The 
electricity was only on for half of our afternoon together. But that 
was more than they had had in years. The curiosity of the men on the 
street outside was so thick you could cut it with a knife.
  The women's group had many questions for us.

[[Page 11449]]

  ``How do we find our voice?'' they asked. ``How do we organize other 
women to make an impact? How can we affect the direction of this 
country?''
  They were asking the most fundamental and basic questions of civic 
involvement--how to construct the foundation of the democratic process. 
As we left, their children came forward with flowers for us.
  I think it's fair to say that U.S. soldiers have liberated more women 
in the last 4 years than anyone or anything else in the last 20--maybe 
longer.
  Still, changing 2,000 years of tradition isn't going to happen with 
stroke of a pen. It will take time and patience.
  This is not the time for us to abandon these courageous women--not 
when they have come so far.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague, whose resolution I support, for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution before us. 
Let us be clear from the outset that those who have opposed the Iraq 
war stand solidly and proudly in support of our troops and their 
families. To suggest that calling for the return home of our brave 
troops somehow denigrates their service and their sacrifice is absurd. 
We can best support our troops by bringing them home.
  Mr. Speaker, the terrible numbers we have bandied about here are not 
mere statistics. Each one represents the tragic story of a ruined life 
and a shattered family, 2,500 troops dead, more than 18,000 wounded, 
many so grievously. The average tour for National Guard members has 
been 342 days, turning the lives of countless American families upside 
down.
  The material cost of the Iraq war is about $320 billion. But you can 
never put a price on its toll in human suffering, nor can you 
realistically argue, Mr. Speaker, that the war in Iraq has made our 
country safer or advanced our effort to combat global terror.
  Those that come to the floor and link Iraq to 9/11 are certainly 
wrong. They are factually wrong, because there remains no evidence that 
Saddam was involved in the al Qaeda attacks on our Nation, and they are 
morally wrong to invoke the memories of the victims of September 11th 
to justify this indefensible war of choice.
  I am pleased that al Zarqawi is dead, but his death does not change 
the fact that Iraq has become a haven for terrorists and the best 
recruitment tool we could have handed our enemy. No, Mr. Speaker, those 
who oppose this war are not soft on security. We believe strongly and 
passionately that keeping the troops in the middle of this increasingly 
bloody civil war only weakens our security.
  It is a disgrace it has taken so long for Congress to spend a few 
hours of this day debating the Iraq war, but the American people will 
not be fooled. They recognize that a debate on a cynical and 
politically motivated resolution is no substitute for a thoughtful Iraq 
policy that advances our national interests and listens to the voices. 
Let us vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Transportation and HUD Appropriations.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
resolution before us. I want to convey a very simple message. We must 
stay the course. At this crucial point in our history, it is 
unacceptable to enact a policy of passivity, resignation or defeatism 
in the face of terror.
  Some say that we should surrender and pull out. They may think that 
this will win them votes and that it is good politics, but it is 
terrible policy, devastating policy. It is essential that we continue 
to fight in Iraq so that the fight does not come into our backyards.
  Make no mistake, we do not choose Iraq as a front line on the war on 
terror. Al Qaeda has done that. But we must have that fight over there 
so we don't have it back here.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have visited Iraq and seen firsthand 
the revitalization of country. The men and women our Armed Forces are 
fighting terrorists who are trying to claim Iraq for their own. Without 
their valor and dedication, the progress made in Iraq would not be 
possible. It takes time, will, patience and perseverance to transition 
a country once ruled by a tyrannical despot.
  Terrorists who seek to eliminate anyone who provides hope for the 
future have infested Iraq, but they will not succeed. The Iraqi people 
are committed to freeing their country from these fanatical invaders, 
and we are too. The Iraqi people's future is in their hands, and right 
now they want U.S. help.
  Just this week, Iraqi army and police forces backed by U.S. troops 
launched Operation Forward together. This operation was created by 
Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and his parliament, and it is their 
first major security action since a new government of national unity 
was sworn in on May 20.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolve of the United States should never be 
questioned. The world must know that the United States finishes what it 
starts.
  We will win the fight against global terrorism, including in Iraq.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Pastor) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks and submit a statement for the Record in opposition to the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand in opposition to this 
resolution. As illustrated by the House Majority Leader's memo 
establishing this debate as ``a portrait of contrasts between 
Republicans and Democrats,'' the primary intent of this resolution is 
political--shifting attention from the real issues behind the slow 
progress in Iraq. In this election year, just 4 months shy from the 
polls, Republicans are using this resolution as a divisive strategy 
rather than holding a substantive debate on Iraq.
  Today's debate, which should have been an opportunity for Members of 
Congress to have a serious discussion on the war and to pose tough 
questions to the Administration on Iraq, has regrettably become nothing 
more than a partisan ploy. While I do not hesitate to applaud certain 
aspects of the resolution honoring the sacrifices of our courageous 
soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq, I cannot be supportive of 
capitalizing on these very sacrifices for political gain.
  I also disagree with the dangerous analogy made in this resolution 
between Iraq and the Administration's ``war on terror'' policy. There 
is not, and never has been, any credible intelligence linking Iraq to 
9/11 and Al Qaeda. Focusing the discussion on the war on terror and 
victories won, rather than on workable policies to bring our troops 
home, reduces this debate to no more than a justification for 
maintaining the Administration's status quo agenda in Iraq.
  Seizing the political momentum after the killing of Zarqawi, 
Republicans are offering a resolution which does little more than tout 
recent ``impressive victories'' in Iraq. While the death of Zarqawi is 
reassuring, we must be careful not to pat ourselves on the back 
prematurely for another ``Mission Accomplished.'' Terrorist cells are 
still numerous and active, violence is still prevalent, and our brave 
men and women still continue to fight.
  Although I voted against the initial resolution approving the war in 
Iraq, I have consistently voted to support our troops with much-needed 
armor and supplies. However, this should not be construed as favoring 
continued occupation. Today the Pentagon's report confirming the 
overall U.S. death toll at nearly 2,500, underscores the grave and 
violent situation that our troops face every day. I believe it is our 
responsibility as Members of Congress to devise a responsible exit 
strategy. We must ensure that we do not lose sight of our real end goal 
in this debate: to bring our troops back home as quickly as possible.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Murtha, and the Out of Iraq Caucus.
  The President will not bring an end to this war. He says it is a 
decision for the next President. But he is building permanent bases in 
Iraq, and he is determined to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq into the 
distant future.

[[Page 11450]]

  This Congress may not bring an end to this war because the real power 
to end the war is in a cutoff of funds. Congress keeps appropriating 
funds in the name of the troops, and the troops will stay in Iraq 
instead of coming home. Only the American people can bring an end to 
this war as they brought an end to the Vietnam War. Let this be a time 
of stirring of civic soul.
  It is a time for a reawakening of civic conscience. There were no 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but there are WMDs in D.C. Lies 
are weapons of mass destruction. 2,500 soldiers dead. Over 10,000 
Iraqis, innocent Iraqis have died. It is time for an end to our 
national sleepwalk to the graveyard of the Iraq war.
  It is a time for truth, a time for clarity, a time for action, a time 
for teach-ins, for meet-ups, for marches, for rallies about the war to 
begin at college campuses, at churches, at labor halls, at libraries. 
It is time to gather in civic centers, in town halls, to discuss the 
truth about this war and to plan civic action to end it, time for the 
American people to exercise their first amendment right to stand up and 
speak out, time to redirect the policies of this country, time to learn 
and practice peaceful, nonviolent conflict resolution, time to believe 
in our capacity to evolve beyond war, to believe and act under the 
belief that war is not inevitable and peace is inevitable if we are 
ready to commit to the daily work of peace building everywhere.
  The global war on terror has become a global war of error: attacking 
or threatening countries which did not attack us, bombing neighborhoods 
to save neighborhoods, committing atrocities in the name of stopping 
atrocities, losing our vision, losing our way in the world, sacrificing 
our children and their future, giving up their future resources for 
education, for health care, for housing, piling it all high on the 
altar of war and worshipping a false god of destruction.
  When we begin these proceedings with this remembrance, Thine is the 
kingdom and the power and the glory, we are not talking about any 
nation. We are talking about a force which is above all of us. The 
world is not ours to conquer. There is no glory in the abuse of power. 
This President will not bring an end to this war after the Murtha 
resolution, this Congress may not bring an end to this war, but the 
American people certainly will bring an end to this war. They will do 
it in the streets, and they will do it at the ballot box, and the 
American people will become the Out of Iraq Caucus.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the 
subcommittee on State, Justice and Commerce appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. The war on terror and this whole thing began really in 1980 
when our embassy was taken over in Iran and the bombing of the Marine 
barracks in 1983, Lebanon, embassy in 1983, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 
Nairobi, Tanzania.
  I have so much that I want to say. I will just say this. If we were 
to set a date, the Mujahedin would say we defeated the Russians in 
Afghanistan, we defeated America in Iraq and the jihad would take place 
all over this world. This would be a very, very dangerous thing to say.
  So I rise in strong, strong support of this resolution and say we can 
and will win this war. I remember when I read the book by Whittaker 
Chambers. He was a witness. He said when I left the Communist Party, I 
believed I was leaving the winning side and joining the losing side. 
Whittaker Chambers was wrong because of people like Ronald Reagan. We 
must be resolute. I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 861 and to show my 
support for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the 
front lines in the global war on terrorism. I commend our forces for 
the recent actions in targeting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent 
leader killed in an airstrike June 7. I also commend President Bush for 
his visit earlier this week to Iraq to meet with Prime Minister Nouri 
al-Maliki and encourage the work of the new Iraqi government.
  I share the deep concerns about the continuing violence in post-war 
Iraq, which is taking the lives of U.S. military personnel and 
civilians. I continue to pray for the protection of the men and women 
who are putting their lives on the line every day to help the Iraqi 
people as they build their own government, and also for their families 
here at home who continue to make tremendous sacrifices.
  I recognize there were good and reasonable people on both sides of 
the decision to send U.S. armed forces to Iraq. But whether or not you 
agreed with that decision, we are there now and cannot just walk away. 
Too much is at stake. The success of our efforts in Iraq and the 
success of the Iraqi people in establishing their own government are 
critical to the overall war against terror and to the security of our 
country and the world.
  Our efforts in Iraq, many believe, are an important campaign in the 
global war on terrorism. Our world is a dangerous place, and as we 
learned on September 11, 2001, terrorism is not something in a far away 
land. We did not seek this war. We were attacked on our own soil, and 
this war is a different kind than any our Nation has ever fought. But 
it is one we are fighting to make our own nation and the world more 
secure. It is critical that we remain resolute in this fight.
  I believe a case can be made that the war on terrorism really began 
more than 20 years ago with the attacks against America at the U.S. 
Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The bombing there in the spring of 1983 
killed 63 and wounded 120. Later that year, 241 U.S. servicemen--220 
Marines, 18 Navy members and three Army members--were killed when a 
truck bomb exploded at their barracks in Beirut. Those attacks were 
followed in 1993 by the first World Trade Center bombing in New York 
City, in 1996 by the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1998 by 
the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in 2000 in the 
attack in Yemen on the USS Cole.
  After the attacks on the two embassies in Africa in 1998, I became 
very concerned about the U.S. response to terrorism and authored the 
legislation creating the National Commission on Terrorism. On the cover 
of that report is a photo of the twin towers in New York on fire after 
the 1993 attack. The foreboding nature of that photo is now all too 
real as we relive the destruction of the World Trade Center on 
September 11, 2001.
  Late last summer I returned to Iraq for a third time. I have now 
visited all but the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. With each 
successive trip, I have seen improvements--renovated schools, cleaner 
water systems, new Iraqi army constituted. I also have seen the 
continuing and serious security problems and other challenges facing a 
liberated Iraq, and I have heard caution from varied sources about the 
potentially cataclysmic consequences of America withdrawing before our 
mission is complete. I had the opportunity to speak with our troops who 
are performing their duties with professionalism and dedication. They 
are positive about their mission and are doing an outstanding job in 
fulfilling it.
  One interesting comment I heard on that trip is that we can't expect 
to rebuild Iraq on our timetable, but rather it must be on Iraq's 
timetable. Life--and timetables--in Iraq are not the same as in the 
United States. This is a very key point, and one the Bush 
administration needs to do a better job of explaining.
  It also is important to remember that the United States had its share 
of growing pains. While our revolution was in 1776 it was 11 years 
before our forefathers began to draft a constitution and it wasn't 
ratified until 1789. Few remember that our constitution was debated in 
complete secrecy. Delegates knew that they would generate heated 
differences and did not want to advertise their own dissensions or put 
crippling arguments into the mouths of the opposition. We also had 
leaders like George Washington, Ben Franklin, George Mason and James 
Madison who had the benefit of understanding British history in 
addition to being exposed to the workings of the House of Commons. 
Democracy and an elected government is truly a foreign concept to the 
Iraqi people.
  The Bush administration also needs to do a better job of explaining 
what the consequences of ``failing'' in Iraq would mean to the average 
person in Chantilly, VA, Topeka, KS, or Portland, OR. I repeatedly 
asked people I met during the trip--from generals, to State Department 
officials, to members of the Iraqi government--what they thought 
``failure'' would mean. The responses were frightening.
  I heard references to Somalia--think of the movie ``Black Hawk 
Down''--and the former Yugoslavia with all its ethnic cleansing. The 
images that flashed in my mind when I heard these countries were 
disturbing. I was in Somalia during the crisis in 1993. I traveled to 
Sarajevo and the Yugoslavia region several times in the early to mid-
1990s where so many were killed. In fact, all the people I met

[[Page 11451]]

with in Vukovar, Croatia, in 1991 were killed several months later and 
are now buried in mass graves.
  Many speculated that civil war would break out in Iraq and even more 
foreign fighters from across the region would pour into Iraq in hopes 
of influencing the outcome. I was told almost all of the insurgents 
carrying out the suicide attacks are foreigners, most coming across the 
Syrian border from places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and 
Afghanistan. I was told militias continue to fight each other on a 
regular basis in some parts of the country.
  If our mission fails and civil war comes, the country would almost 
certainly break into three parts: the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in 
central Iraq, and the Shias in the south. It is believed the Kurds 
would most likely be able to keep from being drawn into the fighting 
and govern themselves. In the central region of the Sunni Triangle, 
warring factions would fight for control and most agree that there 
would be sheer chaos. Iran's presence was felt in the south as it tried 
to influence the recent elections and if civil war were to break out, 
elements in Iran may well involve themselves in the south.
  With civil war, almost everyone I asked said that Iraq would become a 
haven from which terrorist groups could launch attacks against the 
United States and other countries. No one has to be reminded of what 
happened on 9/11. Thirty people from my congressional district died 
that day among the 3,000 who perished.
  Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would like nothing more than to 
have a new ``base'' from which to operate, much like Afghanistan in the 
1990s after the Soviets were defeated. There is no denying that the 
terrorists have designs on the United States and, as one officer told 
me, ``We must win the war so we don't fight the next war in America.''
  Terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent the United 
States and its coalition partners from being successful in Iraq. They 
believe time is on their side and that they can ``wait out'' the United 
States. They will do anything--including blowing themselves up in busy 
marketplaces--to disrupt our progress and turn the Iraqi people against 
us. They believe that the war being fought in Iraq is not a 
``military'' war but rather a ``political'' war and American public 
opinion will dictate when the United States leaves, not military 
success.
  There is a general belief among terrorism experts that the top 
priority of terrorists is to seek chemical, biological, radiological or 
nuclear weapons. The video of two commercial airliners being flown into 
the World Trade Center is ingrained in every American's mind. I shudder 
to think what terrorists would do if they obtained a biological or 
chemical weapon.
  Many I spoke with also said failure in Iraq could destabilize the 
entire Gulf region and possibly lead to the downfall of the governments 
of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
  Failure also could have serious impact on the world's economy. Japan 
gets more than 75 percent of its oil from the region, Western Europe, 
30 percent, and the United States, 22 percent. We saw what happened in 
the wake of Hurricane Katrina as consumers feared gas shortages. 
Failure in Iraq would make oil costs even higher and have a major 
negative impact throughout our entire economy.
  Others said they believe the United States has a moral obligation to 
the people of Iraq to successfully complete what it started. They asked 
how the American public would feel if civil war were to break out and 
thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis were slaughtered in the 
subsequent fighting?
  Finally, many believe the United States's credibility is at stake. In 
a piece in the Washington Post's Outlook section last September, Victor 
Davis Hanson, a military historian at Stanford University's Hoover 
Institution and the author of ``A War Like No Other,'' wrote:

       . . . If we fled precipitously, moderates in the Middle 
     East could never again believe American assurances of support 
     for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows--or 
     find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers. Jihadists 
     would swell their ranks as they hyped their defeat of the 
     American infidels. Our forward strategy of hitting terrorists 
     hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to 
     the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs. And 
     loyal allies in Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia 
     and Japan, along with new friends in India and the former 
     Soviet republics, would find themselves leaderless in the 
     global struggle against Islamic radicalism.

  Failure cannot be an option in Iraq nor can creating an arbitrary 
deadline for pulling out U.S. troops. The ramifications on our country 
and other countries in the West would be huge. Our withdrawal must be 
event driven and not artificially tied to a calendar. Many I talked to 
said we must set conditions for victory, not dates for withdrawal.
  The Bush administration needs to do a better job articulating just 
what is at stake and the potentially catastrophic consequences. No one 
believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home 
that there is a concern. I had one general officer say point blank that 
the ``center of gravity'' for our success in Iraq is the American 
public.
  That said, I strongly believe that it would be of great value to have 
an independent review of ongoing operations in Iraq. I call this effort 
``fresh eyes on the target'' and offered this suggestion following my 
latest trip to Iraq. On March 15, I was pleased to attend the 
announcement of the formation of the 10-member bipartisan Iraq Study 
Group, being led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former 
Congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. The 
members, as are their co-leaders, are among America's most honorable 
and venerable citizens: former CIA Director Robert Gates, former U.S. 
Attorney General Ed Meese, former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan, former 
Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary William 
Perry, former Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, former Wyoming Senator Alan 
Simpson, and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
  The study group was launched in partnership with the United States 
Institute of Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 
the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and the Baker Institute for 
Public Policy at Rice University. Its mission is to undertake a 
bipartisan, forward-looking assessment of the current and prospective 
situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, 
and its consequences on U.S. interests and it will focus on political, 
military, security and reconstruction in Iraq. The group will travel to 
Iraq and report to the American people. I understand they will meet 
with President Bush this week.
  It will assess what is working and what changes should be made in 
helping the Iraqi people to establish their own government and stop the 
terrorist insurgency which is continuing to foment the violence of the 
Saddam Hussein regime. One of the most critical jobs of this panel is 
to determine the ramifications of failure to accomplish our country's 
mission in Iraq and to explain that to the American people.
  In the 1930s, the world failed to stand up to fascism. When we--with 
our allies--did stand up and fight, we defeated fascism. It also took 
some time for the world to stand up to communism. But when we did, we 
defeated communism. Now we face al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin 
Laden, who in his own words has said he will use chemical, biological, 
radiological and nuclear weapons against us. We must continue the 
determined effort now that we have had in the wars over the years as we 
fight terrorism. Standing together, I believe we can defeat this threat 
to the freedoms and liberties and way of life we have fought to 
maintain for well over two centuries.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us, House Resolution 
861, is an unfortunate farce. It is part of an extension of the 
political propaganda, which has come from the Republican Party in 
defense of their so-called war on terror. It is not the first example. 
We have had many others.
  Some of the highest-ranking members of this administration have 
purposefully and intentionally misled this Congress and the American 
people by providing them with wrong information. We saw it right here 
in the House of Representatives when the President himself talked about 
how the British had learned that Iraq was importing enriched uranium 
from Niger.
  He was told before he delivered that speech that there was no 
evidence that that was true. Yet he came here and said it and put the 
responsibility on Great Britain knowing that what he was saying was 
untrue. It is a criminal violation of Federal law, two criminal 
violations of Federal law to consciously, purposefully, intentionally, 
mislead the Congress, particularly when you are trying to obtain 
actions from the Congress which result from that purposeful and 
intentional misleading.

                              {time}  1730

  What has been the cost? So far, 2,500 American service men and women 
killed in Iraq. We hear today from the Republicans how they honor the 
servicemen, but they continue to have

[[Page 11452]]

them killed, wounded, continue to have them suffer on the basis of 
false information, deceit and lies.
  They claim that this is continuing the war on terror. Well, what 
happened to the real war on terror? We were attacked by the al Qaeda. 
The al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. We know that to be the case. 
We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know 
that to be the case.
  Yet, after we went into Afghanistan, which was providing solace and 
security for the al Qaeda network, and chased Osama bin Laden up into 
the Tora Bora Mountains, the administration decided and the Defense 
Department decided that they were going to abandon the search. Why did 
they not pursue the person who was responsible for this attack?
  Well, there is one logical answer to that question, and the answer is 
if they had found Osama bin Laden, the rationale for the attack on Iraq 
would disappear. That is why we need to get out. That is why we need to 
pass the Murtha resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, there are few certitudes in these complicated 
times. Anyone who was not conflicted in the original decision to invade 
Iraq or who does not see a downside to all courses of action today is 
not thinking. But I am hard pressed to believe anything except that the 
case for a steady, measured drawdown of troops in Iraq is compelling. 
The neocon desire to establish a semi-permanent presence in a divided 
Muslim country is foolhardy.
  It is true that there are circumstances where it is better to fight 
over there than here at home. Afghanistan is a case in point. But we 
should not be so naive as to fail to recognize that there are also 
circumstances where fighting over there can increase the likelihood 
that conflict will spread to our shores. A decision to prolong 
unnecessarily our intervention in Iraq could be a case in point, as 
could a military confrontation with Iran.
  There are tipping points in all struggles. The signs are evident that 
we are close today to a calamity if we do not recalibrate our policies. 
The irony is that our troops have lost no battles and shown great 
heroism, but Western occupation is intolerable for Muslims. It is also 
not the American way. The longer we stay, the greater the prospect that 
anarchistic acts will multiply and spread, perhaps to our shores.
  The issue is no longer, as is so frequently asserted, the need to 
stay the course. It is to avoid overstaying our presence.
  Sometimes it is harder to know how to end a war than to start one. 
Just as it is important to think through the ``why and how''' of 
committing troops to conflict, we must also think through the ``why and 
how'' of ending an engagement. Timing is a key element of both 
considerations.
  For many Americans, including me, the war in Iraq has been difficult 
to justify. But all Americans, except perhaps a few who may be 
partisanly vindictive, should want as positive a result as possible, 
given the circumstances we now face. The decision to go to war may have 
been misguided and strategies involved in conducting it mistake-ridden; 
nonetheless there should be clarity of purpose in ending the conflict, 
with the goal neither to ``cut and run,'' nor simply to cut losses. At 
this junction of involvement we should define cogently our purposes and 
by so doing create a basis both for a viable future for Iraq and for a 
U.S. disengagement that respects the sacrifices of those who have 
served so valiantly in our armed forces and those of our coalition 
allies.
  Americans understand that three rationales were given at successive 
stages for the war. The first involved Iraq's complicity in 9/11; the 
second was the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD; and the third was the 
desire to replace the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein with a free, 
democratic government. The first two arguments have proven frail. The 
third has some legitimacy, but to many of us it never seemed 
compelling, particularly in relation to the costs of the conflict.
  In any regard, whether or not democracy provided a compelling 
rationale for starting the war, it offers the most appropriate 
rationale for ending it. If we do not prepare to leave Iraq on our 
terms, stating clearly that now that a Constitution has been adopted, 
elections held, and a government formed, we are prepared to proceed 
with a comprehensive and orderly draw-down of our troops, we will be 
viewed as an occupying power lacking credible motivations. When we 
eventually leave, the other side will claim they forced us out. That is 
why it is as critical to define the rationale for our disengagement as 
the reason for going to war. And democracy is the only rationale I know 
that can be used as a basis for ending our involvement in this conflict 
with any hope of suggesting a partial measure of success. The key is 
that we must control and be seen as controlling our own fate.
  All Americans should be respectful of the sacrifices of our men and 
women in uniform. They have been placed in an untenable situation. If 
they had not been so heroic and in many cases so helpful in rebuilding 
neighborhoods and schools, the U.S. would face a far more difficult 
dilemma today.
  But we have no choice except to assess whether Osama Bin Laden and 
his movement have not been given added momentum by our intervention in 
Iraq, and whether the ideologically advocated policy of establishing 
long-term bases or one of returning our troops home is likely to be the 
more effective strategy in prevailing in the world-wide war on terror.
  Here, it should not be hard to understand that prolonged occupation 
of a country which encompasses an area of land where one of the world's 
oldest civilizations prospered is humiliating to a proud people and 
those elsewhere who share its great religion. It should also not be 
hard to understand that the neo-con strategy of establishing a long-
term military presence in Iraq with semi-permanent bases raises the 
risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks at home and abroad.
  Indeed, according to the University of Chicago scholar, Robert Pape, 
in his definitive book on suicide bombers, Dying to Win, the principal 
reason anarchists choose to wrap themselves in explosives and kill 
innocent civilians is to register martyred objection to the occupation 
of countries or territories by the armed forces of Western or other 
Democratic governments. Suicide bombing, by implication, will exist as 
long as occupations continue.
  In this regard, a note about al Qaeda is in order. Just as neither 
Iraq with its secular leanings nor any Iraqis were responsible for 
9/11, so Saddam Hussein apparently considered Osama Bin Laden as much a 
rival as a soul brother. It is Western military intervention that has 
precipitated al Qaeda's rapid growth in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a 
``cause celebre'' for its singularly malevolent actions. If American 
withdrawal policy comes to turn on the question of anarchy--i.e., 
troops can't be drawn down as long as IED attacks continue--we place 
ourselves in a catch-22 and, in effect, hand over decision-making 
discretion to those who wantonly kill. We allow the radical few to use 
our presence as the reason for their actions and at the same time cause 
our involvement to be held hostage to their villainy.
  On the other hand, if we proceed with a turn-over of responsibilities 
to the new, freely elected Iraqi government, Sunni dissidents will 
confront a critical choice: to pursue the insurgency or join the 
political process. Pursuing the insurgency would be a risky gamble; if 
it fails, Sunnis may fall under Shiite domination for years to come, 
and the demise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi makes prospects of expanding 
influence through terrorist tactics less likely. Joining the political 
process, on the other hand, would guarantee Sunnis a role in governing 
the country.
  Though the prudential and civilized choice may seem obvious to us, a 
continued American military presence in Iraq gives Sunni radicals a 
popular cause--ridding the country of the occupier--for rallying 
popular sentiment in Iraq and elsewhere and justifying continued 
violence. Announcing the commencement of an orderly drawdown of our 
troops, and trumpeting it widely, would rob radicals of this powerful 
cause, allowing moderate Sunnis to join the government and pursue 
sectarian interests through the constitutional process.
  In the realm of policy timing can often be as important as substance. 
Just as Senator Dirksen once noted that a billion dollars here and a 
billion dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money, 
in foreign affairs a week here and a week there can soon add up to a 
policy dilemma.
  It is possible, of course that civil strife will ensue when we 
withdraw, but this is just as likely to be the case in 2026 as 2006. In 
any regard, civil union is for the Iraqi people to manage. It's not for 
American troops to sustain. The authorization this Congress gave to the 
Executive to use force contemplated the clear prospect of military 
intervention in Iraq. It did not, however, contemplate prolonged 
occupation. If this is not understood by the Executive branch, the 
current overwhelming Iraqi

[[Page 11453]]

polling sentiment favoring American troop withdrawal will be more than 
matched by shared American sentiment. And in a democracy no one can be 
a leader without followers.
  The older I get, the more central I consider the human factor to be 
in international relations. Logic is never totally dominant. No one 
knows the exact origins of the seven deadly sins, but to the degree 
human nature is the least changed aspect of the human condition, it is 
relevant to today's debate to contrast two human foibles: avarice and 
pride. Let me suggest that avarice, the weakness of business classes, 
is fundamentally more pragmatic than pride, the weakness of 
politicians, and pride is fundamentally more dangerous than avarice.
  For example, if a bookstore owner were to read two books and strongly 
prefer one to the other, he might inventory half a dozen of the one he 
prefers and one of the other. But if his customers buy the one he likes 
least, he will not reorder the one he likes. He will put it on the 
discount shelf and re-order the public's choice. His pride isn't hurt. 
In politics, on the other hand, the tendency is to avoid embarrassment, 
never acknowledge error. Mistakes are often repeated to avoid political 
inconsistency.
  An anecdote comes to mind. In one of my early terms in Congress I was 
invited to the Library of Congress to a seminar Henry Kissinger was 
asked to give on the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Before going, I perused 
one of his autobiographical tomes and was struck by a singular 
paragraph. In December 1968, Kissinger as the National Security Council 
Advisor-designate met with Richard Nixon, then the President-elect. 
They agreed, he wrote, that their policy would be to disengage from 
Vietnam. After Kissinger had delivered his lecture, I asked him about 
his pre-Presidency strategy talk with Nixon. Why, I inquired, didn't 
the Nixon administration immediately do what he said they had decided 
in December 1968, to do? Kissinger looked at me and responded: ``We 
meant with honor.'' I asked him if honor required escalation. 
``Absolutely,'' he replied.
  ``Honor'' and ``pride'' do not have the same meaning. But in some 
circumstances they are clearly first cousins.
  I mention this incident as a reflection of human nature and the 
psychology of decision-making. LBJ was too much of a Texan to reverse 
gear on his own policies; Nixon was too much a product of the Cold War 
to risk being perceived as less tough than his Democratic predecessor.
  All wars evoke analogies to prior conflicts; Vietnam is on everyone's 
mind. My sense is that references to our Southeast Asian experience are 
somewhat oblique, but important to ponder. Of particular relevance is 
the advice of a former Vermont Senator, George Aiken, who suggested we 
just declare victory and get out of Vietnam. Aiken's advice was rooted 
in frustration, but wise as it was, represented more spin than reality. 
Given the strategies then in play, victory wasn't close at hand. Today, 
on the other hand, despite the escalation of world-wide violence and 
the precipitation of widespread mistrust of the United States, 
particularly in Muslim societies, the Administration can point to 
positive political change in Iraq. An Aiken approach might not be 
historically compelling, but it would have more currency now than when 
originally suggested.
  In governance, judgment to be good must be timely. If we maintain a 
heavy presence much longer our president could find himself in a 
dilemma of the kind Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon came to know too 
well. Despite the overwhelming nature of our military capacities and 
the courageous commitment and sacrifice of our armed forces, well-
intentioned policies can fail if they are inadequately justified, 
poorly executed, or pursued too long. The timing and explication of 
disengagement can be as consequential as the decision to intervene.
  This is why clarity of purpose and flexibility of response are so 
crucial. Hasty withdrawal is problemsome; orderly, philosophically 
cogent decisions to wind down the military dimension of our presence in 
Iraq should, however, be our highest national interest priority.
  It would be a mistake of historical proportions if respectful 
relations not only between America and the Moslem world but between 
America and its traditional allies were to rupture. We are obligated to 
see that they don't.
  In a broader historical and philosophical context, the American 
intervention in Iraq underscores the need to probe the question of the 
limits of power of a superpower and the possible anomaly that there are 
liabilities of power, particularly for a superpower.
  Does, for instance, overwhelming military might alone protect us from 
terrorism, or if wielded unwisely, does it escalate our vulnerability 
to terrorism?
  Likewise, does overwhelming economic power ensure loyalty and buy 
friendship even from countries most indebted to the United States, or 
does it inspire resentment?
  With each lED explosion and suicide bomb attack it becomes clearer 
that America and the world community are in a strategic pickle. In an 
era of anger, of divisions in the world based on economics, on color of 
skin, on ethnicity, on religious upbringing, on happenstance of family 
and place of birth, those who have causes--good and bad--have new 
globalized techniques of being heard and felt. Great leaders like 
Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King appealed to the higher angels of 
our nature and achieved revolutionary change with non-violence. More 
mendacious leaders like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin 
Laden have sought to impose their wills on others through appeals of 
hate and reliance on increasingly wanton instruments of oppression.
  The policy question Americans must think through is whether great 
powers may be more effective with policies of restraint rather than 
intervention. Just as Gandhi and King led non-violent revolutions which 
have proved more lasting than the barbarism of Stalin and Pol Pot, 
maintenance and embellishment of the American model of governance may 
itself be more intrusively revolutionary in oppressed societies than 
interventionist policies.
  Caution and restraint are better models for 21st Century statecraft 
than naive adventurism.
  With this admonition in mind, it is critical that Members of the 
Executive Branch must understand that how and what they say to justify 
various policies determines how others respond.
  Anyone who ever studied physics may recall that Sir Isaac Newton set 
forth three fundamental laws, the second of which was that for every 
action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A decade ago when the 
Congress was led by an extraordinary upstart whose first name was Newt, 
I suggested, at first as a pun, the existence of a fourth ``Newt-
onian'' law, this one of social physics: reaction is greater than 
action. My thoughts at the time related to the partisan bickering 
within Congress. But with the passage of time I have come to the 
conclusion that international slights have graver consequences than 
domestic.
  When, for instance, we use words like ``evil,'' reference events like 
the Crusades, and employ tactics designed expressly to ``shock and 
awe,'' should we not expect others to think and respond in like or 
escalated terms, although the methods employed might in the current 
vogue be described as asymmetric?
  This brings me to several broad precepts, one of which is seemingly 
trite, and others of which are intended to form a theoretical and 
practical framework for a recalibrated foreign policy.
  First, the trite. Every society has a sage who cautions that wise 
leaders should put themselves in the shoes of their adversaries before 
reaching self-centered judgments. The profoundest illustration of this 
comes from literature rather than Clausewitz or Tsun Tsu.
  When speaking to constituents of the rationale for and against the 
Iraq War, I have over the past couple of years referenced a set of 
books that provides more geo-political wisdom than balance of power 
strategists: the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell.
  Set in inter-war Egypt, each of Durrell's four books chronicles the 
same series of events through the eyes of a different participant. 
While the events repeat, the stories are profoundly different. The 
implicit moral is that one set of eyes, one set of interactions, is 
insufficient to gain a full grasp of what is happening around us. 
Likewise, in world politics one country's perspective is not enough. 
The views of others matter. If we are to manage prudently the affairs 
of state, we have to use more than just our own eyes, rely on more than 
just our own experience, and reference more than our own historical 
circumstance.
  The Muslim experience, for instance, gives substantially less weight 
than the Western experience to the two cataclysmic wars of the 20th 
century. Despite Lawrence's involvement in Arabia and the battles 
between Allied forces and Rommel's tanks, the engagements in the Middle 
East and North Africa were skirmishes compared with the struggles in 
Europe and the Far East. Not only do Muslims see the 20th century 
differently from Westerners, but Europeans and Americans have drawn 
different strategic parallels in the application of common experience 
to current challenges in the Middle East.
  In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, historians and 
political strategists in Europe rightly concluded that the European 
alliance system had been too rigid and the assassination of a 
relatively minor figure, an archduke, should not have precipitated a 
war of such devastating consequences. Hence European leaders in the 
1930's falsely concluded

[[Page 11454]]

that historical wisdom necessitated initial accommodation with Hitler's 
adventurism. Too little flexibility caused one war; too little spine 
led to Munich. In the current context, President Bush sees himself as 
Churchill rather than Chamberlain, but Europeans see 9/11 as more 
analogous to the shots fired at Archduke Ferdinand than as a cause for 
a doctrine of preemption or war with Iraq, a war that could too easily 
spring into a clash of civilizations.
  If we're ever going to have a chance to shape or deter the actions of 
others, we must understand their reasoning. Failing to understand or 
respect Muslim culture, for instance, resulted in the greatest 
intelligence failure of our era. It is, however, not the sole 
intelligence failure. In one of the greatest judgmental errors of our 
time, we appear to have attempted to combat the ideological posturing 
of others by ideologizing our own intelligence. Based on what is known 
today, policymakers wrongly implied Iraq played a role in the 9/11 
attack and not only erred in assessing Saddam Hussein's WMD capacities 
but put too much faith in a narrow cadre of policymakers who suggested 
the United States would be welcomed as a liberating rather than 
conquering or, worse yet, colonizing force in Iraq. Estimates of the 
costs of war, of the ramifications of our involvement, of the expected 
reaction of the population and of the likelihood of foreign respect and 
support were dead wrong.
  Now, given the anarchy that has mushroomed in the country, Washington 
is swept by occupation analogies of World War II. Japan and Germany, it 
is noted, were occupied for more than five years after hostilities 
ceased. Hence, many are suggesting, we must be prepared to stay at 
least this long in Iraq.
  I have seldom been more apprehensive about an historical analogy. 
Japan and Germany were the instigators of war; their citizens 
understood this. The Muslim population throughout the world does not 
see it this way. They see the U.S. as the aggressor. Images from Al-
Jazeera portray a country under siege. In the Moslem world Iraq looks 
more like a police-cordoned West Bank than a great and ancient society 
on the move to a better life. Outsiders are viewed as unwanted 
intruders acting out of great power self-interest, disrespectful of the 
culture and values of the country being occupied.
  Yet if we take the most difficult geo-strategic issues of the day, it 
is impressive how we seem to misunderstand the fundamentals of human 
nature. Publics in many parts of the world are crying out for two 
aspirations: respect and hope. But our policy response is an entirely 
parochial one, rooted in the so-called doctrine of American 
Exceptionalism, which neo-cons do not define as refining a shining City 
on a Hill but as the right of a superpower to place itself above the 
legal and institutional restraints applied to others.
  In the Neo-con world, values are synonymous with power. The implicit 
assumption is that American security can be bought and managed alone, 
without allies, without consideration of contrasting international 
views or the effect of our policies on others. Treaties like a 
Comprehensive Test Ban, which every President since Eisenhower has 
propounded, have been rejected, as have negotiations to strengthen the 
verification provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention.
  Legitimacy is critical for all countries. There may be times and 
circumstances in which the U.S. national interest requires action 
without the support of our allies or without United Nations sanction. 
But the U.N., in particular, is ignored at great risk, especially when 
the international community is largely at odds with American policies. 
In this context, recent rhetorical attacks by ideologues in and out of 
government on the U.N. and other multilateral institutions would appear 
to particularly ill-serve the American national interest.
  The diplomatic issue our government has to come to grips with today 
is the problem of sequencing. Which comes first--the chicken or the 
egg--is the most cheerful and abstract philosophical discussion 
Americans engage in. But which precedes the other--talk or war--is 
neither cheerful nor abstract. Experience would seem to indicate that 
while war may not be averted by negotiations, it is less likely to 
break out if direct dialogue occurs beforehand. In adversarial 
situations pacific results can seldom be achieved without human 
interaction. That is why our founders clearly contemplated that the new 
American Republic would have diplomatic relations with undemocratic 
states. It is why Prime Minister Rabin, when faulted for talking to 
Arafat, noted that you don't make peace with friends.
  There are few examples in history where empty chair diplomacy has 
proved effective. Indeed, it is next to impossible to reach mutual 
accommodation if there is not mutual understanding and a modicum of 
trust and respect which only personal relationships can provide.
  The sequencing dilemma is particularly evident with regard to Iran. 
Not only should we not fear to negotiate, we must understand that as 
the stronger party, we can afford to put on the table steps, 
particularly related to process, that weaker parties are less able to 
initiate without seeming to capitulate. Unfortunately, we have over a 
number of Administrations chosen to isolate rather than engage Iran. 
The question is whether isolationist policies drive a proud people to 
greater extremes. A stigmatic refusal to interact has characterized our 
policy toward Iran for a generation and, just as haplessly, Cuba for 
two.
  Some of us have fretted for a long time that a more forthcoming U.S. 
diplomatic approach might have produced a more stable Persian Gulf. 
Five years ago Senator Specter and I invited to Capitol Hill the 
Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. In a long meeting over dinner in a small 
room on the Senate side of the Capitol, I indicated that while many of 
us would like to see more direct contact between the U.S. and Iran, 
normalization of relations was inconceivable unless Iran ceased 
supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. The ambassador responded with 
frankness. He chillingly acknowledged Iranian support of Hezbollah but 
then asserted that such support would cease the moment a peace 
agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was reached in a 
framework acceptable to the Palestinians.
  The slight hope implicit in this position may or may not have 
reflected Tehran's real position at the time, but it is apparent that 
Ahmedinajad is far more radical today than Khatami was yesterday. While 
neither has nor had the power of the Ayatollahs, the hardening of 
Iranian public attitudes toward us and Israel makes questions about the 
effectiveness of our strategic and psychological isolation of Iran 
important to ponder.
  Last week the administration suggested a possible policy shift. We 
indicated a willingness to join the Europeans in talks with Iran if 
Iran first agrees to freeze uranium enrichment activities. This 
approach might presage a nuanced new American flexibility. But much 
depends on the Iranian response. Our position appears to be that we 
will proceed with sanctions and contemplate sterner actions if Iran 
does not capitulate on the uranium issue, but we will not talk to the 
government unless it first acquiesces. In other words, the goal of 
negotiations must be achieved before we will negotiate. Conditional 
approaches like this are needlessly ``high wire''; nevertheless, in 
contrast with prior diplomatic intransigence they may represent the 
best hope yet of yielding a conflict-averting break-through on the NPT 
issue.
  Yet policymakers in Washington appear to underestimate a series of 
strategic phenomena. Hezbollah is far larger, more sophisticated and 
experienced in terrorist undertakings than Al Qaeda. A preemptive 
strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would unleash a level of anarchy 
in world affairs that would be unprecedented. It would slow but not 
stop its ability to develop nuclear weapons. It would have little 
effect on Iran's ability to obtain such weapons elsewhere. The ``loose 
nuke'' phenomenon is real. A rich country has as good a chance to 
purchase or steal weapons of mass destruction as it does to develop 
them on its own. And if that country is attacked as part of an effort 
to block nuclear development, it has to be assumed it will have new 
incentives to seek and use such weapons. This prospect could presumably 
be heightened if bunker busting bombs tipped with small nuclear 
warheads are employed.
  The U.S. thus faces a double catch-22: embargoing Iran hurts our 
economy more than theirs and attacking militarily the Iranian 
infrastructure ensures immediate asymmetric violent responses as well 
as the greater likelihood that weapons of mass destruction once 
obtained will be used against us and our allies at a later point.
  This brings us to the last underestimation by Washington. We may be 
considering a conflict of a few weeks duration--one to three weeks of 
intensive bombing. The Iranians may be thinking of a multi-decade or 
multi-century response. Western history has known a 30-year war. 
Eastern peoples carry in their hearts the burden of centuries of 
crusades, and many Islamic radicals today would like the 21st century 
to be a continuation of what they consider to be a struggle against 
Judeo-Christian intervention. Sequencing is a historical as well as 
diplomatic term of concern.
  The Iranians, too, are in a quandary. They recognize that no American 
President can take the force option completely off the table. They 
suspect DOD has made extensive contingency plans and they see a 
President who has little hesitancy to take difficult, unpopular 
decisions. They know he is in his last term and does not want to pass 
on strategic problems to his successor. They may reason that

[[Page 11455]]

a U.S. decision to attack is irrational because it would solidify a 
radical reaction in Iran, in other Muslim countries, and perhaps even 
within the U.S., but the government of Iran cannot be certain that the 
President will conclude that he would be passing on a bigger mess if he 
attacked rather than engaged.
  The Iranian challenge is stickier than many Americans assume. The 
President may see himself in a position analogous to that of John 
Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was dealing with 
Khrushchev and a Soviet system that had many despotic dimensions. But 
while communism was manipulated in such a manner as to become a quasi-
state religion, it is fundamentally about political and economic rather 
than spiritual relationships. Iran, on the other hand, is a theocracy 
in a region where religion and, too frequently, its perversion are 
dominant themes. Just as the Iranian government must understand the 
strong will of the President, Washington has to come to grips with the 
pride and principles of an adversary which is the inheritor of one of 
the oldest civilizations on earth. Each side may understand the 
consequences of individual actions, but that does not mean that 
decisions in one or the other country will not unfold domino-like in a 
manner that could be catastrophic for all. That is why human 
interrelationship--diplomacy--is so key.
  Let me suggest a corollary to Lord Acton's maxim that power corrupts 
and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The Leach corollary is 
that military power tempts and excessive power tends to tempt 
excessively. America's enormous military strength is critical at this 
stage in history. But while we are obligated to recognize that its 
maintenance is imperative, we must also realize that its utilization 
may not fit, and may indeed be counter-productive, in certain strategic 
settings.
  Analogies between all wars exist, but comparisons between Iraq and 
Vietnam are frail. What must be understood is not that Iraq could be as 
bad as Vietnam; rather, that it is becoming far worse. Vietnam, after 
all, involved no WMD issues; and while the North was predominantly 
Buddhist and the South Catholic, there were no implications of a world-
wide religious struggle; nor of a conflict that might last many 
decades, if not centuries. The issue at the time was Communism and 
fears that if Vietnam fell, neighboring governments would topple like 
dominoes. In retrospect, the real domino lesson of Vietnam was about 
political decision-making. Once the patriotic flag was raised, stands 
taken, words uttered, one doubtful decision precipitated another, and 
the pride of politicians did not allow a change of course until the 
people demanded common-sense reconsideration.
  Interestingly, in the 19th century, two obscure Italian political 
theorists, Vito and Pareto, noted that for all the differences in 
political systems, one person alone at the top had the power to make 
critical decisions for a nation. While these decisions might be of a 
social magnitude, they are personal in the making.
  Our Founders were moral as well as political thinkers. They feared 
kingly powers and wanted shared decision-making, especially when it 
came to war. But as we all have come to understand, modern times have 
produced wars without formal declarations approved by Congress. In 
response to Vietnam, Congress fashioned the War Powers Act to establish 
new constraints on the Executive. While most Constitutional scholars 
are convinced the Act would be declared unconstitutional if it were 
ever tested, it stands today as the law of the land. What is often 
overlooked, however, is that the Act also empowers the Executive wide-
ranging options to commit American forces for a period of several 
months. Hence, there is little doubt that the administration assumes it 
has no need to come to Congress if it decides to launch an air assault 
on Iran, as long as it is only of multi-week duration.
  Let me conclude with an observation about priorities, contrasts, and 
principles.
  First, priorities. The Iraqi war has had the unfortunate effect of 
decreasing American attention on both Afghanistan and the Israeli-
Palestinian dilemma, both of which have extraordinary consequences for 
U.S. national security. In addition, while I have assumed for most of 
my adult life that war and peace is the biggest issue in the world, the 
bigger challenge to life itself may be disease control. We have lost 
nearly 2,500 American troops in Iraq and 20 to 40 times as many Iraqis 
have been killed. But over the past two decades more than 20 million 
people have died of AIDS, and this number will double or triple in the 
next decade or two. Likewise, a new flu epidemic might match or exceed 
these numbers. Yet we are spending less on these problems than the cost 
of one month's fighting in Iraq.
  Second, contrasts. Educated Americans are well aware of the ideas 
that Samuel Huntington and Joe Nye of Harvard have propounded about the 
dangers of a clash of civilizations and of the importance of soft as 
contrasted with hard power in diplomacy. These are important frameworks 
of thought for the American public to dwell upon. But I would add to 
those considerations the elements of individual judgment and the 
contrasting model of realism vs. pseudo-realism in policymaking. 
Realists look to effect, not to appearance. But Washington today has 
come under the sway of the grim neo-con notion that diplomacy, 
particularly multi-lateral diplomacy, is soft-headed. Is this not 
pseudo-realism? What is more realistic and more consistent with the 
American heritage than attempting to advance the rule of law? An 
earlier excess of pseudo-realism caused the Senate to reject Wilsonian 
idealism and ignore the League of Nations. Nevertheless, it approved 
U.S. participation in the World Court. Americans want law and order. 
Americans also prefer to work in alliances. It is neo-con nonsense, 
realism inverted, to press a foreign policy rooted in snubbing the 
concerns of others.
  One of the myths of our time is that realism is principally about 
might. Actually, realism is about the human condition. A great power 
must maintain a strong military capacity, but it is the human condition 
that must be improved if national security is truly to be secured. 
Impoverished nations are breeding grounds for radicalism. Where there 
is no hope, there is nothing to lose. When life, as Hobbs described, 
becomes nasty, brutish, and short in a jungle of hopelessness and 
humiliation, it becomes easily expendable, sometimes by martyred self-
choice.
  Finally, a note about principle. Never has it been more important to 
return to the basics. Whether it be tax policy or foreign policy, the 
concern must be for justice and the common good, what the 19th century 
British utilitarians described as concern for the greatest good of the 
greatest number.
  The public wants its leaders to unify and uplift. Elections are about 
whether political leadership is up to the task. Democracies provide 
continual verdicts. This fall will be one measure.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I would like to thank all the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus who 
have spoken so eloquently this afternoon.
  I rise in opposition to H. Res. 861 and in support of Representative 
Murtha's proposal to redeploy our troops.
  Since this war began, we have seen nearly 2,500 casualties. This 
number does not include the nearly 20,000 who have been wounded. I 
would like to take a moment to talk about the significance of those 
casualties and wounded because I often feel that we gloss over those 
numbers and forget that each one is or was an actual person. They were 
somebody's son or daughter, somebody's mother or father, somebody's 
brother or sister.
  They are real people, as real as 19-year-old Private Brandon Sloan 
and First Sergeant Robert Dowdy, who were the first soldiers from my 
congressional district to become casualties in the 507th Maintenance 
Group incident. They are as real as the 325th Marine Regiment of 
Brookpark, Ohio, who suffered multiple casualties. I attended those 
funerals and those memorials.
  They are as real as Sergeant Shurvon Phillip, an East Cleveland 
resident and Shaw High School graduate, who recently returned to 
Cleveland after suffering serious injuries in Iraq and enduring weeks 
of recovery. Shurvon is now paralyzed, and because of a brain injury, 
he cannot talk. We welcomed him home last Saturday at the Louis Stokes 
VA Medical Center.
  Shurvon's mother, Gail, had this to say: ``That Jack Murtha, he came 
to see my son three times and each time he treated Shurvon as his own 
son.'' Shurvon's mother, Gail Ulerie, had this to say about President 
Bush when he came to see him to give the Purple Heart to her son while 
he has at Bethesda Naval Hospital: ``I am glad for my son to receive a 
Purple Heart, but he was in no condition to appreciate it. He was in 
bad shape. I also said some things to President Bush that he, President 
Bush, did not like. I basically told him he should end this war and 
bring our troops, like my son, back home. He did not answer, just 
walked away.''
  I say we should not walk away from the young men and women who are 
left

[[Page 11456]]

over in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should remember what Shurvon's mother 
said. Bring our troops home. Bring our troops home. Bring our troops 
home. She said she did not want to see any more young men or women 
laying back like this, and if you saw Shurvon you would know what I 
meant. He is in a chair, where he is sat up like this. His lips are 
swollen, sticking out. He can hardly say a word. We are saying to him, 
you know, Shurvon, we are sorry you are a casualty; you stood up for 
your family; you stood up for the United States of America. But he 
cannot stand up for himself.
  Let us stand up for the young men and women of America. Bring our 
troops home, redeploy them, and let us think of America first.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International 
Operations, of our International Relations Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming majority of U.S. forces have performed 
their mission in an exemplary, professional fashion and deserve both 
our praise and profound thanks.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that Iraq remains a dangerous place today 
because hate-filled fanatic, perhaps even psychotic, mass murderers 
bomb and shoot innocent men, women, and children. The terrorists have a 
morbid fascination with all things violent. There is nothing whatsoever 
benign or noble or praiseworthy about these people. They are mass 
murderers.
  If left unchecked, the terrorists would impose dictatorship once 
again on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would result in more mass 
killings, systematic torture, rampant fear, political prisoners, and an 
end to freedom and liberty.
  While I respect the right of those who criticize our Iraq policy and 
our solidarity with the Iraqi people, I do remain deeply disappointed 
that those who protest U.S. policy outside of this Chamber seldom, if 
ever, criticize the terrorists. No harsh, mocking words of condemnation 
of George W. Bush is left unspoken. You hear it on TV, talk shows, and 
at war protests; but no such righteous anger is directed at the mass 
murderers who blow up our soldiers or incinerate pious worshippers in 
prayer or kidnap, torture and kill humanitarian workers.
  American coalition soldiers in Iraq are peacemakers who have the 
toughest job in the world. They are peacemakers who put their own lives 
at risk to create sufficient space and order so that democracy and 
respect for human rights can grow and peace can be established.
  I want our soldiers to come home and to come home soon, but that 
fervent hope must be tempered with reality on the ground and what our 
commanders on the ground think best. To leave prematurely or pursuant 
to an arbitrarily arrived at deadline established by Members of 
Congress may unwittingly put more lives at risk and strengthen the 
fanaticism and hope of the terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 861.
  The Hyde resolution honors--and profoundly thanks--all those 
American, Iraqi, Afghan, and coalition forces who have so courageously 
fought the war on terror, especially those who have lost their lives in 
the defense of freedom.
  Our war dead--and wounded--define anew what it means to be brave and 
honorable and good.
  And our condolences and prayers go to the families of the fallen.
  The overwhelming majority of U.S. forces have performed their 
missions in an exemplary, professional fashion--and deserve both our 
praise and profound thanks.
  We all know that Iraq remains a dangerous place today because hate-
filled, fanatic--perhaps even psychotic--mass murderers bomb and shoot 
innocent men, women, and children. In the past their thugs were in the 
government suites and Hussein's opulent palaces--now some remain in the 
streets--hopefully not for long.
  The terrorists have a morbid fascination with all things violent. 
There is nothing whatsoever benign or noble or praiseworthy about these 
people.
  They are mass murderers.
  If left unchecked, the terrorists would impose dictatorship once 
again on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would result in more mass killing, 
systematic torture, rampant fear, political prisoners and an end to 
freedom and liberty.
  While I respect the right of those who criticize American policy and 
our solidarity with the Iraqi people, I remain deeply disappointed that 
many of those who protest U.S. policy outside of this chamber seldom--
if ever--criticize the terrorists.
  No harsh, mocking thoughts of condemnation of President George W. 
Bush are left unspoken. You hear it on TV and radio talk shows and at 
war protests, but no such angst is directed at the mass murderers who 
blow up our soldiers or incinerate pious worshipers at prayer in 
Mosques or who kidnap, torture, and kill humanitarian workers trying to 
save and enhance the lives of the vulnerable.
  American and coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
peacemakers and they have the toughest assignment in the world. They 
are peacemakers who put their own lives at risk to create sufficient 
space and order so that democracy, respect for human rights, and peace 
can be established and grow.
  I want our soldiers to come home--and soon.
  But that fervent hope must be tempered with realities on the ground. 
What do our military commanders on the ground think? To leave 
prematurely or pursuant to an arbitrarily arrived at deadline 
established by members of Congress may unwittingly put more lives at 
risk and strengthen the fanaticism and hopes of the terrorists.
  Still, public debate on exit strategy is important--even necessary--
because it puts pressure on us all to figure out how to prudently 
accomplish redeployment and it puts constructive pressure on Iraqi 
leaders to move more quickly to take ownership of their own security.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House wants our Nation and our 
coalition partners to succeed in helping the Iraqis establish a 
democratic government that respects human rights and abides by the rule 
of law and to succeed in standing up Iraqi security forces that can 
maintain order and protect their citizens.
  We pray, of course, for the safe return of our brave servicemen and -
women who are fighting for freedom half a world away, and we applaud 
their success last week in eliminating the terrorist murderer Zarqawi. 
The professionalism, bravery, and sacrifice of our Armed Forces are 
indeed awe-inspiring.
  This year, Mr. Speaker, 2006, should be a year of transition in Iraq; 
and it is my expectation that the United States will be able to reduce 
the American troop deployment over the ensuing months and transfer the 
risks and responsibilities to the duly elected government of Iraq. That 
is what has been proposed.
  Today, it is regrettable that this Republican majority seeks to 
exploit this critical issue of national security for political 
advantage. The resolution before us, like the Hunter resolution that 
was debated last December, was drafted, in my view, for political 
reasons.
  As Majority Leader Boehner explained, its purpose is an opportunity 
to create ``a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and 
Democrats.''
  For our country's sake, for our troops' sake, the majority should 
have offered a resolution that sought unity, rather than division.
  There are provisions in this resolution, of course, with which all of 
us agree. I, for one, strongly share the resolve to prevail in the war 
on terror. However, this resolution misstates, in my opinion, the facts 
about why the Bush administration instigated our military action 
against the Hussein regime in 2003. It paints a picture of Iraq today 
that does not comport with the reality on the ground, and it ignores 
the fundamental responsibility of this Congress to conduct meaningful 
oversight of the administration's conduct of this war.
  The political motivations underlying this resolution have been laid 
bare; and, thus, I will be forced to vote ``no.''

[[Page 11457]]

  The American people will not be deceived by this exercise today which 
our Republican colleague of North Carolina (Mr. Jones) labeled a 
charade.
  The American people know, as Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the 
former commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said, ``What we 
are living with now is the consequences of successive policy 
failures.''
  The administration manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass 
destruction. It ignored the advice of top military commanders and sent 
too few troops to accomplish the task; and, consequently, we failed to 
stabilize Iraq after Hussein was rightfully removed from power.
  It fired police and security forces and oil workers, which fueled the 
instability and initiated war before making alternative plans to shut 
off escape routes to the north when the Turks would not let us come in.
  It had no effective plan to quickly get infrastructure repaired and 
rebuilt. It failed to properly equip our own troops, as Mr. Murtha has 
observed, 2,500 of whom have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice in 
this war.
  It grossly underestimated the costs of the war at about $60 billion, 
which now stands six times larger and more.
  And when confronted with concrete evidence of widespread mistreatment 
of detainees in American custody, the President failed to hold anyone 
in his administration accountable.
  Sadly, and dangerously, according to the Pew Research Center, the 
global credibility of the United States has sharply declined.
  The record of the Republican Congress is, in my opinion, no less 
disturbing. This proud body, the people's House, has abdicated its 
oversight role and failed to root out waste, fraud and corruption so 
prevalent in Iraq today.
  Nearly $9 billion in reconstruction funds are unaccounted for. No-bid 
contracts have been awarded to private contractors such as Halliburton. 
Detainees in American custody have been abused and, in some instances, 
killed, and still, still, there is no effective oversight on these 
matters in the Congress of the United States.
  In the face of one of the most important issues before our country, 
we have been presented with politics as usual.

                              {time}  1745

  It is an effort to divide, when an effort to unite was in our 
country's and our Armed Forces' best interest.
  I regret that I have to vote ``no.'' I believe success in our efforts 
in Iraq is important to achieve, but partisanship only impedes the 
attainment of that objective; an objective, hopefully, that we all 
share.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who chairs the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation for our International 
Relations Committee.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is good that the American people are able to hear 
this debate and judge for themselves who should be making the policies 
and which policies are best for our country.
  I have been through this before. I worked in the White House with 
Ronald Reagan for 7 years, and I heard some of the same shrill voices 
that we hear today in those days. I heard the same gutting of the 
President of the United States for political purposes, but also for 
idealistic reasons during those days. I heard Ronald Reagan called a 
warmonger. I heard all of the charges that we hear today aimed at our 
President aimed at Ronald Reagan, and by some of the same people, I 
might add.
  We have voices who are idealistically opposed to war and are in fact 
affected in their heart, perhaps more than others, when war does come, 
as it comes to all free people because without strength of purpose and 
willingness to fight there will be no freedom in this world. But when 
we fought communism, President Reagan stood firm when the shrill voices 
of defeatism and retreat attacked him personally and attacked our 
effort and tried to undermine that effort in the same way our effort 
today is being undermined by nitpicking, backbiting, and defeatism. 
Yet, he stood firm and, guess what? The world was amazed when the evil 
of communism collapsed.
  Well, today we are in a war with radical Islam, which is every bit as 
much a threat and hates Western democracy every bit as much as the 
Communists did. We have made a stand in Iraq, and I would hope that 
people understand that had Ronald Reagan backed down, we would still be 
in the middle of the Cold War. And if we back down today, as is being 
advocated, what I consider to be a cowardly retreat, it will have 
consequences. It will not end the war.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Buyer for the purposes 
of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Immediately following the attacks on September 11, 2001, this 
Nation's focus was on countering the fundamental ideals of terrorism 
that spawned the attack on our homeland. Osama bin Laden and his Al 
Qaeda network, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban, connected together 
through the terror they inflicted, had shared ambitions to destroy our 
way of life. Five years later, we have witnessed successes of 
historical proportions. Saddam--imprisoned and on trial for acts 
against humanity; Osama is on the run and we captured his number two; 
the Taliban no longer exists--for the first time in Afghanistan, their 
citizens are free to hope and dream; women are receiving an education. 
Al Qaeda is demonstrating what comes from the crushing pains of defeat, 
left only with cowardly acts of desperation in a weakening effort to 
survive the blows that we have dealt it.
  Today in Iraq we are on the verge of the blossoming of a successful 
new republic, accomplished by the perseverance of its citizens, and the 
sacrifices of many. Yet, some of our own countrymen are showing a 
dangerous tendency to waiver, their faith shaken by the drive-through 
mentality of our society. They are verbalizing their doubts at a time 
when we need them to stand strong. The peace-doves who turned hawks of 
circumstance after September 11 were predicted to not have the 
intestinal fortitude to see this fight through to its necessary 
resolution. They are living up to that prediction despite the threat of 
terrorism still lurking around the world.
  We cannot forget that the goals of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are 
to destroy western culture in all of its forms and manifestations. All 
across America, our constituents live their lives--take their kids to 
school, go to work, earn a living--and this is the strength of our 
Nation. However, we still live in the shadow of a real and looming 
threat to our way of life. We must remain vigilant of that threat and 
stand firm in our vow to dismantle it. While we have not been attacked 
on our own soil since September 11, we cannot afford the ramifications 
of complacency. The recent arrest of bomb-building terrorists across 
the border in Canada is clear evidence of that. We have forced the 
terrorists into making this an ``away game,'' the battlefield pushed 
from our homeland, but nonetheless the outcome must be in our favor. 
Yes, the victories in this battle are many, but we must have the 
resolve and determination to defeat terrorism here at home and abroad. 
To succeed we must be absolute and have constancy of purpose.
  For decades Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq with an iron fist of 
repression. In the midst of that oppression was the intense yearning of 
the Iraqi people to taste freedom. They were forced to keep their hopes 
hidden, wrapped in a cocoon that they could one day blossom into the 
living principles from which they could rebuild their nation. They have 
emerged from that cocoon and are attempting to fly. The elements that 
were forming in it have manifested themselves in the formation of their 
new government, two successful national elections, and a successful 
national constitutional referendum.
  Iraq cannot continue to succeed in the transition from war to 
building their Nation without our continued help. The people of Iraq 
have appealed to us in this critically important period. We have 
pledged our commitment to them and we need to see it through. The Iraqi 
people are proud of their accomplishments thus far, but they have asked 
for a steady hand of reassurance from us to help guide them in this 
transition.
  The pride and motivation that the Iraqi population has demonstrated 
to this point are key elements to making their young government a 
success. We must continue to nurture their growth of confidence so that 
they can effectively govern, defend, and sustain themselves. The 
motivation to man a completely volunteer Iraqi army is one point of 
evidence that these people have pride and faith in their new republic. 
We cannot fail the security of our own Nation and the people of Iraq in 
a time of such

[[Page 11458]]

dire need. The consequences of walking away at this point are too great 
to fathom. We must maintain our resolve to follow through with our 
commitment to the people of Iraq and in the global fight to free 
ourselves from the grip and fear of terrorism.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 
to control the time and yield the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his indulgence and 
for the recognition, and I want to focus on something that has been 
little discussed in this debate, and that is how much this war is 
costing us.
  Cost is not the ultimate determinant. When we have troops in the 
field, we should be unstinting in their support. But when the cost runs 
into hundreds of billions of dollars, it has to be a consideration. The 
greatest cost, of course, is counted in human lives: 2,514 killed so 
far, 17,774 wounded so far. The dollar cost is not nearly so precious, 
but it is substantial.
  First, for comparison, here is what the first Persian Gulf War cost 
us: $61 billion. But our allies contributed $10.6 in kind, $48.4 
billion in cash contributions, and so out-of-pocket we were $2.1 
billion. That, my friends, is the benefit of having allies.
  Now, look at the annual cost of the war we are fighting. Notice that 
it has increased by almost 100 percent from 2003 when the war itself 
was fully going on, to this year, 2006, an increase from $51 billion to 
$104 billion a year, annually.
  The next chart then sums up the expenditures year by year, and you 
can see the bottom line. Thus far through this year, the cost is $318 
billion. Thus far. Iraqi Freedom alone is $318 billion. To express that 
in monthly terms, something the Pentagon calls the ``burn rate,'' the 
average expenditure per month for the troops we are maintaining there, 
130,000 strong, is running at $8.4 billion a month. That is $8.4 
billion a month.
  Now, we have asked CBO, and CBO itself decided to set up a model to 
estimate what the outyear cost of this deployment would be, assuming 
that after this year there is a substantial drawdown to the point where 
50,000 troops remain in theater, Afghanistan and Iraq. This covers 
both. The total cost of this, over a period of 10 years, is $371 
billion, assuming a modest increment in our deployment to that theater 
of 50,000 additional troops. This is CBO speaking.
  Now, if you add $371 billion to $318 billion, you get $689 billion. 
That is what this war could cost us if its goes on at its current 
level. And we have not reflected in this number the accrued costs we 
are incurring daily due to the harsh environmental conditions in the 
desert. The Army says it will cost $24 billion alone over the next 2 
years to restore and repair and replace equipment.
  Now, as I said, cost is not the ultimate determinant, but it has to 
be a consideration when it reaches this magnitude. I do not think we 
can debate the deployment in Iraq in existing troop levels in a vacuum, 
as if the cost does not matter, as if we had infinite resources. Cost 
matters if we are ever to balance our budget. Cost matters in meeting 
other military needs for operations elsewhere in the world, for 
transformation, and for modernization.
  It is too bad we cannot have a full debate where we could express 
fully all of the grave issues facing us due to the deployment in Iran.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation of our 
International Relations Committee.
  Mr. ROYCE. It becomes clearer by the day, Mr. Speaker, that we are 
confronting a brutal, determined, and resourceful enemy: Islamist 
terrorism, as the 9/11 Commission identified it.
  We have seen messianic, violent ideologies before, but al Qaeda and 
its ilk represent a more severe threat. In today's world, terrorists 
could acquire weapons of mass destruction. Bin Laden has made clear his 
intention to do so. It was such a concern that led President Bush to 
remove Saddam Hussein from power, and Iraqis are better off for it.
  We have heard legitimate debate of choices made in Iraq: Disbanding 
the Iraqi army, troop levels, and we have heard other critiques. 
Looking back, it is clear that this mission's difficulty and expense 
were underestimated. Hopefully, we have improved our intelligence. But 
dwelling on past choices does not get us ahead.
  Looking ahead, I don't see how we succeed by immediately withdrawing, 
as some are calling for. The position that our troops should stay 
longer in Iraq makes us all uncomfortable. But an alternative, an 
immediate withdrawal, concedes that Iraq will fall into chaos, because 
there is no way that the Iraqi security forces could stand alone yet. 
That is the judgment of our military professionals. So if you are going 
to argue that the costs of staying are too high, you are obligated to 
calculate the cost of withdrawing or the cost of what most certainly 
would be our defeat.
  The real world is dangerous, and unpleasant choices must be made. An 
honest appraisal is that we don't know Iraq's future, but we know with 
far greater certainty that an American withdrawal would spin Iraq into 
chaos. Bedlam in the region would likely follow. This outcome would be 
a stunning boost for jihadists, the forces determined to deliver as big 
a blow as they can against the American people. We owe our Nation and 
the Iraqi people our continued effort.
  We know Iraq today is a central front in our struggle against 
terrorism. Al Qaeda has said it, and last week's killing of al Zarqawi 
in Iraq made it clear that our success there and our success in the 
high stakes fight against terrorism go hand in hand.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, you know, this resolution before us today 
commends our troops, and we realize that our troops are the greatest in 
the world. This Nation must never forget that. And, of course, we all 
agree that Saddam should have been removed. The problem was our 
tactics, our planning. But this resolution nowhere addresses the 
central issue that the American people are crying out for us to 
discuss: Where do we go from here?
  I think that the American people want an honest discussion about 
where this Nation stands in the two wars that we are prosecuting today, 
and in particular Iraq. I think that we owe this to the American people 
who are risking their lives on a daily basis. We owe it to their 
families, to the American people, and to our allies.
  Supporting our troops means more than bumper stickers on trucks, 
though of course we appreciate those people that put on the bumper 
stickers. We appreciate that. But it is time to talk about the bottom 
line in terms of soldiers, their blood, their future, their hopes, 
hopes for the young people of this great country and the people in 
Iraq, their young people.
  I wish the resolution before us provided the context for this debate. 
Honest discussion must include the nuts and bolts of this policy, 
literally what we are expending daily in Iraq. You know, when we talk 
about the policy, are we going to allow for us to conduct another 
preemptive attack? Was this the wise thing to do? Was the planning 
correct? Do we need to correct our mistakes? Do we need to change the 
training? These are the things we need to look at.
  If we truly want the Iraqis to stand up and protect their country, 
and if we are ever ready to stand down, to stand down, are we ready to 
put the money in the budget? I just came from a hearing a few moments 
ago and we are having problems buying helmets to protect our soldiers. 
We don't have a uniform policy on what helmets will protect the 
soldiers. Our soldiers don't have the equipment that they need, and for 
us

[[Page 11459]]

to stand down, we need to provide the Iraqi army what they need, the 
equipment. And we wonder, because we haven't been able to do that for 
our troops.
  Our military is the best. It has been feared throughout the ages for 
our ability to respond immediately anywhere in the world, to be ready 
to defend our freedom. I do support our troops.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2 
minutes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), who has been to 
Iraq three times.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended my oldest son's 
eighth grade graduation, and graduating with him was Jennifer Davis, 
the daughter of Karen and Major Miles Davis, who could not attend 
because he was deployed to Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, this is why I believe we owe Americans an account of our 
progress in the world war on terror, an assessment of the situation, 
the stakes, and the strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq, as 
well as an affirmation that we will defend our country, defeat the 
enemy, and win this unsought struggle for survival. Unfortunately, this 
resolution fails to do so, for it is strategically nebulous, morally 
obtuse, and woefully inadequate.
  This resolution sanitizes the hard truth that the enemy is trying not 
only to intimidate us but to kill us. It provides an abashed defense of 
our Nation's sovereign right to preemptively eradicate the terrorists 
and their state sponsors before they kill us. It implies our preemption 
of this threat must meet a global test for legitimacy.
  It further fails to affirm the battle for Iraq was waged because 
Saddam Hussein's regime was a direct threat to the United States of 
America and was in violation of mandatory treaty obligations of said 
United States of America.
  It fails to stress our mission is to ensure a sovereign, free, secure 
and united Iraq at peace with the United States, its coalition partners 
and all other peaceable nations.
  It fails to stress that terrorists seek to destroy the new unity 
government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for the 
United States of America, Iraq, our coalition partners and the broader 
Middle East.
  It asserts how despite the enemy having declared Iraq a central front 
in the war on terror, the United States and its coalition partners will 
continue to support Iraq as only a part of the war on terror.
  It omits any mention of the battle for Iraq's difficulties and does 
not offer a comprehensive strategy on how to conquer them. It overlooks 
the fact our troops' return home hinges upon creating Iraqi security 
forces and destroying the enemy's insurgency.

                              {time}  1800

  Finally, this resolution calls the terrorists our adversary, not our 
enemy.
  Mr. Speaker, at the graduation I did not try to comfort Karen Davis 
by declaring her husband, Major Miles Davis, was in Iraq defending 
global peace and security or enforcing United Nations resolutions. No, 
I thanked Karen for her family's sacrifice because Miles was in Iraq 
honoring his solemn pledge to God and to us to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies.
  So in this time of war when we ask the best of our troops and we ask 
the best of their families, we must ask the best of ourselves. We have 
not done so with this resolution, and that is why I will be voting 
``present,'' because I am committed to victory in the war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended my oldest son's eighth grade 
graduation. Graduating with him was Jennifer Davis, the daughter of my 
childhood friend, Major Miles Davis, who could not attend. That night, 
I talked with Miles' wife, Karen, who told me how painful it was for 
their family to have Miles so abruptly deployed to Iraq.
  Such heart rending scenes throughout our land are why I believe we 
owe Americans more in this resolution than a simple declaration of our 
resolve in Iraq. We owe them an account of our progress in the world 
War on Terror; an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the 
strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq; and an affirmation we will 
defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle 
for survival.
  Thus, I rise to express my profound disappointment with this 
resolution before us, because it is strategically nebulous; morally 
obtuse; and woefully inadequate.
  To begin, this resolution's purpose is limited to ``Declaring the 
United States will complete the mission in Iraq and prevail in the 
Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the 
terrorist adversary.''
  This is patently inadequate to the task at hand; and, unfortunately, 
under continued examination the resolution fares no better. To wit, the 
first ``Whereas'' clause informs us: ``. . . the United States and its 
allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding 
struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American 
values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its 
repressive ideology throughout the world.''
  This clause elicits elementary questions: what ``values'' of ours 
cause our enemy to hate us; and what, precisely, is the enemy's 
ideology? Sadly, this clause provides no clues.
  The second clause recounts how: ``. . . for the past two decades, 
terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the 
United States.''
  This clause is too sanitized. The hard truth is the enemy has not 
tried to intimidate us. The enemy has tried to kill us and too often 
succeeded. The enemy does so because our very existence as sovereign 
citizens of a free Republic constitutes a beacon of hope for all who 
are--and all who yearn to be--free; thus, we are our enemy's paramount 
obstacle to world dominion.
  Next the third clause right asserts: ``. . . it is essential to the 
security of the American people and to world security that the United 
States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and 
to those who provide them assistance.''
  Agreed. But this clause must stress both a philosophic principle and 
a strategic tenet.
  Philosophically, any state-sponsor of terror is a threat to the 
United States, because terrorism is an attack upon the self-evident, 
inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  Strategically, this clause falters as an oblique and abashed defense 
of our Nation's sovereign right to preemptively eradicate terrorists 
and their state-sponsors before they kill us. Instead, the clause must 
reaffirm our Nation's full right of self-defense.
  The seventh clause decries how: ``. . . by early 2003 Saddam Hussein 
and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported 
terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and 
was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council 
Resolutions.''
  Bluntly, this clause omits the obvious: By early 2003 Saddam Hussein 
and his criminal Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported 
terrorists, constituted a threat against the United States of America 
and was in violation of mandatory treaty obligations to the United 
States of America.
  By omitting the fact Hussein's regime deemed the United States not as 
just a part of the global community, but as a mortal enemy, this clause 
wrongly implies our preemption of his threat must and does meet a 
``global test'' for legitimacy.
  The eighth clause reiterates: ``. . . the mission of the United 
States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and 
his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and 
united Iraq at peace with its neighbors.''
  Again, the point is missed. Our mission is to transform Iraq from a 
rogue dictatorship aiding terrorists into a representative democracy 
eradicating terrorists; and into a sovereign, free, secure, and united 
nation at peace with the United States, its Coalition partners, and all 
other peaceable nations.
  Next, clause eleven's belief: ``. . . the terrorists seek to destroy 
the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' 
aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East,'' also misses the 
point. As an American, I believe the clause should read: ``the 
terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it 
threatens the terrorists' aspirations for the United States of America, 
Iraq, our Coalition partners, and the broader Middle East.''
  Now, at last, we reach the resolution's three lethal failings:
  To start with, taken together, the ninth and fifteenth clauses raise 
a stark conundrum. Ignoring that the United States, in word and deed, 
first targeted Iraq as a ``central front'' in our War on Terror, clause 
nine notes: ``the terrorists have declared Iraq to be a central front 
in their war against all who oppose their ideology.''
  Later, clause fifteen asserts: ``. . . the United States and its 
Coalition partners will

[[Page 11460]]

continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terrorism.''
  These clauses' collective conundrum is this: if, after we militarily 
deposed Hussein, the terrorist enemy now deems Iraq a central front in 
its ``war against all those who oppose their ideology,'' why do we now 
view Iraq as but ``part of the Global War on Terror''? Upon this 
critical question and its ramifications, the resolution is silent.
  The resolution's second lethal failing is found, interestingly 
enough, in clause twelve, which offers hopeful news of how we, our 
Coalition partners, and the Iraqis have: ``. . . scored impressive 
victories in Iraq, including finding and killing the terrorist leader 
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.''
  Well said. But nowhere does this resolution explain the battle for 
Iraq's past, present, and future difficulties, or proffer any concrete 
or comprehensive strategy as to how U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi forces 
will confront and conquer these challenges. One irony proves the point. 
My allotted time to speak on this amendment is under the section 
dedicated to Iraqi reconstruction. Yet nowhere in this resolution 
appears the word ``reconstruction.''
  The resolution's final, and paramount, failing occurs in clause 
thirteen, which assures us: ``. . . Iraqi security forces are, over 
time, taking over from the United States and Coalition forces a growing 
proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight 
against terror in Iraq.''
  This clause's logic implies the enemy will remain operationally 
active in Iraq when our military leaves the battlefield. This 
implication stems from the incessant lack of emphasis accorded the 
concomitant and equal pillar of the administration's military strategy 
in Iraq. Specifically, the time required to win and bring our troops 
home hinges upon creating Iraqi security forces and destroying the 
enemy's insurgency. Continuing to emphasize the creation of security 
forces while de-emphasizing the destruction of the terrorists' 
insurgency, will only lengthen the time required to accomplish the 
mission in Iraq and welcome our troops back.
  Mr. Speaker, my time grows short, so, in conclusion, I will focus on 
the one word in the resolved clause which, in fact, inexplicably 
permeates the resolution; and, inexorably, precludes my support of this 
resolution. The offending word is ``adversary.''
  Starkly and sanely understood, within Iraq and the overarching world 
War on Terror we do not have an adversary. We have an enemy. Thus, 
because words have meaning, even if I could ignore the fact this 
resolution is strategically nebulous, I will not overlook the fact it 
lacks the moral clarity to call the terrorists our enemy.
  Mr. Speaker, at St. Edith's eighth grade graduation, I did not try to 
comfort Karen by declaring her husband Major Miles Davis was in Iraq 
defending global peace and security; I did not try to comfort Karen by 
proclaiming Miles was in Iraq to enforce violated U.N. resolutions; no, 
I thanked Karen for her family's sacrifice, because Miles was in Iraq 
honoring his solemn pledge to God and to us to ``support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies.''
  Mr. Speaker, amidst an anguished era ennobled by our sacrifices in 
the unsought struggle against a bloodthirsty enemy, we ask our troops 
to do their best; we ask their families to do their best; and we ask 
our fellow citizens to do their best But we, in ``the people's house,'' 
have not done our best; and upon this resolution I will be voting 
``present.''
  I submit for the Record President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Ninth 
Annual Message to Congress, January 6, 1942.

       In fulfilling my duty to report upon the state of the 
     Union, I am proud to say to you that the spirit of the 
     American people was never higher than it is today--the Union 
     was never more closely knit together--this country was never 
     more deeply determined to face the solemn tasks before it.
       The response of the American people has been instantaneous, 
     and it will be sustained until our security is assured.
       Exactly one year ago today I said to this Congress: ``When 
     the dictators . . . are ready to make war upon us, they will 
     not wait for an act of war on our part . . . They--not we--
     will choose the time and the place and the method of their 
     attack.''
       We now know their choice of the time: a peaceful Sunday 
     morning--December 7, 1941.
       We know their choice of the place: an American outpost in 
     the Pacific.
       We know their choice of the method: the method of Hitler 
     himself.
       Japan's scheme of conquest goes back half a century. It was 
     not merely a policy of seeking living room--it was a plan 
     which included the subjugation of all the peoples in the Far 
     East and in the islands of the Pacific, and the domination of 
     that ocean by Japanese military and naval control of the 
     western coasts of North, Central, and South America.
       The development of this ambitious conspiracy was marked by 
     the war against China in 1894; the subsequent occupation of 
     Korea; the war against Russia in 1904; the illegal 
     fortification of the mandated Pacific islands following 1920; 
     the seizure of Manchuria in 1931; and the invasion of China 
     in 1937.
       A similar policy of criminal conquest was adopted by Italy. 
     The Fascists first revealed their imperial designs in Libya 
     and Tripoli. In 1935 they seized Abyssinia. Their goal was 
     the domination of all North Africa, Egypt, parts of France, 
     and the entire Mediterranean world.
       But the dreams of empire of the Japanese and Fascist 
     leaders were modest in comparison with the gargantuan 
     aspirations of Hitler and his Nazis. Even before they came to 
     power in 1933, their plans for that conquest had been drawn. 
     Those plans provided for ultimate domination, not of anyone 
     section of the world, but of the whole earth and all the 
     oceans on it.
       When Hitler organized his Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance, all 
     these plans of conquest became a single plan. Under this, in 
     addition to her own schemes of conquest, Japan's role was 
     obviously to cut off our supply of weapons of war to Britain 
     and Russia and China--weapons which increasingly were 
     speeding the day of Hitler's doom. The act of Japan at Pearl 
     Harbor was intended to stun us--to terrify us to such an 
     extent that we would divert our industrial and military 
     strength to the Pacific area, or even to our own continental 
     defense.
       The plan has failed in its purpose. We have not been 
     stunned. We have not been terrified or confused. This very 
     reassembling of the Seventy-seventh Congress today is proof 
     of that; for the mood of quiet, grim resolution which here 
     prevails bodes ill for those who conspired and collaborated 
     to murder world peace.
       That mood is stronger than any mere desire for revenge. It 
     expresses the will of the American people to make very 
     certain that the world will never so suffer again.
       Admittedly, we have been faced with hard choices. It was 
     bitter, for example, not to be able to relieve the heroic and 
     historic defenders of Wake Island. It was bitter for us not 
     to be able to land a million men in a thousand ships in the 
     Philippine Islands.
       But this adds only to our determination to see to it that 
     the Stars and Stripes will fly again over Wake and Guam. Yes, 
     see to it that the brave people of the Philippines will be 
     rid of Japanese imperialism, and will live in freedom, 
     security, and independence.
       Powerful and offensive actions must and will be taken in 
     proper time. The consolidation of the United Nations' total 
     war effort against our common enemies is being achieved.
       That was and is the purpose of conferences which have been 
     held during the past two weeks in Washington and Moscow and 
     Chungking. That is the primary objective of the declaration 
     of solidarity signed in Washington on January 1, 1942, by 
     twenty-six nations united against the Axis powers. . . .
       Plans have been laid here and in the other capitals for 
     coordinated and cooperative action by all the United 
     Nations--military action and economic action. Already we have 
     established, as you know, unified command of land, sea, and 
     air forces in the southwestern Pacific theater of war. There 
     will be a continuation of conferences and consultations among 
     military staffs, so that the plans and operations of each 
     will fit into the general strategy designed to crush the 
     enemy. We shall not fight isolated wars--each nation going 
     its own way. These twenty-six nations are united--not in 
     spirit and determination alone, but in the broad conduct of 
     the war in all its phases.
       For the first time since the Japanese and the Fascists and 
     the Nazis started along their blood-stained course of 
     conquest they now face the fact that superior forces are 
     assembling against them. Gone forever are the days when the 
     aggressors could attack and destroy their victims one by one 
     without unity of resistance. We of the United Nations will so 
     dispose our forces that we can strike at the common enemy 
     wherever the greatest damage can be done him.
       The militarists of Berlin and Tokyo started this war. But 
     the massed, angered forces of common humanity will finish it.
       Destruction of the material and spiritual centers of 
     civilization--this has been and still is the purpose of 
     Hitler and his Italian and Japanese chessmen. They would 
     wreck the power of the British Commonwealth and Russia and 
     China and the Netherlands--and then combine all their forces 
     to achieve their ultimate goal, the conquest of the United 
     States.
       They know that victory for us means victory for freedom.
       They know that victory for us means victory for the 
     institution of democracy--the ideal of the family, the simple 
     principles of common decency and humanity.
       They know that victory for us means victory for religion.
       And they could not tolerate that. The world is too small to 
     provide adequate ``living room'' for both Hitler and God. In 
     proof of that, the Nazis have now announced their plan for 
     enforcing their new German, pagan religion all over the 
     world--a plan by which the Holy Bible and the Cross of Mercy 
     would

[[Page 11461]]

     be displaced by Mein Kampf and the swastika and the naked 
     sword.
       Our own objectives are clear; the objective of smashing the 
     militarism imposed by warlords upon their enslaved peoples--
     the objective of liberating the subjugated nations--the 
     objective of establishing and securing freedom of speech, 
     freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear 
     everywhere in the world.
       We shall not stop short of these objectives, nor shall we 
     be satisfied merely to gain them and then call it a day. I 
     know that I speak for the American people--and I have good 
     reason to believe that I speak also for all the other peoples 
     who fight with us--when I say that this time we are 
     determined not only to win the war, but also to maintain the 
     security of the peace that will follow. . . .
       The superiority of the United Nations in munitions and 
     ships must be overwhelming--so overwhelming that the Axis 
     nations can never hope to catch up with it. And so, in order 
     to attain this overwhelming superiority the United States 
     must build planes and tanks and guns and ships to the utmost 
     limit of our national capacity. We have the ability and 
     capacity to produce arms not only for our own forces, but 
     also for the armies, navies, and air forces fighting on our 
     side.
       And our overwhelming superiority of armament must be 
     adequate to put weapons of war at the proper time into the 
     hands of those men in the conquered nations who stand ready 
     to seize the first opportunity to revolt against their German 
     and Japanese oppressors, and against the traitors in their 
     own ranks, known by the already infamous name of Quislings. 
     And I think that it is a fair prophecy to say that, as we get 
     guns to the patriots in those lands, they too will fire shots 
     heard 'round the world.
       This production of ours in the United States must be raised 
     far above present levels, even though it will mean the 
     dislocation of the lives and occupations of millions of our 
     own people. We must raise our sights all along the production 
     line. Let no man say it cannot be done. It must be done--and 
     we have undertaken to do it. . . .
       Our task is hard--our task is unprecedented--and the time 
     is short. We must strain every existing armament-producing 
     facility to the utmost. We must convert every available plant 
     and tool to war production. That goes all the way from the 
     greatest plants to the smallest--from the huge automobile 
     industry to the village machine shop.
       Production for war is based on men and women--the human 
     hands and brains which collectively we call Labor. Our 
     workers stand ready to work long hours; to turn out more in a 
     day's work; to keep the wheels turning and the fires burning 
     twenty-four hours a day, and seven days a week. They realize 
     well that on the speed and efficiency of their work depend 
     the lives of their sons and their brothers on the fighting 
     fronts.
       Production for war is based on metals and raw materials--
     steel, copper, rubber, aluminum, zinc, tin. Greater and 
     greater quantities of them will have to be diverted to war 
     purposes: Civilian use of them will have to be cut further 
     and still further--and, in many cases, completely eliminated.
       War costs money. So far, we have hardly even begun to pay 
     for it. We have devoted only 15 percent of our national 
     income to national defense. As will appear in my Budget 
     Message tomorrow, our war program for the coming fiscal year 
     will cost $56 billion or, in other words, more than half of 
     the estimated annual national income. That means taxes and 
     bonds and bonds and taxes. It means cutting luxuries and 
     other nonessentials. In a word, it means an ``all-out'' war 
     by individual effort and family effort in a united country.
       Only this all-out scale of production will hasten the 
     ultimate all-out victory. Speed will count. Lost ground can 
     always be regained--lost time never. Speed will save lives; 
     speed will save this nation which is in peril; speed will 
     save our freedom and our civilization--and slowness has never 
     been an American characteristic. . . .
       We cannot wage this war in a defensive spirit. As our power 
     and our resources are fully mobilized, we shall carry the 
     attack against the enemy--we shall hit him and hit him again 
     wherever and whenever we can reach him.
       We must keep him far from our shores, for we intend to 
     bring this battle to him on his own home grounds.
       American armed forces must be used at any place in all the 
     world where it seems advisable to engage the forces of the 
     enemy. In some cases these operations will be defensive, in 
     order to protect key positions. In other cases, these 
     operations will be offensive, in order to strike at the 
     common enemy, with a view to his complete encirclement and 
     eventual total defeat.
       American armed forces will operate at many points in the 
     Far East.
       American armed forces will be on all the oceans--helping to 
     guard the essential communications which are vital to the 
     United Nations.
       American land and air and sea forces will take stations in 
     the British Isles--which constitute an essential fortress in 
     this great world struggle.
       American armed forces will help to protect this 
     hemisphere--and also help to protect bases outside this 
     hemisphere, which could be used for an attack on the 
     Americas.
       If any of our enemies, from Europe or from Asia, attempt 
     long-range raids by ``suicide'' squadrons of bombing planes, 
     they will do so only in the hope of terrorizing our people 
     and disrupting our morale. Our people are not afraid of that. 
     We know that we may have to pay a heavy price for freedom. We 
     will pay this price with a will. Whatever the price, it is a 
     thousand times worth it. No matter what our enemies, in their 
     desperation, may attempt to do to us--we will say, as the 
     people of London have said, ``We can take it.'' And what's 
     more we can give it back--and we will give it back--with 
     compound interest. . . .
       Many people ask, ``When will this war end?'' There is only 
     one answer to that. It will end just as soon as we make it 
     end, by our combined efforts, our combined strength, our 
     combined determination to fight through and work through 
     until the end--the end of militarism in Germany and Italy and 
     Japan. Most certainly we shall not settle for less.
       That is the spirit in which discussions have been conducted 
     during the visit of the British prime minister to Washington. 
     Mr. Churchill and I understand each other, our motives, and 
     our purposes. Together, during the past two weeks, we have 
     faced squarely the major military and economic problems of 
     this greatest world war.
       All in our nation have been cheered by Mr. Churchill's 
     visit. We have been deeply stirred by his great message to 
     us. He is welcome in our midst, and we unite in wishing him a 
     safe return to his home.
       For we are fighting on the same side with the British 
     people, who fought alone for long, terrible months, and 
     withstood the enemy with fortitude and tenacity and skill.
       We are fighting on the same side with the Russian people 
     who have seen the Nazi hordes swarm up to the very gates of 
     Moscow, and who with almost superhuman will and courage have 
     forced the invaders back into retreat.
       We are fighting on the same side as the brave people of 
     China--those millions who for four and a half long years have 
     withstood bombs and starvation and have whipped the invaders 
     time and again in spite of the superior Japanese equipment 
     and arms.
       Yes, we are fighting on the same side as the indomitable 
     Dutch.
       We are fighting on the same side as all the other 
     governments in exile, whom Hitler and all his armies and all 
     his Gestapo have not been able to conquer.
       But we of the United Nations are not making all this 
     sacrifice of human effort and human lives to return to the 
     kind of world we had after the last world war.
       We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for 
     peace, not only for ourselves but for all men, not only for 
     one generation but for all generations. We are fighting to 
     cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills.
       Our enemies are guided by brutal cynicism, by unholy 
     contempt for the human race. We are inspired by a faith that 
     goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the 
     book of Genesis: ``God created man in His own image.''
       We on our side are striving to be true to that divine 
     heritage. We are fighting, as our fathers have fought, to 
     uphold the doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of 
     God. Those on the other side are striving to destroy this 
     deep belief and to create a world in their own image--a world 
     of tyranny and cruelty and serfdom.
       That is the conflict that day and night now pervades our 
     lives. No compromise can end that conflict. There never has 
     been--there never can be--successful compromise between good 
     and evil. Only total victory can reward the champions of 
     tolerance, and decency, and freedom, and faith.

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank 
him for his leadership and for making sure that our men and women in 
uniform get everything that they need.
  This is an unfortunate day in the House of Representatives, the 
people's House, where Members of this body were told we could have a 
debate on Iraq. Surely it is time to have a discussion of our misguided 
policy in Iraq. But rather than give us a debate on Iraq, we see a 
resolution that comes from the Republican leadership that was drafted 
by political experts on spin.
  We all support our troops. We merge the war on terror with the war in 
Afghanistan and the war in Iraq so that we can cloud the debate and 
make the debate about whether and who supports the troops.
  Surely we can do better than that. 2,500 Americans have been killed; 
19,000 brave men and women have been injured. And there is no 
accountability on the part of this Congress to the mistakes that have 
been made.

[[Page 11462]]

  ``They will welcome us when we get there.'' We had a window of 
opportunity, and we missed it. We didn't send enough troops in to 
secure the peace in Iraq. General Shinseki warned us, and they ignored 
him and sent him out to pasture.
  We didn't vet Saddam's army so we could secure Baghdad. Mistake. 
Mistake. We have less oil production now than we did when Saddam was in 
power. The Iraqi people have lost their opportunity. They have 3.9 
hours of electricity in Baghdad and we are talking about things getting 
better? In a time of war, this administration and this Congress has an 
obligation to tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq.
  We also have a responsibility to provide the oversight so we correct 
mistakes, we get our troops into the background because we are sitting 
ducks up there because we have an occupation that our own State 
Department polls say is unpopular by 85 to 90 percent of the Iraqis.
  I hear them talk about the terrorists and how we are fighting al 
Qaeda. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until this President stood before the 
world and said, ``Bring it on. Bring it on.'' Well, they brought it on 
and now 10 percent of the insurgency are actually terrorists. When we 
leave Iraq, they will leave Iraq.
  We ought to listen to what the State Department told us in advance. 
We should look at our own investigations and analysis by the State 
Department that tell us we cannot win this war militarily. You don't 
beat an insurgency with military conflict; you beat an insurgency 
through making the right planning decisions, by making the right 
decisions to give the Iraqis what they need to be upfront to keep their 
own security in that country. You give the Iraqis what they need to 
make their own determination of what their future is. The time has come 
for the United States to move into the background and bring our men and 
women home.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/4\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), a member of the International 
Relations Committee.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, September 11 changed our lives 
forever. But the war on terror started long before that. The year 1979 
changed the world. When Iran took our embassy hostage, the seeds of 
Islamic jihad were spread all over the Middle East.
  These seeds planted hatred and contempt for freedom in the souls of 
men like Osama bin Laden. In 1983, they murdered our marines in Beirut. 
In 1993, Ramzi Yousef and his al Qaeda associates bombed the World 
Trade Center. They were supposed to fall that day, but that day would 
come later.
  They struck the Khobar Towers in 1996. They bombed our embassies in 
Africa. They defeated us in Somalia. And they deliberately attacked the 
USS Cole.
  Each time we failed to respond. And then came September 11. It was as 
if the United States was a sleeping giant. And not until the bloodiest 
alarm of 9/11 did the giant finally awake. America cannot afford to go 
back to sleep again.
  We are fighting this war in distant lands, and we are winning. Our 
struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan is the great stand in this war on 
terror. The terrorists are there. Zarqawi was there before, and we are 
there. And if we fail, the terrorists will prevail just as they have 
over the last 30 years.
  Behind me is a picture of Sergeant Byron Norwood taken moments before 
he died for his country in this global war on terror. In Fallujah, 
Sergeant Norwood helped save seven of his fellow marines in a gun 
battle with insurgents and gave his own life in the process. Simply 
put, Byron was a hero.
  His story reminds me of the Bible verse found in the Gospel of John: 
``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for 
his friends.''
  Some say we should retreat in this war on terror, but to them I say 
to cut and run now would not only be an insult to those waging this 
liberating battle but a dishonor to those like Byron who made the 
ultimate sacrifice because few causes are as worthy, few prices are as 
great.
  I received a letter from Byron's mother expressing her concern that 
the American people would soon forget about Byron and his sacrifice for 
freedom. To Janet and all of the other Gold Star Mothers, I say we will 
never forget Byron, and we will never forget about the other fallen 
heroes who paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.
  Whether it is Bill and Janet Norwood or the wounded soldiers at 
Walter Reed Hospital or the soldiers I met with in Iraq, they all tell 
me the same thing, Congressman, finish the job. And finish the job we 
will.
  I would like to close with a message that Byron's father gave to me 
to deliver to this Chamber. Byron's father said, ``Byron understood the 
meaning of Semper Fidelis, always faithful, as do all marines who were 
there that day in Fallujah. He willingly gave his life, and others were 
seriously and permanently wounded as they sacrificed for their band of 
brothers and their country. He would never have traded honor for 
political advantage.''
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to indicate to one 
and all who cannot be here today that our legislative hands are tied. 
We have no opportunity, even though we pleaded with the Rules Committee 
to give us an opportunity to be able to speak on alternatives to this 
resolution.
  You have heard that this resolution is in support of the troops. It 
is not. You have heard that this resolution is in support of the war on 
terrorism. It is not. And I will tell you why it is not, and I will 
tell you why we have to have an alternative and why we need to vote 
``no'' on this resolution, because it doesn't support the troops, and 
it does not support the war on terrorism.
  The people in this resolution that are referred to, the honored 
sacrifice that has been made by the Armed Forces of the United States, 
is supposedly on behalf of somebody called Prime Minister Nouri al 
Maliki, a man who today said he was going to engage in conversations 
with terrorists who have murdered Americans to give them amnesty. This 
is the amnesty resolution.
  To vote for this resolution is to vote for those who support amnesty 
for those who kill American troops. This is the government we are 
supposed to be standing up and defending, the very freedom that gives 
that prime minister the possibility of speaking to the terrorists has 
been won by the blood and sacrifice of American troops. This is the 
amnesty bill. This is the amnesty resolution.
  There are people on this floor who will not grant amnesty to people 
who cut their lawns, who wash the dishes in the restaurants they eat 
in; but they are willing to vote for a resolution that says that they 
support a government that is willing to give amnesty to people who 
murder the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States.
  I am not going to do that. And if you disagree with that 
interpretation, give me the right to put it on the floor for a vote and 
let's see who wins the hearts and minds of the American people, not the 
Iraqi people, as to who is really supporting the troops and who is 
really willing to fight a war on terror.
  This is nothing but a resolution confirming the existing 
administration policies. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, you 
deserve the opportunity on the floor of the people's House to have a 
real debate, not a discussion, not to echo sentiments, but to have 
substantive words on the floor that allow the American people to 
understand what direction do we want to take this country.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to clarify for the record that this resolution honors all those 
Americans who have taken an active part in the global war on terror, 
whether as first responders, protecting the homeland, as servicemembers 
overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, and in other roles.
  And further, it honors the sacrifice of the United States Armed 
Forces and of partners in the coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans 
who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or have been 
wounded in the struggle,

[[Page 11463]]

and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who 
risk their lives to help defend freedom. This is a resolution to honor 
their sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Harris), a member of the House International 
Relations Committees.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this strong, proactive 
defense of our liberties and freedoms from the preying forces of 
Islamic radicals in their jihad against the core values of our Western 
Civilization.
  We did not choose this war. They picked the fight. The events of 
September 11 represented the final moment of spending our days as 
bystanders.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about the choices which precipitated 
the war in Iraq. The choice we face today, and Americans will face in 
November, is between two visions: full commitment to protect our Nation 
and prosecute the global war against terrorists, or complete surrender 
to Islamic extremists who want to destroy us. There is no middle 
ground.
  Without maintaining pressure upon this global war, we face the grave 
risk of producing homegrown terrorism. These radical Islamists would 
rather take their fight to our streets, our communities, our 
neighborhoods.
  The necessity of a proactive, robust strategy recently was reiterated 
by an ally too well-acquainted with the threat posed by radicalized 
forces.
  British Prime Minister Tony Blair said: ``We have to act, not react; 
we have to do so on the basis of prediction, not certainty; and such an 
action will often, usually indeed, be outside our own territory.''
  America has acted. Our troops have responded honorably and 
successfully. Are we safe for today? Absolutely. Should we cut and run 
from Iraq? Never.
  As Winston Churchill said: ``We shall not fail or falter; we shall 
not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-
drawn trial of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the 
tools and we will finish the job.''
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This afternoon, regrettably, we are talking about the cost of this 
war, the cost of the commitment of the American people: the cost in 
money, and the cost in lives, over 2,500 to date; the cost in wounded, 
over 18,000, with very little or no oversight, very little or no 
accountability, and certainly very little or no shared sacrifice in 
this country.

                              {time}  1815

  This resolution that we are discussing, because it is not even a 
debate, is more about politics than about practical solutions. Anyone 
that doubts that, all you have got to do is read the article in today's 
paper that sets out the political strategy by the majority leader in 
terms of this resolution.
  Oversight, oversight, oversight. Where was our armor, both body armor 
and vehicle armor? What was our plan post ``Mission Accomplished'' 
press conference? Where were we during the issue of Abu Ghraib 
rendition and so many other things that have come up?
  In fact, last night I went home and I switched on the TV and I just 
happened, by chance, to catch the program on HBO, Last Letters Home: 
The Families. And it occurs to me this afternoon that we owe those 
families from that HBO program, and the 2,500 other families, an 
apology, because they have made the sacrifice. They understand the cost 
of this war. And they must be wondering where the accountability and 
where the oversight is. We need to apologize to them and to the 
American people for not doing our job.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), who has traveled to Iraq and has 
witnessed the progress firsthand.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have talked about 
facts and figures tonight. We have talked about whether we have got the 
right number of forces and how much money we are spending. But we can 
talk about facts and figures all the time. This is more than that.
  This is about faces. This is about faces in the fight on global 
terror. This is about the faces of leaders like Maliki and Karzai, guys 
that are worried whether the United States is going to keep its pledge 
and its word to be with them to the bitter end.
  This is about the faces of citizens who want to raise their families, 
who want to live and worship in a country that is free, where they can 
walk down the street without the fear of being blown up.
  This is about the faces of families who are concerned about whether 
we are going to do everything we need to do to make sure our soldiers, 
sailors and airmen have everything they need in this fight.
  This is about the faces of the enemy, cold blooded murderers with red 
eyes who have only one mission in life, death or victory.
  And this is about the faces of soldiers, dirty, tired, hungry, scared 
sometimes, but soldiers with a resolute mission, a mission of victory.
  Mr. Speaker, every day I thank God that we have men and women 
worldwide willing to do something bigger than any of us here today, 
willing to fight for freedom and justice and to keep America safe and 
strong.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution contains phrases such as 
``we will prevail,'' words like ``determination,'' ``resolve,'' ``we 
are committed to the completion of the mission.'' It is a good, well 
written pep talk. But where is the discussion of how?
  As Mr. Gilchrest, our colleague from Maryland and a decorated Vietnam 
war veteran said, where is the urgency in figuring out how we are going 
to do those things?
  We should be having a debate and a discussion on how we will prevail, 
not just that want to prevail.
  Specifically, how are we going to equip a very poorly equipped Iraqi 
army? How are we going to set up a system of support and supply and 
repair for the Iraqi army? How are we going to ensure that more Iraqis 
are employed and develop the economy? How are we going to increase 
electricity production, which is below prewar levels? How are we going 
to increase access to potable water and sanitation, which is below 
prewar levels? How are we going to increase oil production and the oil 
production sector, which is below prewar levels? How are we going to 
finish putting together the provincial reconstruction teams? How are we 
going to increase and improve the training of police? How are we going 
to help create and improve local courts and the judicial system? How 
are we going to improve the refining capacity? Iraq is an importer of 
gasoline. How are we going to improve the accountability for 
contractors? That means how are we going to quit wasting billions of 
U.S. tax dollars? How are we going to find more allies to share in this 
burden? How are we going to keep our Army, our military from breaking 
down? How are we going to strengthen our Reserve component, our blessed 
Guard and Reserve people? How are we going to preserve our all 
volunteer Army? How are we going to increase our public diplomacy, so 
that people will quit hating America all around the world? How are we 
going to make our troops safer?
  Those are the kinds of discussions we should be having. But what are 
we doing? We are rehashing the past. We are talking about the 1990s. We 
are talking about the war resolution. Let us look ahead. How are we 
going to prevail? How are we going to keep this commitment to the 
completion of this mission?
  Specifically, I think we need to do far better oversight. I am a 
member of the House Arms Services Committee. We are abysmal in our 
oversight, abysmal.
  Years ago when the Republicans took over, and maybe it was a good 
move at that time, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was 
eliminated. It has not worked to do that.
  I see friends over here. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to bring back 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations so we can ask these 
kind of

[[Page 11464]]

questions. How are we going to do the things? How are we going to 
achieve this pep talk that is going to be voted on today or tomorrow?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the International Relations 
Committee, who has traveled to Iraq, has met with our U.S. coalition, 
and Iraqi troops.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I went to Iraq in 2005. I was one of two 
Members of this Congress to view the first free elections in their 
history, and I watched in awe and admiration as more than 8 million 
people went to the polls and elected a government. Men and women, young 
and old, courageously cast their ballots in the face of the violent 
terrorists.
  I spoke to many Iraqis and they showed great defiance against those 
outlaws that wished to disrupt those elections. Despite facing 300 
attacks across the nation that day, more than 60 percent of the Iraqis 
went out to vote. Not even 44 murders by the terrorists could remove 
the resolve of those people.
  Men and women waited in line to cast their vote. They took the 
historic ballots, entered a cardboard booth and made their choice. With 
that simple but noble action, they pushed tyrants and terrorists aside 
and set Iraq on a path to freedom. Then they marched down the street 
holding their ink stained finger up high in defiance of those 
terrorists.
  I talked to Iraqis. And I talked to a woman who came up to me with 
tears in her eyes after she voted and said how grateful she and her 
family were for the America that we live in, for giving their sons for 
her family's freedom.
  She went on to relate to me how her husband and her brother had been 
murdered by the devil of the desert, Saddam Hussein.
  There have been more successful elections since the first, and the 
skeptics and the critics get it wrong with each new free and successful 
election.
  Democracy is the enemy of terrorists. They hate democracies as much 
as they hate the human life of the innocents that they murder.
  We cannot give in to these madmen. The insurgents have discovered 
that the United States and her allies cannot be defeated on the 
battlefield. They have also found that the steely resolve of the Iraqi 
people to create a free and fair and inclusive government cannot be 
broken. Liberty and freedom are overcoming treachery and tyranny and 
violence. We will not fear nor flee nor flinch in this absolute 
resolve.
  And our mission statement was stated 40 years ago by President John 
F. Kennedy when he said, ``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us 
well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any 
hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the 
survival and success of liberty.''
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, in light of the 
gentleman from Arkansas' comments, Dr. Snyder, to remind the body, Mr. 
Speaker, that it was the Investigation Subcommittee of the Armed 
Services Committee that produced the all important legislation we now 
call Goldwater-Nickels, which brought about jointness within the armed 
services.
  And I also might mention that all 29 Democrats sent a letter to the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, from which we have not 
received an answer, recommending and asking that the Investigations Or 
Oversight Subcommittee be reestablished.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this debate on this resolution, 
and the resolution itself, continues two very dangerous patterns that 
have sort of governed all of our actions in Iraq for far, far too long.
  First of all, there are no specifics, as Congressman Snyder said 
quite articulately, as to how we are going to achieve this victory.
  When this debate was billed, we were told this was going to be the 
floor of the House, the People's House talking about how to deal with 
the very tough challenges that now present themselves in Iraq. Even the 
President admits that things have not gone the way we had planned, and 
we need to step up and figure out how to fix the problems.
  And yet, this resolution doesn't say a thing about that. It says, 
terrorism is bad, our troops are good, and we want to win.
  This House is failing in its mission with such an open statement that 
does not get at the how of winning. How are we going to deal with an 
open-ended commitment to Iraq? How are we going to pay the price for 
that? Is it even in the best interest of our goal of a stable and 
peaceful Iraq to say that our troops will stay there for as long as is 
necessary?
  Those questions are not answered. Unless we in this House are willing 
to step up and put policy forward, we shouldn't say that this is a 
debate about the future of Iraq. It is not. We have many hard questions 
that need to be answered. This resolution does not do that.
  And the second dangerous trend is the pattern of the President and 
the majority in this Congress to say anyone who disagrees with them is 
somehow unpatriotic and defeatist, which to my mind means that we all 
need a refresher course on why democracy is important. We are all very 
good at saying that it is important. It is important so that we hear 
all the voices, not just those who disagree with us. That way we can 
learn from our mistakes, which we desperately need to do in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in disappointment--though I must say, not in 
surprise--about the exercise the House is engaged in today. This is not 
a true debate about our policy in Iraq. A real debate on Iraq would 
allow us to consider alternative proposals and vote on meaningful 
amendments that could help us improve the very difficult situation 
there. Instead we have before us an un-amendable, rhetorical document 
about the war on terrorism that barely focuses on Iraq itself, and 
certainly doesn't deal with the real challenges we face there. This 
process is an offense to our democracy.
  What is even more troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that this kind of 
undemocratic approach is precisely what led to the Bush 
administration's many costly mistakes in Iraq. Americans have seen how 
the administration's stubborn single-mindedness and refusal to consider 
alternative views and dissenting opinions have cost us dearly in Iraq. 
The facts are all-too-well-known:
  When General Shinseki said that far more troops would be needed to 
secure the peace in Iraq, he was ignored and soon retired--and the 
result was that the troops we did send struggled unnecessarily to 
prevent and control a massive insurgency.
  When advisors warned the administration not to de-Baathify and 
disband the Iraqi military and security forces, they were ignored. As 
Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly admitted, this was a grave 
mistake that effectively pushed thousands of military-trained, 
disempowered Sunnis into the streets, fueling the post-war insurgency.
  And the administration's refusal to heed dissenting views on Iraq 
continues to this day. Now that the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction has brought to light massive amounts of waste, fraud, 
and abuse in the reconstruction contracting, I understand that the 
administration and the Republicans in Congress are trying to 
prematurely end his mandate.
  This is a clear pattern, Mr. Speaker, and the consequences of this 
arrogant, undemocratic approach are real. It has cost us dearly in 
American lives and resources, undermined our efforts to build peace and 
stability in Iraq, and delayed our departure from the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I supported the use-of-force authorization in October 
2002 in order to give the President the leverage to hold Saddam Hussein 
accountable for his threatening behavior and refusal to submit to 
weapons inspections. And that is what makes it all the more frustrating 
that the President misused that authority by rushing to war and 
committing so many grave and costly mistakes in Iraq.
  So no, Mr. Speaker, this is not a real debate. A real debate would 
allow us to consider the important questions in Iraq: Can we afford to 
make an open-ended commitment to staying in Iraq? Has our troop 
presence there reached the point where it is inhibiting a successful 
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty? Can our strained military and 
ballooning national deficit handle it?
  How can we accelerate the transition to Iraqi sovereignty and 
responsibility for their

[[Page 11465]]

own country? How best can we engage in more robust diplomacy with our 
allies and key regional players who can help bolster the new Iraqi 
government and contribute to its reconstruction?
  How can we improve Congressional oversight so that we can identify 
and rectify the enormous mistakes the administration has made in Iraq?
  These are the questions we should be debating, Mr. Speaker, because 
they directly affect our ability to achieve success in Iraq. We owe it 
to our brave men and women in uniform and to the American people to ask 
these questions. But instead, we have a resolution before us today that 
is basically irrelevant when it comes to the real issues in Iraq. It 
says, essentially, that we support fighting terrorism and that we are 
committed to achieving success in Iraq. I agree with that, but that 
doesn't say anything about how we get there. That is the important 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, today Congress is continuing to utterly abdicate its 
oversight responsibility. Since the outbreak of war, this Congress has 
done little more than endorse the administration's policy in Iraq, 
instead of asking the tough questions and scrutinizing that policy, as 
the Constitution requires us to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope, despite this Congress' refusal to conduct 
oversight, that we can be honest today as we look ahead in Iraq. We all 
want to see an Iraq that is stable, secure, and free. Our troops are 
doing an outstanding job, and they deserve our full support and 
respect. But the fact is that success or failure in Iraq increasingly 
depends on the decisions of Iraqi leaders, and they must understand 
that. In order to achieve success in Iraq we must accelerate the 
transition to Iraqi sovereignty.
  I believe that significantly reducing our military footprint is 
critical for making that happen. While we cannot simply abandon Iraq at 
this point, drawing down our forces levels in a responsible way in the 
coming months will force the Iraqis to take greater responsibility for 
their own security and reduce their dependence on U.S. forces. It will 
also send an important message to the Iraqi people that Americans are 
not there to occupy the country, but rather seek to begin leaving as 
Iraqis take control of their own country.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward in Iraq, both the future and 
the past matter. We must make the best of a difficult situation by 
working diligently to help Iraqis take full responsibility for running 
their country so that our overburdened troops can come home. And we 
must do so in a manner that does not give the violent Islamic 
terrorists in the world any greater strength. Yet we must also be 
willing to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes so that we can chart 
a new path forward. That requires holding the Bush administration and 
this rubber-stamp Congress accountable for their failures.''
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, I would like to give myself such time right now as I might 
consume.
  We have a strategy, and it is a strategy for success, Mr. Speaker. 
Every day in Iraq and in Afghanistan is proof positive that we are 
making progress and that we will prevail.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we need to have a 
debate on how to win. And I would point them to the Intelligence, to 
the Armed Services Committee, our own International Relations 
Committee, the countless hearings and meetings we have held to address 
the issues that have been raised here. And while I will let Armed 
Services discuss their oversight, I would like to read just briefly 
some of the sessions held by our International Relations Committee on 
Oversight.
  Full committee hearings in the 109th Congress, in the 108th Congress, 
full committee Members only meeting, subcommittee hearings in the 109th 
Congress, subcommittee hearings in the 108th Congress, classified 
briefings in the 108th and 109th Congresses, as well as a total of 9 
resolutions of inquiry on Iraq referred to our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Terrorism, 
as a method of achieving political goals and settling political 
differences, is intolerable to the civilized world. Inevitably, 
terrorists will gain access to chemical, biological and even nuclear 
weapons. Never has a non-government organization been able to deliver 
weapons of mass destruction. That will be unprecedented, and it is 
truly intolerable. So terrorism, as an organized system of political 
action, must be defeated.
  Within the Palestinian Authority, for the first time, the issue of 
terrorism as a means of political action is now the issue between Mr. 
Abbas and the Prime Minister. And in Iraq, the same issue is being 
joined. The new Prime Minister recognizes that there can be no 
government if political organizations are to each have their own 
armies.
  Iraqis had the courage to vote for the adoption of an interim 
government, for a constitution, for a permanent government, and the 
Prime Minister, as well as communities throughout Iraq, get it, that 
governing themselves is what they want.
  Our forces have distinguished themselves in Iraq, both as skilled 
military units and model citizens, and I salute them. They have won the 
war we had to win, and are now training thousands of Iraqis and 
transferring authorities to Iraqi units to win the war only they can 
win.

                              {time}  1830

  Our impatience to leave is matched by their impatience to take the 
reins of their destiny. The reins are being transferred. Patience, 
hope, perseverance. Our children will inherit a safer world.
  My heartfelt gratitude for those who have given their lives to our 
Nation, and for their families.
  America salutes you.
  I have a picture on my desk and letters in my files from families of 
talented young men and women killed in Iraq. I am proud of their 
commitment to our country of their service of the values they held 
dear. But I am unendingly sad--for the sacrifice they and their 
families have had to make.
  Let us be clear--terrorism as a method of achieving political goals 
and settling political differences is intolerable to the civilized 
world.
  Terrorism maximizes the killing of the innocent. Terrorism glorifies 
the brutality of torture and murder. Terrorism knows no diplomats and 
rejects negotiations as a means of resolving differences.
  In our world, weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, and 
nuclear--will be increasingly available to terrorist organizations 
espousing terrorism as a means of political action.
  That is unprecedented. Never has a non-nation organization been able 
to deliver weapons of mass destruction. That is unprecedented, 
unacceptable and intolerable.
  Yet terrorism as an organized system of political action has 
developed to new heights in the Middle East and it is there that it 
must be defeated.
  Within the Palestinian Authority, for the first time, the issue of 
terrorism as a method of political action is now the issue between Mr. 
Abbas and the Prime Minister. Very specifically, they are debating not 
the legitimacy of a national army or diplomacy, but the legitimacy of 
political armies, factional armies and terrorist action--that is, 
violence ungoverned by national interest or law.
  And in Iraq, the same issue is being joined. The new Prime Minister 
recognizes that there can be no government if political organizations 
(even if reflecting religious and ethnic differences) are to each have 
their own armies governed only by the unlimited rights of terrorists to 
kill others and terrorize those committed to public service.
  Iraqis had the courage to vote to adopt an interim government, to 
adopt a constitution, and to elect their first democratic government. 
The prime minister, as well as communities throughout Iraq, get it, 
that governing themselves is what they want, and they are in varying 
degrees.
  We as a people know the power of freedom under law. And our forces 
have distinguished themselves in Iraq, both as skilled military units 
and as model citizens respecting others and supporting and encouraging 
the local processes of governance.
  I salute our men and women of the U.S. military. They have won the 
war we had to win and are now training thousands of Iraqis and 
transferring authority to Iraqi units, to win the war only they can 
win.
  Ultimately, the Iraqi units will defeat terrorism as a method of 
political action and the people all over the world will triumph. Our 
impatience to leave is matched by their impatience to take the reins of 
their destiny.
  The reins are being transferred. Patience. Hope. Perseverance. Our 
children will inherit a safer world as a consequence of our success.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to commend our

[[Page 11466]]

friends, the Iraqi people, for their success in forming a unity 
government and, most importantly, to send a message that the United 
States does not back down from its commitments.
  Six months ago I visited Iraq following their national elections 
which set up a truly representative and united government. Since then, 
the Iraqi Government has made significant advances. Just last week we 
saw the completion of the prime minister's cabinet, most notably the 
key positions of the ministers of defense and interior. It is important 
for the new Iraqi Government to fully understand our level of 
commitment to them during this time of transition.
  Let it never be said that the United States backed away from its 
commitment to peace, security, and stability of this region.
  A half century ago, Winston Churchill addressed this body to urge the 
United States to not lose patience and not lose hope in our commitment 
to rebuild a stronger, united Europe following World War II facing the 
specter of communism. Mr. Speaker, Churchill's words still ring true 
today. From the Berlin Airlift to the rebuilding of Japan, from the DMZ 
in Korea to the mountains of Afghanistan, and now to the streets of 
Baghdad, the world has come to learn that America does not back down 
from its commitments.
  Today we affirm our commitment not only to the Iraqi people but to 
the cause of liberty throughout the world.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the 
Armed Services Committee, I rise today to give voice to a few of those 
outside views about Iraq, those of several former general officers who 
have the courage to speak out about how this war has been mishandled by 
the President and this Republican Congress.
  Take, for example, General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the 
U.S. Central Command. He says, ``We are paying the price for the lack 
of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years' worth of 
planning were thrown away, troop levels dismissed out of hand . . . 
these were strategic mistakes, mistake of policy.''
  Or how about Major General Paul Eaton, who led the initial effort to 
create the Iraqi Army. He says that the ``failure to build coalitions 
with our allies . . . has imposed far greater demands and risks on our 
soldiers in Iraq than necessary.''
  The list goes on and on. These generals have served our country with 
honor and distinction, and we would be foolish not to heed their 
counsel. But this administration and this majority refuse to listen to 
any views other than their own.
  I agree with many of my colleagues who say that the failure in Iraq 
is not an option. But unless we take a long, honest look at how we got 
where we are right now and demand some kind of accountability for the 
mistakes that were made and learn from those mistakes, there can be no 
success.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong 
support for House Resolution 861.
  Answering questions at a September 27 Pentagon press conference, 
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, 
said, ``If we are not successful in the global war on terrorism, then 
our way of life is, indeed, at stake. My view is, if terrorism wins in 
Iraq, the next 9/11 is right around the corner. It's just that 
simple,'' he said.
  This is the sober reality we face. Our safety at home and the cause 
of freedom abroad is largely contingent upon our success in Iraq. Our 
enemies would like nothing better than to seize upon the unrest in 
Iraq, drive coalition forces away, and take refuge in another 
autocratic regime like the former Taliban and Baathist Parties, from 
which they could have greater wherewithal to kill Americans and our 
allies. We must fight and win the battle against terror overseas so we 
never have to fight it here at home.
  As we have moved to restore order and stability to the region, our 
temporary presence has drawn thousands of al Qaeda disciples to Iraq to 
capitalize on what began as a small and anticipated homegrown 
insurgency by Saddam Hussein's fiercest loyalists. Now Iraq is al 
Qaeda's center of gravity, and we must do all that we can to secure and 
stabilize Iraq and its promising new government, defeating agents of 
terror on fronts abroad so they never again strike us here at home.
  We must also remember that it is not a war of our choosing. al Qaeda 
declared war against the United States more than a decade ago and 
launched tactical strikes against Americans and our interests 
throughout the 1990s. Whether or not Iraq was directly involved in the 
September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, our operations in 
that nation have become a war against terrorists who have already 
attacked this country.
  It is essential to the security of the American people and to the 
world's security that the United States together with its allies take 
the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance.
  Therefore, I do not believe it is in our national interest to 
arbitrarily set a date for withdrawal until our mission is complete. 
House Resolution 861 makes it clear that the American people are 
determined to prevail in Iraq and other fronts to protect our freedom 
and defeat terrorist enemies. To achieve this goal, we must remain 
engaged, patient, and persistent.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform 
have shouldered the enormous tasks we have asked of them; and they 
should be commended for it, especially considering the careless way 
this war was planned and conducted.
  Our soldiers would never complain about the mistakes of their 
Commander in Chief. The military just does not work that way. We all 
know that. Without any second guessing, they will always do the jobs 
assigned to them.
  But we are the Congress. It is our job to raise questions about how 
our troops are used and cared for. It is our job to identify and to 
look into mistakes that are made by the executive branch. It is our job 
to consider and learn from the lessons of Iraq. But what have we 
learned today? Recycling words and we are not fixing problems.
  This resolution, Mr. Speaker, just does not cut it. Our soldiers are 
doing their jobs. They have earned and deserve a Congress that does its 
job.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), who has been to Iraq four 
times, to Afghanistan twice, and I had the honor of traveling to both 
places with him as well.
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 861.
  The debate we are having today serves as an important reminder to all 
Americans that we are a nation at war. This war is against an enemy 
that embraces hate and intolerance over liberty and justice. Like other 
wars in our history, the human and financial costs are high. We mourn 
the loss of each and every American who has made the ultimate sacrifice 
in defense of our Nation. All Americans are forever indebted to these 
courageous citizens and their families.
  It is understandable that Americans worry for the safety of our 
troops and have doubts as reports of suicide bombings and other attacks 
air regularly on television. But as in the war against fascism in the 
20th century and as demonstrated by the tragic attacks of 9/11, the 
stakes for our Nation and our democratic allies throughout the world 
could not be higher.
  In place of the regimes of terror and torture in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, we now have duly elected constitutional governments, 
governments that are working to promote democracy in a region of the 
world that has rarely embraced it. The citizens of these nations have 
demonstrated their intense desire for freedom through their willingness 
to face down threats of violence and

[[Page 11467]]

death in casting their votes in numerous national elections in both 
countries.
  The global war on terrorism in the broad sense and the specific 
battles in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be won according to a 
specified timetable, and our enemy cannot be appeased. But we can and 
we will win this war because our cause is just and right. And winning 
this war will ensure that the democratic gains made in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are not lost.
  The security of our Nation and its citizens, along with the defense 
of the ideals of freedom, democracy, and justice, is what is at stake 
in this global struggle of good over evil. This struggle requires us to 
go beyond Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, just as 
previous generations did to defeat the totalitarian ideologies of the 
20th century. And in the words of President Roosevelt at the beginning 
of World War II, it means going forward with ``confidence in our Armed 
Forces, with the unbounding determination of our people'' in order to 
``gain the inevitable triumph.''
  May God watch over our troops serving in harm's way, and may God 
continue to bless our great Nation, the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 861 and ask 
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  The debate we are having today serves as an important reminder to all 
Americans that we are a nation at war. This war is against an enemy 
that embraces hate and intolerance over life and liberty. Like other 
wars in our history, the human and financial costs are high. We mourn 
the loss of each and every American who has made the ultimate sacrifice 
in defense of our nation. All Americans are forever indebted to these 
courageous citizens and their families.
  It is understandable that Americans worry for the safety of our 
troops and have doubts as reports of suicide bombings and other attacks 
air regularly on television. But, as in the war against fascism in the 
20th century, and as demonstrated by the tragic attacks of 9-11, the 
stakes for our nation and our democratic allies throughout the world 
could not be higher.
  I have traveled to Afghanistan twice and Iraq four times over the 
past four and one-half years. During these visits, there have been two 
constants that have instilled confidence in me about our mission and 
progress in these countries.
  First is the professionalism, courage, and sense of duty displayed by 
our men and women in uniform. Whenever you thank our soldiers, marines, 
sailors, and airmen for their service, they humbly reply, ``I'm just 
doing my job.''
  Their job, of course, is to protect our way of life. To protect the 
lives of our nation's citizens and the principles for which our great 
nation stands.
  Our troops have removed truly brutal regimes from power in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. They have denied terrorists two safe havens. They 
have eliminated the threat that a murderous dictator who used weapons 
of mass destruction on his own people--a dictator who continued to defy 
United Nations resolutions and shoot at American planes enforcing the 
no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq--would again produce and 
brandish such weapons once international support for sanctions broke 
down.
  Our men and women in uniform are building schools and roads, training 
police and soldiers, and hunting down terrorists. They are fighting al-
Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq so we don't have to fight them here at 
home. They are helping the Iraqi security forces stand up so we can 
stand down.
  In place of the regimes of terror and torture in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, we now have duly elected constitutional governments. 
Governments that are working to promote democracy in a region of the 
world that has rarely embraced it. The citizens of these nations have 
demonstrated their intense desire for freedom through their willingness 
to face down threats of violence and death in casting their votes in 
numerous national elections in both countries.
  The devotion to duty of our men and women in uniform is truly 
inspiring. The sacrifices of these patriotic Americans on the front 
lines of the Global War on Terrorism, as well as the sacrifices of 
their family members on the home front, have earned the respect, 
admiration, and eternal gratitude of all Americans, as well as that of 
50 million Afghani and Iraqi citizens who are free today because of the 
troops' successes.
  The second constant in my visits to Afghanistan and Iraq is the 
genuine gratefulness expressed by the Iraqi and Afghani people for our 
nation's actions in liberating them and giving them a chance at 
freedom. Again and again, what I heard was simply: ``Thank you for 
liberating our citizens.''
  On my first visit to Iraq, I met with the Mayor of Kirkuk, Abdul 
Rehman Mustafa, and other Kirkuk city leaders. Mayor Mustafa 
specifically asked my colleagues and me, upon our return home, to thank 
our nation's mothers and fathers for their willingness to support their 
children, our troops, in going into harm's way to defeat Saddam Hussein 
and thus liberate Iraq and its citizens. In the words of Dr. Kemal 
Kirkuki, one of Mayor Mustafa's colleagues on the Kirkuk City Council, 
``This was not a war against Iraq. It was a war to liberate Iraq.''
  On another trip, I met with a group of Iraqi women leaders, including 
Safia Taleb al-Suhail. This group of female government and private 
sector leaders exemplifies the transformation of Iraq from a nation 
ruled by terror and torture to one in which men and women alike have 
constitutional rights and opportunities. Safia shared with me how her 
late father, an opponent of Saddam Hussein, was killed in 1994 while 
living in exile in Lebanon by Saddam's intelligence service. Ten years 
later, Safia was named Iraq's Ambassador to Egypt.
  The general consensus of these Iraqi women leaders was that they 
couldn't wait for the day when our and all Coalition troops could 
return home and Iraq did not need the military assistance of other 
nations. These Iraqi women leaders emphasized, however, how glad they 
were that our and the other Coalition troops were there ensuring the 
freedom of all Iraqis.
  On my most recent trip to Iraq, I observed and met with Iraqi 
soldiers undergoing basic training. There are now over 260,000 Iraqis 
trained and equipped to fight the insurgency. Iraqis like those I met 
with at the East Fallujah training camp continue to stand in line and 
volunteer for service in Iraqi military and police units, even though 
they know that said service makes them a likely target for the 
insurgents. The Iraqi soldiers I met expressed their deep thanks for 
what our troops have done in their country.
  The Global War on Terrorism in the broad sense and the specific 
battles in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be won according to a 
specified timetable, and our enemy cannot be appeased. But we can and 
will win this war because our cause is just and right. And winning this 
war will ensure the democratic gains made in Afghanistan and Iraq are 
not lost. Winning this war will also have a far-reaching and critically 
important impact in other Middle East countries.
  The security of our nation and its citizens, along with the defense 
of the ideals of freedom, democracy, and justice, is what is at stake 
in this global struggle of good over evil. This struggle requires us to 
go beyond Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative--just as 
previous generations did to defeat the totalitarian ideologies of the 
20th century. And, in the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt at 
the beginning of the Second World War, it means going forward, ``with 
confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of 
our people,'' in order to ``gain the inevitable triumph.''
  May God watch over our troops serving in harm's way, and may God 
continue to bless our great nation--the United States of America.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I know that it is Congress's responsibility to give our 
troops the resources needed to accomplish their mission. It is a 
responsibility that I take very seriously. It is precisely that support 
for the troops that motivates me to warn that we may be doing 
irreparable harm to our military if we do not alter our mission in Iraq 
quickly.
  General Barry McCaffrey recently shared his frank assessment of 
operations in Iraq. He said we should know by year's end whether the 
new Iraqi Government can effectively control the insurgency. He has 
argued that we cannot sustain our current level of operations beyond 
Christmas without breaking our military and endangering our ability to 
fight future missions. In other words, we are quite possibly 6 months 
away from a point of no return that could have long-ranging effects on 
our military and the stability of the Middle East and on our ability to 
defend this Nation.
  So what is our strategy to prevent the worst case scenario? Where is 
the

[[Page 11468]]

oversight and accountability? Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one 
thing. It is not in the resolution that we are debating today. The 
Republican leadership prefers to embrace the status quo and ignore the 
very difficult decisions this Congress needs to make.
  We deserve better. Our men and women in uniform deserve better, and 
the American people deserve better.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this resolution declares to the 
world the resolve of America to fight and to win the global war on 
terror, including in its central front in Iraq.
  We have heard a great deal during this debate about mistakes that may 
have been made in the lead up to the war and during its execution, and 
they may be somewhat correct.
  But the facts that cannot be debated are that Saddam Hussein had 
brutally repressed his own people, that he had used chemical weapons 
against his own people, that he had sanctioned the rape and murder of 
his own citizens with rape rooms and mass graves standing as a 
testament to that fact, that he had harbored terrorists within his 
borders and supported terrorist organizations throughout the region and 
the entire world, that he defied the world continually by violating 17 
United Nations Security Council resolutions. Saddam Hussein was a 
threat to world peace and security, and it was a correct decision to go 
in and remove him from power.
  And now we must complete the mission to bring freedom to the Iraqi 
people. And freedom is taking root. We have seen recently the 
completion of the freely elected Iraqi unity government serving under a 
Constitution written by the Iraqi people and approved by the Iraqi 
people. And last week American forces, with the cooperation of Iraqi 
citizens and security forces, eliminated al Zarqawi, the terrorist 
leader. And according to the Iraqi national security advisor, the 
elimination of Zarqawi has delivered his government, he said, a huge 
treasure of information on the terrorist operation. And we have already 
seen the results with raids across Iraq where hundreds of terrorists 
have been killed or captured. The Iraqi national security advisor also 
said that he thought the security situation in the country was 
improving enough to allow a large number of U.S. forces to leave Iraq 
by the end of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House, every American, we all want our 
troops to come home. Lord knows our troops have performed brilliantly 
and have sacrificed greatly, as American soldiers have done throughout 
our history when defending our freedom. But they do not want to come 
home before their mission is complete.
  And simply put, you cannot say that you support the troops without 
allowing them to complete their mission.
  This resolution declares the United States is committed to the 
completion of that mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and 
united Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments made by the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), I reflect on an article from The Washington 
Post. And it is sad and disturbing that on the very day that we 
announced and learned that 2,500 American troops have been killed in 
Iraq, that the prime minister, Maliki, proposes a limited amnesty, a 
plan likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. 
troops. That is very disturbing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I have the privilege of working closely with our troops, the 
best fighting force the world has ever known.
  And I am proud to support this resolution, because if people will 
just sit down and read it calmly, you will see that it expresses the 
strong support for our troops and for victory. Now, it is being used 
here today as some sort of political Rorschach test. I regret that, 
because the great leaders in American history have used our times of 
war to unite our country instead of divide our country.
  Mr. Speaker, our troops are probably wondering why we are debating 
the Iraq war now 3 years after the beginning of that conflict. We 
should have had a good debate at the start of the war. I was not 
serving in Congress then. But it has gone down in history as one of the 
worst debates in American history.
  There are many other flaws in the process. But today all Members of 
this body support our troops. All Members of this body support our 
troops. Democrat, Republican, Independent, you name it, we support our 
troops.
  Now we should all question how the war is being run because that is 
our patriotic duty. I for one trust our military. I wish our Republican 
friends trusted our military before, because few times in American 
history has military wisdom been overridden as with this 
administration.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) who has been to Iraq four times to visit 
with our troops.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I spent many years in coaching. Every 
Monday morning after a Saturday game, I got lots of mail telling me 
what I should have done. None of those letters helped me very much, 
because the game was over; hindsight was always perfect. And the was 
not what we should have done, but rather, what do we do now.
  And the same is true I think in regard to Iraq. We need to be 
proactive, not reactive. Like many Members of Congress, I have traveled 
to Iraq multiple times, and I met on one of these visits a young 
captain from Nebraska. This is what he said. He said that if we pull 
out prematurely, if we do not see this thing through, three things are 
going to happen.
  Number one, every soldier we have lost will have died in vain. I 
think what he says is true. I called a mother this morning whose son 
had just been killed. She was proud of her son. She was proud of the 
sense of mission he had. And I really hate to tell her that we are 
leaving, that he died in vain.
  Number two, tens of thousands of Iraqis will die as the nation 
implodes. This is what he said. And there may be hundreds of thousands. 
We will have broken our promise. We told them we would not pull out 
until we were ready and they were ready. And we cannot break our 
promise.
  And, third, we will put a huge bulls eye on our backs, because as 
terrorists feel that terrorism works, and that we will retreat in the 
face of terrorism, only more terrorism will result.
  We have seen many examples, Beirut, Kenya, USS Cole, World Trade 
Center bombing number one, and Bali. One of my All-American football 
players was killed in that bombing. Three hundred people lost their 
lives. And so inaction has led to only more terrorism, including 9/11.
  The lack of resolve and willingness to see this through will only 
result in the spread of terrorism and greater loss of life than 
anything we have experienced so far.
  Many of the soldiers I have met in Iraq are on their third and fourth 
tours of duty. They volunteered because they see progress. They have a 
sense of mission and purpose. And the one thing they ask me and tell me 
is that they are committed to completion of their mission. We should 
allow them to do so.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who 
has been to Iraq some nine times, former Army Ranger, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, as I thought about today's debate, Tom 
Paine's words in the crisis came to mind: these are the times that try 
men's souls.
  It is not that the Army is in tatters. Our Army in the Revolutionary 
War was in tatters at the time; it was just before the Battle of 
Princeton and Trenton, which were successful and pulled us back 
together.

[[Page 11469]]

  It is that we seem to be in tatters. I am extremely disappointed that 
this resolution, the process for the resolution, and some of the 
whereases in the resolution have invited Members of this House to 
become angry and to oppose the resolution.
  The resolution is something that we all should be supporting. I 
support the resolution. The ``resolved'' part of the resolution is 
quite reasonable. And it expresses the sense of this Congress and this 
country that we will be resolved with regard to this engagement. We 
cannot afford to do otherwise.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with disappointment that I participate in the 
debate today, a debate that is designed intentionally to divide us, 
when in fact we ought to be showing a great deal of unity as a country 
in support of our troops and in support of the effort in Iraq.
  We are making progress there. It is a slow go. These kinds of 
insurgencies typically take 9 to 14 years to deal with. If we hang in 
there, the Iraqi people ultimately will get control of the security 
situation in that country.
  If we fail, our security situation gets worse. Theirs is awful. It is 
a huge threat to Israel. It is a threat to Europe, and a threat to the 
world. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the resolution, even 
though they may be disappointed in the process that has been offered us 
today, in the ``whereas'' clauses in the resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous speaker for the 
vote of confidence. I am sure that the troops are very happy with that 
support as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, my Florida 
colleague, Mr. Diaz-Balart, who has been to both Iraq and Afghanistan 
and has spent Thanksgiving with our troops and our coalition forces.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is fighting 
bloodthirsty monsters like al Zarqawi, monsters that behead civilian 
hostages and that blow up innocent women and children.
  And if many of our Democratic colleagues across the aisle have their 
way, we would already have cut and run from Iraq and Zarqawi would 
still be alive beheading innocent people. Thankfully, our brave troops 
understood the kind of enemy that we are facing.
  This is an enemy, Mr. Speaker, that kidnaps and beheads hostages. 
This is an enemy that walks into a mall full of innocent people and 
explodes bombs. This is an enemy that declared war on the United States 
decades ago, Mr. Speaker, and refuses to stop until liberty has been 
snuffed out.
  But the United States cannot and will not allow that to happen. Hard 
work remains in Afghanistan and Iraq. The stakes are high. The Afghani 
people understand that. The Iraqi people understand this as well. So do 
the terrorists who murder on a daily basis.
  But we are steadily working towards success, not defeat. Because, you 
see, this is more than just about helping people over there. This is 
about protecting our country from rogue states and terrorists over 
here.
  This resolution, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that the American people 
are determined to prevail in protecting our freedom from terrorist. We 
will not cower to these thugs. We will continue to support our 
honorable troops and prevail over this evil, Mr. Speaker.
  As long as we maintain our resolve, Mr. Speaker, and do not cut and 
run, we will win, we will defeat the terrorists.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, in response to pressure from both 
sides of the aisle, the Republican leadership promised a full debate on 
Iraq. What we are getting today is certainly a long debate, but it is 
far from full.
  A full debate would mean that Members would be able to offer 
alternatives to this resolution. We would then be able to debate the 
merits of all of the resolutions offered. I had hoped to offer a 
bipartisan resolution I had introduced with my colleague, Joe Schwarz 
of Michigan, that recognizes political progress in Iraq, including the 
establishment of a national unity government, but also recognizes that 
more progress is needed, and that the Iraqis must meet their own 
deadlines for modifications to their Constitution.
  As it is, today's debate has been tightly controlled, and our only 
choice is to vote up or down on a ``status quo'' resolution that does 
not focus on Iraq and does not reflect reality on the ground. This 
resolution does not bring us together, Mr. Speaker. And I regret that 
this debate is driving us further apart.
  We were led into war as a divided Nation, and today we are even more 
divided. A successful conclusion in Iraq can only happen, it can only 
happen if Congress and the Bush administration work to bring unity at 
home.
  If this were a real debate on Iraq, we would focus on where we are 
versus where we thought we would be, and look at the options from here. 
Just last year, Congress called for 2006 to be a year of transition in 
Iraq that would allow U.S. forces to begin to redeploy. But we're into 
the middle of June, and we are actually adding troops.
  A real debate would admit that Iraq is a distinct issue, only part of 
the ``global war on terror'' insofar as the security vacuum in Iraq has 
attracted terrorists. But as the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, 
has said--Iraq is a separate conflict, an insurgency with terrorist 
elements and sectarian violence.
  A real debate would be honest about how continuous deployment in Iraq 
hurts our military personnel and their families, strains recruiting and 
retention, and damages readiness.
  This resolution talks about how much we honor our troops and the 
sacrifices they and their families have made to help defend freedom. No 
matter how each Member chooses to vote today, there's no question that 
we all honor and support our troops.
  But I would argue that if we really cared for our troops, we would 
make sure they had the equipment and training they need. We wouldn't 
make it less possible for them to meet some future mission. No one 
wants a new mission for our troops, but if we had to fight somewhere 
else, we wouldn't have the equipment or forces to do it.
  These are the themes that we should be debating in a resolution 
today, not the ``feel good'' messages included in the Republican 
resolution. We all want to feel good about Iraq and believe that 
progress is possible. But we can't want progress so much that we blind 
ourselves to the reality on the ground.
  This debate is driving us further apart.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman, my colleague from Florida (Mr. Cren-
shaw), who has traveled multiple times to Iraq to meet with our forces.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, in the days after 9/11, the United States 
took the last action that our enemies thought we would take, we took 
the fight to them. They believed that our partisan bickering would 
provide them with the protection they needed to continue to operate. 
But they were dead wrong.
  Today, we have them on the run. Saddam Hussein has been captured, and 
Zarqawi is dead. In their place stands the very thing our enemies fear 
the most, democracy. Instead of a fascist dictator is a newly elected 
prime minister. And fear and oppression have been replaced with an 
emerging economy.
  But our enemies continue to fight. Why is that? Does their resolve 
stem from some military, political, or strategic error on our part? No. 
To the contrary, it is our doubt that gives them strength. al Qaeda has 
declared Iraq as the battleground between democracy and their hatred of 
our way of life.
  But they know that their war cannot be won on the battlefield. And I 
look forward to the day when our friends in the Middle East can stand 
on their own. They have already proven to be allies, and the future of 
our friendship still hangs in the balance.
  Some would rather abandon our friends and everything we have 
accomplished, hoping this act of good faith would somehow appease a foe 
proven to be without mercy. But I know our borders and our communities 
should not be our front lines. It is our job to keep our Nation safe, 
and we will.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Missouri

[[Page 11470]]

has 4 minutes left, and the gentlewoman from Florida has 8 minutes 
left.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, this administration speaks of patriotism, 
yet cuts health care for wounded soldiers, now numbering over 18,000. 
It wraps itself in the flag, the same flag draping the coffins of our 
dead, numbering over 2,500 as of today.
  Yet now there are revelations of $12 billion missing from the 
Treasury, shipped to Iraq in $100 bills and distributed in ways we may 
never learn, bringing a total of unaccounted funds from the Iraq 
Rebuilding Fund to $21 billion.
  Yet the Bush administration has launched no investigation, has 
imposed no penalties on the corporations involved. The American people 
have been defrauded of our money, our morality, and the precious lives 
of our soldiers.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining in 
our segment?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 8 minutes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better person to close our segment of 
the International Relations Committee, and I yield the remaining time 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who served in the United 
States Air Force from 1951 to 1979, decorated combat veteran with two 
silver stars, and as all of us know is a living hero, a prisoner of war 
during the Vietnam War. We welcome him and we thank him for closing up 
our segment of the debate.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the question of the day is 
this, do you support the war against terrorism or don't you? You know, 
our enemy brutally attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, and we did 
nothing. In 1998, they attacked two American embassies in East Africa 
killing 80 people. We did nothing. We were attacked again on USS Cole. 
We did nothing.
  Well, now we have a strong President with courage and conviction who 
is bold enough to say enough is enough. If you are going to attack the 
United States, then we are going to fight back, and we will not 
tolerate terror.
  You know, I devoted 29 years of my life to the Air Force, flew 62 
missions in the Korean War, 25 in Vietnam, and spent 7 years as a 
prisoner of war in Vietnam, more than half of that in solitary 
confinement. When I say I revere freedom, I mean that with my whole 
heart. I know what it is like not to have it. Every single day, since I 
left that God forsaken place, I thank God for my freedom.
  Sometimes people here in America take the countless blessings of this 
Nation for granted. However, freedom is the touchstone of democracy, 
and America means business when we say we want to help people in Iraq 
experience the rich taste of freedom. When we say we are with you, our 
word is golden. It is through the lens of a lifelong fighter pilot that 
I step back today and marvel at some of the tremendous accomplishments 
of the last several years in the promising democracy of Iraq. It gives 
me hope and provides just a glimpse of how the best is yet to come.
  Mr. Speaker, we are making great progress in Iraq. I have been there, 
and I have seen it. What a difference a few years makes. For 
generations, the people of Iraq only knew hate, fear and death. The 
former leader of Iraq gassed his own people by the thousands and hanged 
people in his very own death chambers.
  Remember just days ago looking at the image on the television of 
Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq? He was cornered and killed. 
Better yet, from that raid, came a slew of information. We are hunting 
down terrorists, and they are going to pay.
  According to the Associated Press, American and Iraqi forces have 
carried out 452 raids just since last week's killing of al Zarqawi and 
104 insurgents were killed during those raids. They also resulted in 
the capture of 759 anti-Iraqi elements. As a result, we discovered a 
treasure trove of al Zarqawi's information, almost ensuring a defeat 
against the evil forces of al Qaeda.
  Americans are training and working with Iraqi forces nationwide. 
There is over 260,000 Iraqi security forces serving their country. 
Another exciting facet of the development in Iraq is the budding 
democracy.
  Remember last January we saw the pictures from the first election? 
The news media predicted gloom and doom. What did we see? We saw bold 
images of people patiently waiting in lines for hours, defying death 
threats just to cast a vote.
  Today, people are working tirelessly to guarantee their freedoms. 
Participation in many Sunni areas of Iraq went from as little as 25 
percent in January 2005 election to 75 percent in December. That is 
tremendous. Wouldn't we like that here in the United States?
  The people of Iraq have created a framework for their own future, 
their very own constitution. They have announced a new unity 
government, and the people of Iraq refused to allow those who rule by 
hate and fear to stop them from forging ahead for the future.
  They are already tasting the fruits of our freedom. Their strong 
resolve will pay off in the long run. They know what a difference 
several years of budding democracy makes. This is what democracy looks 
like in Iraq today.
  Schools and hospitals have been renovated, over 3,700 schools. In 
May, oil production was over 2.1 million barrels a day. In 2003, barely 
anyone had a cell phone. In Iraq today there are 6.4 million telephone 
users, and 1 million land-line connections. There are over 100 
privately owned newspapers and magazines and more than two dozen radio 
and television stations. That is just the beginning.
  Our men and women in uniform are doing a tremendous job bolstering 
this new democracy and planting the tree of freedom in tyranny's 
backyard. Our men and women are making a difference, and making 
progress. They are lifting up the people of Iraq, so ultimately the 
people of Iraq can help themselves. We must stay the course and see 
this through. We must be patient and persevere. I think President Bush 
said it best, quote, this is going to be freedom's century.
  God bless you. God bless America. I salute you one and all and praise 
the people of Iraq.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes at this time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. With all due respect to my colleagues in the majority, 
Mr. Speaker, I think the question posed by this resolution is whether 
you support accountability and oversight by this body of the war in 
Iraq or whether you do not. This resolution is not a substitute for 
oversight and accountability.
  Our brave men and women in Iraq deserve more than this rhetorical 
pompom. Even as we celebrate the killing of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and 
the completion of the Iraqi cabinet, we cannot turn away from the grim 
reality that the war President Bush declared over in the spring of 2003 
has been bloodier, costlier, longer and more difficult than the 
administration anticipated or planned for.
  We need a new way forward in Iraq, a fact that seems glaringly 
obvious to everybody but the President, his advisers and the majority 
in this House. Last fall the Senate voted 79-19 for a resolution 
sponsored by Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, which stated that 2006, quote, should be a 
period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with full 
Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and 
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased 
redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.
  At a time when Congress needs to inject itself forcefully into the 
process of determining what our course of action in Iraq should be, the 
Republican majority is again prepared to rubber stamp a policy that 
national security experts across the spectrum recognize as plagued with 
misjudgment and malfeasance.

[[Page 11471]]

  We owe our men and women more, and more than any other variable under 
the control of Congress, our failure to perform oversight has been a 
major contributing factor to these failures and to the difficult 
situation we find ourselves in.
  Regrettably, I must vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, even as we celebrate the killing of Abu Musab al Zarqawi 
and the completion of the new Iraqi cabinet we cannot turn away from 
the grim reality that the war that President Bush declared over in the 
spring of 2003 has been bloodier, costlier, longer and more difficult 
than the Administration anticipated or planned for.
  We need a new way forward in Iraq--a fact that seems glaringly 
obvious to everybody but the President, his advisors and the majority 
in this House. Last fall the Senate voted 79-19 for a resolution 
sponsored by John Warner, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, which stated that 2006 ``should be a period of 
significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security 
forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, 
thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United 
States forces from Iraq.''
  Earlier this year, House and Senate Democrats unveiled our ``Real 
Security'' agenda that lays out a blueprint for protecting our nation 
in the 21st Century. Our plan calls for the establishment of full Iraqi 
sovereignty during 2006, provides for responsible redeployment of our 
forces to better protect our troops and facilitates the transfer of 
authority, and holds the Administration accountable for the terrible 
mistakes that have been made in the prosecution of the war and the 
reconstruction of Iraq. In response to our plan and the overwhelming 
bipartisan majority of our colleagues in the Senate, the Republican 
majority in the House has tabled a blank-check resolution that endorses 
the President's ``stay the course'' policy in Iraq--a policy that he 
has reiterated in recent days.
  At a time when Congress needs to inject itself--forcefully--into the 
process of determining what our course of action in Iraq should be, the 
Republican majority is again prepared to rubber-stamp a policy that 
national security experts across the political spectrum recognize as 
plagued with misjudgment and malfeasance.
  I have been to Iraq three times to visit with our troops there and I 
have spent time with our wounded here and in Germany. They have done 
everything that we have asked of them and they have done it 
magnificently. Whatever success we have had in Iraq--every village that 
is secured, every public works project that is completed, every school 
that is reopened--is due to the efforts of our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and marines.
  We owe our men and women serving in Iraq lot more than this 
rhetorical pom-pom.
  Most glaringly, this resolution does nothing to hold the 
administration accountable for its conduct of the war. Last week I had 
the pleasure of meeting Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, the former 
commander of the 1st Marine Division. General Newbold is one of a 
growing number of general officers who have courageously voiced their 
concerns about Iraq. General Newbold told me what he told Time Magazine 
in April when he said, ``What we are living with now [in Iraq] is the 
consequence of successive policy failures.''
  More than any other variable under the control of Congress, our 
failure to perform oversight has been a major contributing factor to 
these failures and to the difficult situation in which we now find 
ourselves.
  That failure of oversight and the need to hold people accountable has 
plagued the Iraq war from the beginning. And because this Congress--
this Republican-controlled Congress--refuses to hold the President to 
account, we keep making the same mistakes over and over.
  For years the administration and the majority have tried to cow into 
silence anybody who dared to question the conduct of the war by calling 
them unpatriotic. That's the subtext of the resolution that we are 
debating today. It is not disloyal to ask these questions; oversight is 
a core responsibility of Congress. The great strength of a democratic 
system with built-in checks and balances is that mistakes are caught 
and corrected.
  Every member of this House, Republicans and Democrats, wants a stable 
and representative Iraqi government. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot hope 
to change course in Iraq until and unless we are willing to acknowledge 
mistakes and until the administration is held to account and forced to 
change.
  Devising and implementing a successful endgame in Iraq will be 
difficult, but the President's open-ended commitment to remain in the 
country is untenable and unwise. The American people want Iraq to 
succeed, and for representative government there to survive and lead to 
a better future for the Iraqi people, but that success requires a new 
direction. This empty resolution fails to provide that and, 
accordingly, I will oppose it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Can the Chair advise the time I have left, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying how proud I am of 
those young men and women in uniform. I know every Member in this body 
joins me in saying how pleased and proud we are of them.
  A sad moment earlier today was when it was announced that 2,500 had 
given their lives in Iraq. But what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, more than 
anything is the request that we made for discussion on Iraq and this 
resolution that before us today was the result. Trying to blend and 
fudge together the war in Iraq, which is separate and distinct from the 
war on terrorism, is disingenuous.
  Mr. Schiff, the gentleman from California, a moment ago, referred to 
an amendment by Senator Warner, Armed Services chairman in the Senate. 
That amendment stayed in the law last year. This is what we should be 
discussing today about Iraq, as we were told we would.
  Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to 
full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for 
the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the 
conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from 
Iraq. That is where we should be today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I think it is important to remember the two major provisions in this 
resolution, one that there is not going to be an arbitrary cutoff, that 
that would disserve the security interests of the United States to have 
an arbitrary exit date from Iraq; and, secondly, that we are going to 
finish the mission, we are going to fulfill this mission, and that we 
support the mission that is being undertaken by those 130,000 plus 
troops who are in Iraq right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about this question of who should 
determine when we leave Iraq. Over the last week, we have talked about 
the bringing to justice of Mr. Zarqawi, and everyone, Democrats and 
Republicans, have been talking about the extreme competence of the 
American military.
  We have talked about the fact that they are extremely effective, that 
they know what they are doing, that they may be the best military we 
have had in decades, that we have great leadership. That is why their 
judgment on the ground as they stand up and train this Iraqi military 
should be the determinant of when that Iraqi military is able to carry 
that load and take that handoff from the American military and handle 
those security duties themselves. It shouldn't be a Congressman from 
California, it shouldn't be a Senator from Minnesota, it shouldn't be 
subject to a committee vote by those of us in Washington, D.C. It 
should be a function of the collaboration and the discussion and the 
analysis of the combat commanders on the ground listening to their 
captains and their majors and their colonels who are training up this 
Iraqi force. When they say they are ready, that is when we make that 
handoff.
  Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) for 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, instead of finding, capturing or killing 
the man who viciously attacked our country almost 5 years ago, the 
administration misled our country and sent 150,000 troops to war with a 
country without any credible link to 9/11.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us mentions Iraq 18 times, but it 
does not mention Osama bin Laden even once. Not only can we not find 
bin Laden in Afghanistan, we cannot find him in this resolution.
  If the other side of the aisle is serious about a resolution on the 
global war on

[[Page 11472]]

terror, they would be better served to get their target correct.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent that he control the 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, our country is at war. Men and women of the U.S. Armed 
Forces, Republicans and Democrats, are making the ultimate sacrifice in 
Iraq to defend our freedom with 2,500 men and women having lost their 
lives in Iraq alone. They deserve our respect, our gratitude and our 
admiration, but we do not honor them with this debate today.
  Instead of discussing ideas and long overdue course corrections, we 
are being confronted with slogans. My colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle would like this country to believe that their party will stay 
the course in Iraq, while we want to cut and run. That kind of gross 
distortion may resonate on right-wing talk radio, but nothing could be 
further from the truth. We need to make sure the job is done right in 
Iraq and leave as soon as possible. Our men and women in uniform are 
striving, sometimes without the necessary troop strength and without 
adequate equipment to make the effort in Iraq a success. Here the House 
majority is undermining the democratic process and the very principles 
that these brave servicemen and women have gone abroad to defend.

                              {time}  1915

  The actions of the Republican leadership in the run-up to today would 
make the Kremlin blush. Having made a decision to conduct a debate, the 
majority should have enabled full participation, allowing amendments to 
the proposed resolution on the House floor, and Democrats should have 
been afforded the opportunity to offer a substitute resolution.
  Instead, the resolution before us is a shameless, one-party 
manifesto. If the debate today were about substance rather than this 
one-party manifesto, we would focus on what staying the course means. 
The misguided and mistake-ridden effort in Iraq up to now is absolutely 
not the course to follow.
  I am deeply disturbed by critical issues concerning our efforts in 
Iraq that this resolution does not address: human rights violations; 
appalling shortcomings in planning for the post-conflict period; 
pathetically weak congressional oversight.
  Just consider the waste, fraud and abuse of reconstruction efforts in 
Iraq. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Mr. Stuart 
Bowen, testified before our committee last week. I would like to pay 
tribute to the exceptional work that Mr. Bowen has done in this area. 
After serving as a senior member of George Bush's gubernatorial 
campaign team, as general counsel to then-Governor Bush, deputy counsel 
to the Bush transition team in 2000, and then associate counsel in the 
Bush White House, he left for the private sector, only to be brought 
back into service by the White House to oversee an investigation into 
mismanagement of funds in Iraq.
  The facts from the President's handpicked special Inspector General, 
Mr. Bowen, are shocking. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been 
wasted in Iraq. The executive branch should not have allowed such 
slipshod management. This Congress should have done its utmost to 
expose it but it has not, and the American people should not and will 
not tolerate it.
  During the first year of the war, $9 billion, that is $9 billion with 
a B, moved through Iraqi ministries with little or no accounting for 
results.
  More than 75 percent of oil and gas reconstruction projects, begun 
with our assistance, remain incomplete. Over half of the electricity 
reconstruction projects are unfinished. Some 40 percent of water and 
sanitation reconstruction is incomplete.
  Mr. Speaker, the international coalition's ability to exit Iraq 
responsibly, leaving the Iraqi people in charge of a stable country, is 
directly related to the success of our reconstruction efforts. These 
efforts have been severely undermined by waste, fraud and abuse. Our 
troops have been needlessly exposed to far greater risk because of 
these failures. We cannot stay the course when it is riddled with 
mismanagement.
  If this debate were about substance, rather than slogans, we would 
also be talking about the unconscionable punishment that many members 
of the National Guard and Reserve suffer because of their patriotism. 
Legislation that I have been advocating for over 3 years to address the 
gap between these volunteers' salary in their civilian jobs and the 
often far lower active duty pay in the Guard and the Reserves has met 
with repeated roadblocks thrown up by the Department of Defense and the 
Republican leadership of this House, for no legitimate reason.
  This pay gap not only affects the soldier but also thousands of 
families who now have to make ends meet on a significantly reduced 
income. In addition to their concerns for the safety of a loved one far 
away, tens of thousands of American families have to worry about 
meeting mortgage payments or even losing their homes because this House 
has not responded to their needs.
  If we truly cared about our fighting forces in Iraq, we would not 
merely wile away the hours in a debating society over a symbolic 
resolution lauding them in the abstract. We would take concrete action 
to ensure that they and their families are treated fairly. Rather than 
taking up legislation that would fix this problem, we are debating a 
divisive political resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, let nobody, not in this Chamber and not in this country, 
let nobody be fooled by the picture that the Republican leadership 
tries to paint with a debate over this resolution. There is no need to 
make a choice between ``cut and run'' and ``stay the course.'' What is 
called for is a long overdue course correction in the way the executive 
branch manages our country's efforts in Iraq and in the way Congress 
fulfills its critical constitutional role of oversight.
  Since I deeply favor a course correction, I will vote against this 
resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  You know, we have been at this for about 6 hours, I guess, and I 
think everything that has been said on the subject has been said. Not 
everybody has said it, and so we will continue for another 6 hours on 
it.
  But I have seen many people today who seem to have used this as an 
opportunity to insist that the mission in Iraq has been a failure, and 
that our presence in Iraq has not been properly run, and that we are 
not winning the peace. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think this is absolutely 
a wrong assertion and only serves to lower the morale of the men and 
women fighting in Iraq, while encouraging the terrorists who aim to 
harm both America and Iraq.
  The other day I was rushing to Chair a meeting in the Armed Services 
Committee. I was running a little late so I was kind of frustrated and 
in a hurry. Someone stopped me out in the hall and said, Congressman 
Hefley, Congressman Hefley, would you like to meet a marine from your 
district? And, of course, I would like to meet a marine from my 
district, but I was in a hurry. I did stop, and I went over to this 
young marine. They introduced him to me, and there he stood in his 
starched shirt and red and blue striped pants, straight as a string, 
and strong as could be.
  I introduced myself and he introduced himself, and then someone said, 
Sergeant So and So lost both legs in Iraq. I would never know it from 
looking at him, but he lost both legs in Iraq. I said, oh, I am sorry 
to hear that, but thank you. He said oh, no, no, no, since then I have 
gone to jump school. I would not go to jump school with two

[[Page 11473]]

good legs. Since then, I have gone to jump school and I am going back 
to Iraq. The job's not done.
  I have been to Germany, as many of you have, to see where we bring 
the wounded into Germany. There was one young man laying on his bed, 
and I said, well, when were you wounded? He said about 4:30 this 
morning. About 4:30 this morning, we had gotten him off the 
battlefield. We had stabilized him and had him in an airplane and had 
him to Germany where he had already had successful surgery before the 
end of the day. The main desire of his heart was to get back with his 
unit in Iraq. That is good morale.
  I talked to another young man that was just coming out of the 
operating room, and he had his arm up in a cast. I asked him, well, 
soldier, do you plan to stay in the service? He said, oh, I plan to 
stay in if they will let me. He said the job is not done.
  And the point I make with these stories is that they see that they 
are doing something important. They see that they are doing something 
meaningful. They see they are doing something that helps America and 
they want to continue to do it.
  We are fighting the war on terror on our terms, and we are winning.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was a freshman, Ronald Reagan was President and I 
was invited to the White House with a group of people to talk to Ronald 
Reagan about things we thought were important. We talked for a long 
time about many issues, and when we finished, the President leaned 
forward in his chair and said: Let me say something to each of you. All 
of those things are important. They are all about America but nothing 
is more important than a system of national security that will protect 
our right to deal with those issues.
  I wish more people had been with me that day because I think of that 
every morning on my way to work. It appears that there are some who 
question the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and our 
coalition partners in Iraq who make every effort to advance the global 
war on terror, to combat the al Qaeda and the affiliate organizations 
that work with them.
  How misguided. Nothing could be further from the truth. Iraq is a 
critical front in the global war on terror. Separating Iraq from the 
global war on terror, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster.
  Do not take my word for it. Listen to the enemy. These are the 
enemy's words. The leadership of al Qaeda has made Iraq an important 
part of its goal of spreading and imposing its ideology around the 
world. According to al Qaeda, defeating the coalition forces in Iraq is 
the first phase of its stated strategic goal of establishing a Taliban-
like rule throughout the Middle East.
  In a July 2005 communication from Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's 
second-in-command right behind bin Laden, to the now-deceased leader of 
al Qaeda in Iraq, Zawarhiri explicitly states the centrality of the war 
in Iraq with a global jihad. Bin Laden's right-hand man laid it out 
like this. Here are the goals: expel the Americans from Iraq; establish 
an Islamic authority in Iraq; extend the jihad to the countries 
neighboring Iraq; and destroy Israel. Those are the goals stated by al 
Qaeda.
  We must not lose sight of the fact that a successful prosecution of 
the global war on terrorism and defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates 
require us to pay attention to multiple locations in the world, 
including Iraq. Though we have made progress, the threat remains global 
in nature.
  Since September 11, al Qaeda has planned, supported, or executed 
attacks leading to the deaths of innocent civilians around the world. 
According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, there are active 
jihadists, radical terrorist organizations with the goal of taking 
control of governments and territories in countries across the globe, 
including Iraq and Afghanistan, of course; Israel; Saudi Arabia; 
Pakistan; Somalia; Algeria; Chechnya; Kashmir; and the Philippines and 
others.
  The same report states that al Qaeda maintains and plans to expand 
safe havens throughout the world, throughout the Middle East, in Asia, 
in central Asia and Europe, in many countries in Africa, and we know of 
the terrorist presence today in Canada and right here in the U.S.A.
  I have spent a career, Mr. Speaker, in Congress studying the threat 
posed by terrorism. Long before September 11, I came to learn the 
dangers of ideologically inspired terrorist organizations. As a result 
of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, we have made 
great strides in combating this enemy, but we must remember that this 
is a long war, and although the challenge is great, our commitment to 
security and human freedom will ultimately defeat the oppressive 
ideology that fuels our terrorist enemies.

                              {time}  1930

  Let me just close by listing some terrorists acts which occurred and 
some plots which were uncovered, and then by simply asking my 
colleagues a question.
  In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. In 1995, a 
plot to bomb 11 U.S. airlines was uncovered. In 1996, the Khobar Towers 
bombing took place. In 1998, the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were 
hit. In 2000, the USS Cole. In 2001, the 9/11 attack, killing 3,000 
Americans and others. In 2002, the Bali bombing. In 2003, the Marriott 
hotel attack in Jakarta. In 2004, the railroad bombing in Spain. In 
2005, the subway bombings in London, and the bombings of the resorts in 
Egypt. And in 2006, 17 jihadists were arrested in Canada.
  The question to those who plan to vote against this resolution, and I 
will conclude with this: Can we really afford to belittle this threat 
and question the criticality of our mission in Iraq?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia 
on the Democratic side, Mr. Ackerman of New York.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our troops in the 
field and the belief that the United States will ultimately prevail in 
the global war on terror and against this partisan, transparent, 
cynical, and divisive resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in today is not a serious debate 
about the progress of the war in Iraq or alternatives to achieve the 
victory there that we all seek. If it were not a sham, Members would be 
able to offer amendments. We would be able to vote up and down on our 
future course in Iraq. What we have here, instead, is more unamendable, 
arrogant, Republican take-it-or-leave-it attitude.
  Mr. Speaker, our soldiers are fighting and dying, and the American 
people are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and we are here 
patting ourselves on the back instead of doing effective oversight. 
This Republican Congress has abdicated that responsibility and 
continues to whitewash an incompetent, dysfunctional Republican 
administration.
  I would like to be clear, Mr. Speaker. Just because I am for 
oversight doesn't mean that I hate freedom. Just because I am for 
tracking how billions of dollars have been wasted and misspent or 
stolen doesn't mean I don't support our troops. And just because people 
question the competence of the President and his administration doesn't 
mean that they are not patriots.
  On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I don't think you can be a patriot if 
you just rubber stamp, if you turn a blind eye and bury your head in 
the sand as war profiteers run off with the money needed to protect the 
troops and to reconstruct a broken country.
  Instead of discussing the difficult and costly work necessary to 
achieve that victory, our Republican friends have simply decided to 
move directly to this victory party and 10 hours of cheer-
leading. This resolution begins and ends declaring our ultimate victory 
against terrorists, and in between we

[[Page 11474]]

sing our own praises. This is actually a prayer. Prayer is good. But 
what we need is a plan. All we are doing here is whistling past a 
growing graveyard.
  What is more notable about the resolution, Mr. Speaker, is what it 
doesn't say. There is no mention of the world class bait-and-switch lie 
that got us into this mess in the first place. No mention of the lie of 
the stockpiles of weapons that the Vice President swore were absolutely 
there. No mention about the lie that the stockpiles of weapons of which 
Secretary Rumsfeld knew the exact location. No mention of oil. No 
mention of the intelligence either.
  In fact, there is not even the words ``weapons of mass destruction.'' 
How can you have such a resolution without that? And Osama bin Laden. 
Not only can't we find him in the region but we can't even find his 
name hinted at in this resolution.
  The debate is a whitewash, and this resolution is a coverup. Vote 
against this charade. Vote against the premature victory party. Vote 
against this resolution and let us have a real debate about our policy 
options and our future course and involvement in Iraq.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the reenlistment rate for the soldiers of 
the 1st Infantry Division, the 4th Infantry Division, the 1st Marine 
Division, and the 10th Mountain Division exceeds 130 percent in this 
last quarter. And a lot of that is the result of the great work by the 
gentleman of New York (Mr. McHugh), who has been the chairman of the 
Total Force and the Personnel Subcommittee and has presided over a 
major part of the 41 percent pay increase that we have passed over the 
last several years.
  I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to think this is a good debate, even when I 
vigorously disagree with some of the statements being said. This is the 
hall where discussions, concerns, where analysis and counterpoints need 
to be expressed.
  I wanted to start, if I may, Mr. Speaker, with a couple of 
counterpoints. I have heard my good friends on the other side of the 
aisle repeatedly refer today to comments and observations made by 
clearly one of the greatest fighting generals this Nation has known in 
recent era, General Barry McCaffrey; things he has said about our 
current involvement and engagement in Iraq. Perhaps as a mere 
oversight, perhaps conveniently, those good folks omitted the 
following, and I am quoting directly. I noticed most of those folks 
quoted from their own notes.
  These are from General McCaffrey's own reports after his return, in 
this case to Iraq. He did similar analysis in Afghanistan. Under the 
bottom line observations from Iraqi Freedom, written in April of 2006, 
before Zarqawi, before the appointment and the filling out of the 
entire permanent government. ``The morale, fighting effectiveness, and 
confidence of U.S. combat forces continue to be simply awe inspiring. 
In every sensing session and interaction, I probed for weakness and 
found courage, belief in the mission. Belief in the mission. Enormous 
confidence in their sergeants and company-grade commanders, and 
understanding of the larger mission, a commitment to creating an 
effective Iraqi army and police, unabashed patriotism, and even a sense 
of humor.''
  He goes on to say, ``Many have reenlisted to stay with their unit on 
its return to a second Iraq deployment. Many planned to reenlist 
regardless of how long the war went on.''
  He then went on to observe, ``The Iraqi army is real, is growing, and 
is willing to fight.''
  And then on the last page of his analysis, Mr. Speaker, he said, and 
I quote, ``There is no reason why the United States cannot achieve our 
objectives in Iraq. Our aim must be to create a viable federal state 
under the rule of law which does not enslave its own people, threaten 
its neighbors, or produce weapons of mass destruction.''
  The last sentence of General McCaffrey that my friends also failed to 
quote: ``The American people are far safer today than we were in the 18 
months following the initial intervention.''
  I think, in fairness to General McCaffrey, if we are going to quote 
from him we should quote the entirety.
  I heard also some comments about how we are not doing right by our 
forces in very recent debate. I would refer again to General 
McCaffrey's observations, but I have here a listing, five pages, bullet 
points of what this committee and this House and this Congress has done 
for our men and women in uniform in just the last four National Defense 
Authorization Acts. There are 51 points, and I won't read all of them, 
but let me account for some.
  In 2001, we provided $500 a month to assist the most economically 
challenged members, to take them off food stamps. A national disgrace, 
and we did it. We did it. This Congress.
  In 2002, we improved permanent change of station requirements to 
reduce out-of-cost moving expenses for military families. There is now 
no out-of-cost expense.
  In 2003, we gave them assignment incentive pay, and in 2006 increased 
that maximum from $1,500 to $3,000 a month. We increased hostile fire 
and imminent danger pay from $150 to $225 a month. Family separation 
allowance from $100 to $250 a month. We completed, as I said, that 5-
year program to eliminate out-of-cost housing expenses.
  We have eliminated the requirement to pay subsistence charges for 
those brave members of the military who are hospitalized. We now pay an 
allowance to reimburse for the cost of life insurance. And in the bill 
we passed this year, that cost will be totally paid for by the Federal 
Government for the first time in our Nation's history. We authorized a 
new payment of $430 a month to combat wounded servicemembers who are 
hospitalized, and on and on and on.
  The chairman mentioned that in each of the last 8 years we have 
increased pay to our military men and women in uniform by more than 
half a percent over what the civilian sector in this country has 
received, whether it is TRICARE for every Guard and Reserve member; 
hospitalization, better coverage. We have cared for these troops.
  The chairman noted, and the figures show it, though I have heard 
about a strained force, and we are concerned about them. We worry about 
them every day. I know I have in my six trips to Iraq and twice to 
Afghanistan. But let me read you the recruitment figures we have thus 
far this year.
  The Army, 104.3 percent of goal. The Navy, 100 percent of goal. The 
Marines, 101.5 percent. The Air Force, 100.5 percent. A DOD total of 
102.1 percent. Lastly, retention. Those brave members that General 
McCaffery talked about. Retention in the Army, 113 percent; Navy, 106 
percent; Marines, 145 percent; and Air Force, 109 percent.
  My friends on the other side say they support the troops, and I 
believe them. They are all patriots, some extraordinary patriots on the 
other side that I have the honor of serving with. But I don't think 
they are serving the troops in some of this debate tonight like the 
troops want to be served. They want to see this mission through, 
because they understand the terrorists believe this is the real deal. 
This is where they have drawn the line in the sand, and the troops 
understand if we don't take the commitment they have made there and win 
this war on terror in Iraq, where will we fight next? It will be right 
here at home.
  It is a proud Army, we have a proud Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 
Force. We are doing right by them and we need to do better because they 
are doing so right by us. I hope all my colleagues will support this 
resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Lantos and Mr. Murtha.
  Prior to the 2003 invasion, I introduced legislation that would have 
required the President to report to Congress on the possible 
consequences. It would have required the administration to provide a 
full accounting of the

[[Page 11475]]

implications for homeland security, the war on terrorism, and regional 
stability in the Middle East. It would have required the administration 
to tell us the steps that our country and our allies would take to 
protect United States soldiers, including providing them adequate body 
armor. It would have required the President to estimate the full cost 
associated with military action against Iraq. And it would have 
required the President to provide an exit strategy, a plan for 
achieving long-term social, economic, and political stabilization of a 
postwar Iraq so that we and the troops could tell when we had crossed 
the finish line.
  The administration has still not provided answers to the questions 
many of us asked before the war. Three years later, the Iraq war has 
cost more than 2,500 American lives and nearly $300 billion, with no 
end and no plan in sight. Secretary Condoleezza Rice said this war 
could last for 10 more years.
  Today's resolution presents a false choice: Support the 
administration's flawed war policies or concede defeat on the war on 
terror. We are asked to support Iraq's new Prime Minister in the 
amnesty, the amnesty he will offer to the insurgents who have attacked 
and killed U.S. troops.
  Our troops have done everything, everything we have asked them to do 
in Iraq and more. They have acted heroically. They have done their job 
and we should honor them today and every day. But this is the second 
time that a congressional debate on the handling of the war has been 
replaced with a political stunt. The troops and the American people 
deserve much better.
  Our troops deserve more than a round of applause. They deserve a 
realistic and forward-thinking plan. They deserve a plan that will 
bring a successful end to this mission so that they can come home. They 
deserve what many of us asked the President to give us 3 years ago: An 
exit strategy for Iraq. An exit strategy in Iraq is a crucial step 
toward declaring victory on the global war on terror.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to clear up a point.
  There are 340,000 sets of advanced body armor produced and fielded. 
That is more than two sets for every single person serving in uniform 
in Iraq.
  I have made this statement for the last year, but if anybody has a 
relative who is serving in Iraq without body armor, please call me 
personally. I have not yet received a single phone call.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia 
(Mrs. Drake) who does so much for the troops.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, we can't talk about the global war on terror 
without talking about the 922,000 heroes who have voluntarily served 
our Nation, going to a land that most have never been to, to liberate a 
people most have never met.
  Before 9/11, I worried if America needed our young people, would they 
go. And we all know they did. I believe history will remember their 
courage and name them. But until it does, I call them Freedom 
Believers.
  On my first trip to Iraq, I met a young man on the crew of our C-130. 
He told me he had a small daughter, yet defending freedom was so 
important that when he finished his enlistment, he would join his 
Reserve unit. He said there were so many from that unit who volunteered 
to go to Iraq; he knew he would not be back soon.
  Another soldier said to me: Let me make this simple. In a football 
game, you want to play at home. But this is not football. This is not a 
game. This is war. And war must always be played away. We played at 
home on September 11, and we lost.
  My proudest moments in Iraq have been the ones spent seeing their 
smiles when I told them about the support that they have here at home. 
Many that I met were on their second and third tours. Their feelings 
are summed up in a recent letter to the editor, a returning soldier 
said: ``If the choices are pull out or I go back, I'm going back.''
  On the way home from Iraq in Shannon, Ireland, as a Marine unit 
walked through that terminal, everyone stood and clapped for them. On 
both of my trips to Iraq, I was asked repeatedly by our troops: When 
are we going to tell America what they are doing in Iraq, explain the 
threat to America and the world, and share the successes that they have 
achieved? The saddest moments were when they quietly asked me: What are 
Americans thinking and saying?
  These are people who show no fear on the battlefield, but it was like 
they were afraid to ask that question and hear my reply. They are 
probably referring to stories such as the one from the New York Times, 
October 26, 2005. They quoted Corporal Jeffrey Starr, who lost his life 
defending freedom. Here is their quote: ``I kind of predicted this. A 
third time just seemed like I'm pushing my luck.''
  And here's the real quote: ``Obviously if you are reading this, then 
I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that's why I am writing 
this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. 
I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for 
something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are 
here in Iraq. It's not to me. I'm here helping these people so they can 
live the way we live, not to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators, 
to do what they want to do with their lives. To me, that is why I died. 
Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.''
  Our military is the most lethal fighting force in the world, not 
solely because of their training, not solely because of their 
technology, but because they engage the enemy, our enemy, with the most 
unequivocal support of the American people. That is the most effective 
tool in their arsenal and one they cannot afford to lose.
  Mr. Speaker, they watch our news. They watch C-SPAN. They are 
watching us right now.
  This is your time. What do you want to say to them? Do you want to 
tell them, you're doing a terrible thing, but we support you?
  Well, I want to say: you're doing an honorable and noble thing. We 
support you and we love you.
  There is only one option for Iraq, that's victory. Thank you to our 
brave American heroes. Thank you to their families. God bless America, 
and God bless the men and women who keep us free.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in fighting the war on terror. I believe 
America must stay engaged in the world, but what we have in Iraq today 
is a quagmire, and what we have on the floor today is a resolution that 
essentially says stay the course.
  You know, sometimes the American people are smarter than the 
politicians. This resolution would have us believe that everything is 
hunky-dory in Iraq and everything would be wonderful if we only stayed 
the course. The American people don't believe that; and, Mr. Speaker, 
neither do I any more.
  We need a new strategy in Iraq, not an open-ended rubber stamp and 
more of the same. At what point do we reassess our strategy and come to 
the conclusion that it is not working? But what do we get here from our 
Republicans friends, a resolution that is a farce, a political document 
that by the majority leader's own admission was designed to embarrass 
Democrats and put Democrats in a box.
  All of the problems we see in Iraq today, the daily deadly attacks by 
insurgents, the rise of ethnic militias, the shortage of gas and 
electricity, the weakness of the economy, can be tied to the complete 
lack of planning by the administration. It seems they didn't have a 
clue as to what they would get when they came into Iraq.
  Our intelligence was faulty, but what really makes me mad was this 
war was mishandled from the get-go. First, we didn't send in enough 
troops. Secondly, we didn't secure the borders. We fired the Baath 
leaders and created all kinds of antagonisms and unemployed people. We 
fired the security forces so our

[[Page 11476]]

people would have to do security, and we fired our own generals that 
disagreed with the administration.
  A former commander of U.S. Central Command, General Zinni, said: ``10 
years' worth of planning were thrown away; troop levels were dismissed 
out of hand. These were not tactical mistakes; these were strategic 
mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here.''
  But what do we have here from our Republican friends? A resolution 
that is not bipartisan. We could have had a resolution that all of us 
could have supported. We treasure our troops. I want us to succeed in 
Iraq, but what do we have: partisan, political drivel. Democrats had no 
input. Democrats were not allowed a substitute. Democrats were not 
consulted so our men and women serving in the military are being 
reduced to pawns in the Republican's election game.
  Shame on this resolution. I wish we could have a resolution that I 
could vote for, but we do not have one on the floor today.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a Member who is a leader not only 
in supporting the troops but in humanitarian efforts in Iraq.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, America is first and foremost an ideal. It is an ideal 
that holds that all of us are created equal, endowed by that Creator 
with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
Truly, that is what our troops fight for in Iraq.
  For their efforts, we now see a country that, although it has been in 
bondage since it was called Babylon, has a freestanding constitution 
and hope for freedom. And there is hope that freedom may take root in 
the Middle East and turn the whole of humanity in a better direction.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there are other ideals 
in the world besides America's noble ones, and they have great 
consequences. I am concerned that this Nation does not understand that 
we are now at war with an evil ideology. It is an ideology that has the 
most profound human implications and consequences.
  On September 11, terrorists murdered on our own soil 3,000 American 
citizens. But this ideological war did not begin on 9/11. It began many 
years ago when certain Muslim extremists embraced a divergent Islamist 
dogma that dictates that all infidels must die.
  Not so long ago, al Zarqawi himself said of America's leaders: ``They 
are aware that if the Islamic giant wakes up, it will not be satisfied 
with less than the gates of Rome, Washington, Paris and London.''
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot deny that we are fighting a war against an 
ideology that is bent on the destruction of the Western world. They are 
committed to killing us and would like nothing better than to 
decapitate this country by detonating a nuclear yield weapon 100 yards 
from here. To allow Islamist extremists to declare victory in Iraq will 
only hasten such a day.
  These are moments when we must hear the voice of history and remember 
the words of Winston Churchill when he said in part: ``If you will not 
fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, there may come 
a moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and 
only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse moment. 
You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is 
still better to perish than to live as slaves.''
  Mr. Speaker, if freedom is to survive, to allow Islamist terrorists 
to declare victory in Iraq is not an option. We must win. The world has 
changed since Mr. Churchill warned us all. We are 60 years now into a 
nuclear age. We must not let terrorists have even the slightest hope of 
victory ever.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway), a great member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution that we are debating, I 
would like to focus on point four of the resolution that declares that 
the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to 
create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq.
  I think it is helpful for us to look back at some milestones over the 
last year or so to help us understand how far we have actually come.
  We went there to take Saddam Hussein out of power. He is now in jail 
and on trial for his life. We got that done.
  In January of 2005 we held the first election for a transitional 
government. That got done.
  Their job was to write a Constitution. At each and every one of these 
steps there was great anxiety that the Iraqi people couldn't get it 
done. They got their Constitution written in August of 2005.
  The next step was a referendum on that Constitution. They got that 
done.
  Then we held national elections under that Constitution in December 
of 2005. Again, ahead of that election there was grave concern that the 
Iraqis couldn't do it. But they went to the polls and elected that 
government.
  When I was there in April, the concern at that point in time was that 
they couldn't pick a prime minister, the next big step to the road to 
democracy in Iraq. That got done.
  Two weeks ago when I was there, the final point was they couldn't 
find a minister of defense or a minister of interior to lead those very 
important ministries, but they have gotten that done.
  By any evaluation, we have a long stretch of historic milestones that 
are proof that the Iraqi people are up to the task.
  A CODEL I participated in, our job was to go over there and get a 
sense of whether the Iraqi Army was standing up to the task. We met 
with a General Bashir at his base at Tajik and found a very 
professional individual. He was very candid in his remarks on where the 
Iraqi Army was up to that point in time. As I watched the staffers, his 
staff in the room, I tried to assess them as best I could. I found 
professionals with a quiet sense of confidence that they could lead, 
fight and defend their country.
  We are making this happen, and we are completing this mission in 
Iraq. I support this resolution and I ask that each of my colleagues 
all support it because a free, sovereign, united Iraq will make the 
Middle East a safer place to be, and by extension it will make America 
a safer place to be.
  So I rise in support of this resolution and ask my colleagues to vote 
for it. I, too, like Mrs. Drake ask God's blessings on our country and 
in particular on our fine young men and women who are fighting this 
fight.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, Colin Powell thought Vice President Cheney 
was so obsessed with attacking Iraq that he suffered from war fever. 
The problem is that fever can make you delusional and you can see 
things that aren't really there, no matter how much you want them to be 
true.
  The Vice President said that we would be greeted as liberators. 
False. Secretary Rumsfeld said that the war would not last more than 6 
weeks. False. Secretary Wolfowitz said that Iraq could pay for its own 
reconstruction from oil revenues. Again, false. We were told that the 
administration had a coherent plan for postwar Iraq. False.
  The truth is that this administration's incompetence has set back the 
effort against global terrorism. Don't take my word for it. Simply come 
to this floor and read the statements of these generals, patriots all.
  The administration claimed that there was a link between Iraq and al 
Qaeda. Again, false. But they are not talking about a link that does 
exist and should cause us all profound concern. That is the 
relationship between the new government in Iraq and Iran. The new Iraqi 
government is full of Iranian allies. They have signed a military 
cooperation agreement. And the Iraqi Foreign Minister just recently 
said, Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology and the 
international

[[Page 11477]]

community should drop its demands that Iran should prove that it is not 
trying to build a nuclear weapon.
  And we are supposed to believe that our national security has been 
strengthened, and that we are making progress on the war on terrorism?
  The truth is that the war in Iraq has not just simply been a 
distraction from the global war on terror, it has actually increased 
the power and influence of the number one state sponsor of terrorism, 
according to our own Department of State, an original charter member of 
the axis of evil club, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), a very fine member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to first rise tonight to thank the 
men and women of our military for their efforts in Iraq, in Afghanistan 
and other places around the world in the war on terror. Their 
sacrifice, their families' sacrifice, has value and will never, never 
be forgotten.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many members of the minority that have 
forgotten an important lesson of history, and that is you cannot 
appease tyrants and evil. We need to remember the 1930s, the voice of 
Winston Churchill that said we must confront Hitler and the Nazis as 
they began to build up the German military machine. Well, we waited and 
we waited until they invaded their neighbors. And it was the blood and 
lives of hundreds of thousands of Europeans and Americans that defeated 
that evil.
  In the 1960s and the 1970s, we failed to confront the growing Soviet 
threat. We waited and we waited until Ronald Reagan inspired this 
Nation to have the will to stand up to the Soviets and engage them in 
an arms buildup that cost Americans billions of dollars, but bankrupted 
the Soviets, and we defeated that evil.
  In the 1990s the terrorists attacked us over and over again. We 
failed to respond, as President Clinton dismantled our intelligence 
capabilities. Appeasement does not work. History shows us that over and 
over again.
  President Bush learned this lesson, and he and this Congress did not 
wait until Saddam had nuclear weapons. We acted on intelligence, not 
just our intelligence, but intelligence from agencies around the world. 
We thought it was accurate. Unfortunately, it was wrong. But it took us 
going into Iraq to find out that he did not have the biological, 
chemical and nuclear capabilities we thought he might be building. But 
we removed a tyrant. We freed a people and we focused the war on terror 
in Iraq. And today we are helping to build a democracy in an Arab world 
which can be a model to other nations to create liberty, justice and, 
most importantly, hope, hope for a better tomorrow for millions of 
Arabs.
  We must stay the course, as this resolution states, until Iraq can 
secure its nation and we defeat terror. This struggle will be as long 
as it is hard. But in the end, the lesson of history will be reaffirmed 
that appeasement is a failed strategy, and that sacrifice for freedom 
is always worthwhile.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution because it 
represents an unrealistic and disingenuous portrayal of the situation 
in Iraq. The rhetoric on the other side of the aisle is filled with 
erroneous assertions of impending victory reminiscent of President 
Bush's premature ``mission accomplished'' claim.
  Mr. Speaker, after 3\1/2\ years, it is clear that the Iraq war has 
become an exercise in futility that can no longer be justified with 
pipe dreams and good intentions. Americans were egregiously misled 
going into this war without a plan to win the peace. They have been 
misled about America's progress in Iraq, and today they deserve the 
truth.
  The truth is that President Bush took his eye off the ball in the war 
on terror, diverted necessary resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, and 
today Osama bin Laden remains free.
  The truth is that victory is not around the corner in Iraq, that the 
insurgency and sectarian violence continue unabated, and that the death 
of Zarqawi, while very significant, will not bring security to Iraq.
  The truth is that on the day Zarqawi was killed there were five 
bombings in Baghdad, and the violence continues irrespective of his 
death.
  The truth is that while 265,000 Iraqi security forces have been 
trained and armed, nearly one-third of the force does not show up for 
work.
  The truth is that our policies have failed to stabilize Iraq, and we 
must not stay the course. We must change the course.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution blurs the line between reality and 
fiction by painting a rosy picture of Iraq and ignoring the ongoing 
insurgency on the ground.
  To paraphrase Secretary Rumsfeld, in a war we must deal with the 
reality we have and not the reality we want.
  Please join me in opposing this charade.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 861. 
I am proud of the progress being made in the global war on terror every 
day. While there is no quick path to victory, it is absolutely 
necessary for us to maintain our resolve. Many people forget that 
terrorists have long waged war against the United States, well before 
the 9/11 attacks. Americans were bombed in Lebanon in 1983, at the 
World Trade Center in 1993, at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, 
at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and on board 
the USS Cole in 2000. Over the years, terrorists have made it their 
mission to strip us of our freedoms, thinking they could kill innocent 
Americans unprovoked, without paying a price. It is vital that we 
continue to stand up to these murderers and show them that the United 
States will not sit back and tolerate their savage acts. We can either 
win this global war on terror now, or we can let the terrorists bring 
the war to us like they did on 9/11. The right choice is clear.
  Thanks to the hard work and perseverance of our troops, Abu Musab al 
Zarqawi was killed last week. Yet, as President Bush said, we must 
continue to prosecute this global war on terror until our mission is 
accomplished and until Iraq can defend and govern itself fully.
  I am very proud of our troops for their service, selfless attitude 
and sacrifice. They are making great strides. They are freeing people 
from oppression so they may enjoy the same freedoms that all Americans 
cherish. Today our military has liberated the people of Afghanistan 
from the brutal Taliban regime, and has denied al Qaeda its safe haven 
of operations. They have crushed Saddam's Hussein's brutal dictatorship 
and captured thousands of terrorists and terrorist operations. Children 
in Iraq are returning to school and Iraqi businesses are prospering. 
Iraq has had several successful elections and has formed their 
government under a new prime minister. There is undeniable progress and 
hope in Iraq every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I close with a story about a constituent, Sergeant Dale 
Beatty of Statesville, North Carolina. Sergeant Beatty was severely 
injured while fighting the global war on terror and lost both legs. Yet 
Sergeant Beatty is not angry. In fact, his resolve is even stronger 
today. He knows that he made a great sacrifice for a noble cause. 
Sergeant Beatty came to visit me while he was at Walter Reed and told 
me he would gladly go back to the Middle East to fight alongside his 
comrades if he could. That is a true American hero. Sergeant Beatty's 
morale and the morale of our troops I have spoken with demonstrate we 
are doing the right thing.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a very fine member of the committee.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding time. Your commitment 
to our troops is unmatched.
  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Mr. Speaker, said we are all entitled to our 
own

[[Page 11478]]

opinions, but he went on to say we are not entitled to our own facts.
  Facts have been badly set aside today. Oversight? 92 hearings, 42 
full committee, 52 subcommittee and others. Anyone that did not have 
oversight or was not fully informed simply had other priorities. And 
that is an option in the People's House. But the information was there, 
publicly exposed. And other information was readily available.
  Generals? Six generals have spoken out. In America we are free. We 
can speak out. But the facts are that in the Army alone there are 11 4-
stars, 53 3-stars, in the Air Force 11 4-stars, 38 3-stars and numerous 
others who take exception to the quotes that have been misstated here 
tonight.
  This is a war against terrorists. Terror is a tactic. Here are 27 
pages and 191 incidents since 1961 where Americans have died at the 
hands, the bombs or other devices of terrorists. Make no mistake about 
it. Terrorists have a goal, and it is to destroy freedom, America, all 
of us who live free. That is their goal. This is not about territory. 
This is not about negotiation.
  Our men and women have served us admirably, courageously and well. 
The progress was well documented by a release from Zarqawi himself this 
morning. The war for terrorists is going poorly, an incredible sign of 
progress.
  And I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan many, times Mr. Speaker. But 
on the floor of this House, just last week, I looked into the gallery, 
right there, and there sat seven members of Parliament from 
Afghanistan. I went up to speak to them, and as I walked down the 
steps, they saw me coming and they said, we had dinner with you in 
Afghanistan last week. Members of Parliament here in America looking at 
the People's House seeing how freedom, liberty, justice and the rule of 
law is made and administered. Remarkable, remarkable progress, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I am so proud of the men and women who are making this possible 
around the world. And I guess I should close by saying redeployment? 
What is that? It is cut and run. It is snatch defeat from the jaws of 
victory. Sam Adams, several hundred years ago, spoke to this when he 
said, ``if you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of 
servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go from us in 
peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the 
hands which feed you, and may posterity forget that you were our 
countryman.''
  Mr. Speaker, God has blessed this country with men and women who wear 
the uniform, make us proud and make us free. Our heartfelt thanks and 
gratitude to them and their families.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, by this point just about every point has 
been made. But believe it or not, I would like to make a point that has 
not yet been stated on this floor.
  I think we all realize that the development of Iraq, its ability to 
provide water and electricity to its people, will influence the level 
of casualties that we suffer, may even influence the result of success 
or failure of this mission. But what is not stated is how the debts of 
Saddam Hussein now crushing the existing regime in Baghdad are playing 
a role in preventing that development, a role in killing our soldiers.
  Now, most oil rich countries borrow for development. They do not rely 
chiefly upon aid. Why can't Iraq with enormous oil wealth borrow? The 
answer is the huge debts incurred during the years of Saddam Hussein. 
In fact, on this floor many of us thought that half of that $19 billion 
of aid we gave in 2003 should be a loan, and we were told no, Iraq 
can't borrow, they have too many debts already.
  Now, the well-known debts to Europe and Russia have been 80 percent 
forgiven. The secret debts, the ones that are never talked about, are 
the enormous debts claimed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Gulf 
States detailed on this chart, totaling over $64 billion.
  Now, much of the European money that was lent to Iraq was used for 
roads and oil wells, things of continuing value to the Iraqi people. 
But what did Saudi Arabia and Kuwait lend Saddam money for? To finance 
his war of aggression and death against Iran. So why does the State 
Department not have the courage to stand by the new Iraqi government in 
its declaration that these debts are odious, null and void, and need to 
be wiped off the balance sheet?
  The question before us is whether the blood of Americans will be shed 
in order to pay the debts Saddam Hussein incurred.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), who has just welcomed home his old 
unit, the 116th Armored Cav.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we pause long enough 
during this important debate tonight to remember back to another time 
in a place not too far from this place.
  During the heated debate and many times rancorous discussions on 
their efforts to establish a government that would elevate the 
individual above the crown, above the prince, above the king, and above 
the head of state, much was said about the doubtfulness of victory and 
the certainty of failure. Caution was urged, voted on, and rejected. 
The hope and the promise, the value for the chance at being free was so 
strong that our Founding Fathers measured well that the risk was worth 
the reward.
  Now is our opportunity once again to revive that spirit. And in doing 
so, we demonstrate to ourselves, the people of the United States, 
indeed, Mr. Speaker, the people of the world that we are worthy of the 
suggestion that we are the beacon of freedom for the world and we share 
that light with pride, with honor, and hope.
  The Iraqi people who yearn for freedom, I am confident, do so with no 
less courage and resolve than those who so boldly signed the 
Declaration of Independence and at that time set this Nation on a 
destiny of freedom envied by all peoples of the world who suffer under 
the burden of tyranny.
  Our allies throughout the war for independence did not pack up and go 
home when the going got tough. They believed in us, as I believe that 
we should believe in the Iraqi people. They stayed the course, as I 
believe we should.
  Mr. Speaker, in his book ``The Glorious Quest,'' James R. Evans gives 
us all a thought that we should ponder as we approach this freedom-
rendering vote. He said, ``No historian of the future will ever be able 
to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United 
States were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet 
worthy of them. The choice is ours.''
  By our actions here today, we are deciding whether or not the Iraqi 
people are worthy of living in freedom. This choice is ours. Those of 
us who will favor or deny this resolution surely decide the worth of 
the Iraqi people.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, even those of us on this side of the aisle sometimes 
wonder if after 3 years we should still be in Iraq.
  I recently traveled there, and like many of my colleagues, we met 
with soldiers from Florida. We each asked to meet with soldiers from 
our home State. I will never ever forget this young man. He was not 
from my district. He actually was from south Florida. And I asked each 
of them where they were from and if they were married. This young man's 
name was Joe. And I said to him, ``Joe, are you married?''
  He said, Yes, ma'am. I am married and I have five children.''
  So right away I said, ``Your wife must be a saint to be home with 
five children.''
  And he looked at me with all of the conviction that you would ever 
ask for in a soldier, and he said, ``Ma'am, he said, ``my wife who's 
home with my five children feel exactly the way that I do, and that is 
until the children in Iraq are safe on the streets, our children won't 
be safe in Florida or in America.''

[[Page 11479]]

  Obviously we are very proud of what our soldiers are doing, as are 
their families. As Members of the Congress, I believe that we have an 
obligation to honor every person's service to our country. Using words 
like ``quagmire'' and ``mistaken war'' do not honor our military's 
service. We can do this by providing our soldiers with the support that 
they need and the recognition that they deserve. The negacrats and the 
media do nothing to make our children safer on the streets in America 
like Joe and his buddies do. This kind of rhetoric not only impacts our 
soldiers, but as I sat here tonight, I could not help but think about 
the families of the soldiers who are watching this at home, the 
children of our very, very brave soldiers who are in harm's way.
  In closing, I want to thank Joe and all of our troops and those 
families, and I want to convey my eternal gratitude for everything that 
they do. May God bless them all. May God bless our troops, who, 
together with God, will keep our country safe.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlemanfromOregon(Mr.Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the greatest deliberative 
body of the world's democracies cannot provide an opportunity to give 
voice to the concerns that are shared by Americans. Instead, we are 
given a White House press release against terror and for staying the 
course. That is not a plan. It is a bumper sticker.
  Our troops won the war against Saddam Hussein over a thousand days 
ago, and they have been paying the price ever since their victory 
because they were not properly managed, staffed, trained, or equipped. 
Of course, nobody is in favor of an arbitrary cutoff. On my Web site I 
detailed an approach that I think ought to be taken to focus our 
priorities and stop short-changing, for instance, our battle in 
Afghanistan, slowly spinning outside of control. But it is sad that the 
Republicans can only think of two choices: stay the course, cut and 
run.
  If the White House and the Republican leadership believed in 
democracy in America as much as they say they do in Iraq, we would be 
debating the resolution of Mr. Murtha's, for example, here. Americans 
could see their hopes and their concerns not just debated but acted 
upon.
  But, sadly, it is going to take another day and different leadership 
to give Americans that type of democracy here in Congress. And in the 
meantime every day our troops will continue to pay the price in Iraq as 
American prestige is assaulted around the world.
  It is sad and it is unnecessary, but it is the hand that we have been 
dealt.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman who represents Dyess Air Force Base, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have been amused at some of the 
rhetoric tonight, but one of the questions that has been asked is what 
is our strategy?
  We have a strategy. The strategy is to win. The strategy is to keep 
America safe.
  We are winning the war on terrorism. We have gotten Saddam Hussein. 
We have gotten Zarqawi. But the problem is are there other Saddams, 
other Zarqawis out there that would threaten the very fabric of the 
life that we live in America?
  We have a choice. We can fight that war on terrorism in other places 
around the world or we can fight it here in America. The right choice 
is to fight those terrorists where they are, where they are beginning 
to thrive, and keep them contained where they are.
  If we get out too quickly, what are we going to tell those families 
of those young soldiers that paid the ultimate price for the freedom 
and democracy that we are sewing the seeds for in Iraq today? What are 
we going to tell the young men and women that are over there today that 
have volunteered, I repeat, volunteered, to come and serve a noble 
purpose?
  I got a letter from a young marine named Kevin Hester. And Kevin 
enlisted, Mr. Speaker. He knew exactly what he was getting into when he 
enlisted in the Marines. And Kevin is in Iraq today. And Kevin wrote me 
a letter the other day, and he said, The Iraqi people trust us, and 
they trust us now and they are trying to help us help them by telling 
us who the bad guys are in their country.
  We have been fighting the cause for America and keeping America safe 
for over 230 years coming this July 4. This is a war on terrorism. This 
is a different war than we have fought before. This is like the war on 
drugs. This is like the war on crime. The war on terrorism is a war 
that we will be fighting for many years to come, but it is a war that 
we cannot afford to lose. We cannot disgrace those young men and women 
that are representing and defending our country so greatly.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I encourage people to support this resolution in 
order to say to the young men and women around the world that are 
defending freedom and democracy, we love you, we appreciate you.
  God bless them and God bless America.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a very distinguished member of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of our servicemembers who have worked 
hard during the global war on terrorism. They are keeping us safe by 
defeating a very destructive enemy.
  I am disappointed, however, that many of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have lost sight of what our servicemembers are doing 
and have turned the global war on terror into a cheap political issue. 
They have forgotten that instead of defeating terrorists on their home 
turf we could be allowing our citizens to be attacked here at home. I 
prefer to keep the terrorists outside our borders.
  Right now al Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq are busy attacking our 
servicemembers and our allies, and they would like nothing better than 
to bring these attacks to America. Even the terrorists themselves admit 
Iraq is the front line of the global war on terror. Why should we not 
continue this fight and keep it from coming to our own backyard?
  Fortunately, we are fighting this battle in Iraq and our 
servicemembers are making real progress in the global war on terror. 
Not only are we capturing, destroying, and eliminating al Qaeda's most 
brutal leaders, but we are training law abiding Iraqi citizens to 
defend their own freedom. In fact, over 250,000 Iraqi citizens have 
stepped forward and responded to the call of duty to defend their 
country.
  I think there are several obvious reasons why so many Iraqi soldiers 
and citizens are willing to join the Iraqi security forces. First, they 
know the enemy they are fighting against because they have endured 
hardship under this enemy for most of their lives. For years they and 
their families have been brutalized by ruthless dictators. Many of them 
have been separated from their families and had not seen them for many 
years.
  Second, they have seen the pain that al Qaeda has inflicted on 
America and other democracies around the world. They know that what al 
Qaeda did on 
9/11 is just a hint of what could happen. Because of this, Iraqi 
security forces are seizing this opportunity to root out evil.
  Third, they can taste freedom and they want to hold on to it. After 
being liberated from tyranny and introduced to democracy they cherish 
the freedom and are willing to fight for it just as our servicemembers 
have fought for our freedom.

                              {time}  2030

  Fourth, they are inspired by the work servicemembers are doing in 
Iraq. As a result, they are joining the Iraqi security forces in the 
fight for freedom. Not only are their servicemembers fighting against 
terrorism, but they are also working alongside our members and the 
Iraqi security forces to train them how to effectively defeat the 
enemy.
  I want to encourage all of our colleagues today to support our 
outstanding men and women in uniform.

[[Page 11480]]

May God continue to bless them and their families. Our prayers are with 
them. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 861.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with the American 
people the truth about the war in Iraq. For truly it had nothing to do 
with 9/11 or the war on terrorism.
  We invaded Iraq because Vice President Cheney erroneously claimed, 
there is overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al 
Qaeda and the Iraq Government.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Secretary of State Colin Powell 
conceded that he had no smoking gun proof of a link between the 
Government of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein, and the terrorists of al 
Qaeda.
  We know there were no weapons of mass destruction. The prewar costs 
estimates were as incorrect as our intelligence on WMDs. The postwar 
planning was nonexistent. The laundry list of things we did wrong and 
the deceptions surrounding this war are never-ending, and we continue 
to make mistakes even now.
  No, Mr. Speaker, the mission was not accomplished. Instead of 
invading Iraq, we should have mobilized all of our forces to pursue and 
apprehend Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who in fact orchestrated 9/11 
while we had him pinned down in Tora Bora, in Afghanistan.
  At that time we had an opportunity to unite the world and bring 
people together when we had a true coalition of nations. American 
families can tell that things are not going well in Iraq.
  However, a leader, a true leader, a real leader, needs to have a 
plan. A plan of engagement. A plan of how to exit. We went into war 
with neither.
  The American people, the families who have lost the loved ones, 
deserve more than that. They deserve to know that there is indeed a 
plan, an exit strategy. This Congress, this Congress, must stand up for 
our troops, for their families, for America, and for the sake of 
refocusing, to wage a real struggle against terrorism.
  No, Mr. Speaker, we must not stay our failed course. We must not be 
stubborn, because stubbornness does not win wars. Stubbornness really 
and actually causes us to lose. I tell my children not to be stubborn, 
because stubborn does not win. Let's do the right thing for the 
American people and tell them the truth.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I think that this debate is helpful. I think 
that whenever you get into a complicated project, even if you are 
solving a physics problem, many times it is helpful to just stop, stop 
right where you are and say to yourself, just using common sense, are 
we on the right track?
  I think we should stand back from the war for just a moment tonight 
and ask that simple question: Are we on the right track? And we can 
think about this country that we love so dearly, the flag that we have 
just celebrated, and all that makes America special.
  But what happens if you were to try to condense the goodness that we 
love in America into a formula, which is, which really states what 
Americans have been for all time?
  If you were like an onion to peel off the outer things of hot dogs 
and baseball, what would be the core that makes America what we love? I 
would suggest that the answer to that question is found in your 
birthday document, the Declaration, that says, we hold these truths to 
be self evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain 
inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
  And it goes on to say the job of government is to protect those 
rights. And that is what we have fought wars all through history, to 
support that basic idea. And so should it surprise us this evening to 
find ourselves on the battlefield against terrorists?
  Let's see. Terrorists blow up innocent people. We say, innocent 
people have a life that is given them by God. They say they want to 
terrorize so that people cannot be free, to compel you to do what you 
do not want to do.
  We say, liberty is a gift of God. And so it should be no surprise, 
just as we have found ourselves in the War of Independence and the wars 
against Hitler and the other wars of our history, that we are arrayed 
against people who have no respect for the formula that has made 
America so great.
  And just as in the past, there is a cost. You know, my own son just 
came back from Fallujah. They say that the cost of freedom is not free. 
And the parents all across our country, just as my wife and I did, 
would look at the local paper in the morning. We would say, oh, three 
marines killed in Fallujah. I wonder if my son is one of them.
  No, freedom is not free. But we were proud that our son, just as 
other families are proud of their children, can carry on that same 
tradition that the patriots did. That is what makes us feel so good 
when we see the flag flying, the heart and soul of America, that there 
is indeed a God that gives basic rights to people and government should 
protect those rights. And the terrorists will not stand, because that 
formula does not apply just to Americans; it applies to people all over 
the world.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by 
saying that I support the troops. Yet the debate about the Iraqi war is 
not about supporting the troops. I knew from the very beginning that 
there were no weapons of mass destruction. Well, how did I know that? 
Well, I am from Florida. And I knew back in 2000 that the Bush 
administration that we were dealing with would say anything and do 
anything. They were full of lies. Let's look at the evidence.
  Since the beginning, the Republican leadership in Congress has 
outright refused to investigate Vice President Cheney involving the 
billions of dollars awarded to Iraq for reconstruction contracts to 
Halliburton. $9 billion in reconstruction funds have been unaccounted 
for. I repeat, $9 billion in reconstruction funds have been unaccounted 
for.
  The amount of taxpayers' money spent by Halliburton and the defense 
contractors audit agents have deemed either excessive or insufficient 
documentation is $1.7 billion.
  Halliburton has received more than $17 billion in no-bid cost-plus 
contracts for Iraq reconstruction. Folks, I am talking about billions 
with a B. That is billions and billions of dollars. It amazes me now 
that these figures contrast with the attention that the media has given 
to the Katrina mismanagement, while the billions and billions of 
dollars in unaccounted funds to Halliburton are still largely ignored 
by the media.
  You know, we need checks and balances. The House, the Senate and the 
administration are all Republicans. There are no checks and balances. 
No checks, no balances. No checks, zero balance.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The Chair will remind Members 
that although remarks in debate may include criticisms of the 
President's or the Vice President's official actions or policies, it is 
a breach of order to question the personal character of the President 
or the Vice President, whether by actual accusation or by mere 
insinuation.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Air Land Subcommittee.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
chairman for yielding me time.
  I heard one of our colleagues on the other side say that we have two 
choices tonight: we could stay the course, or we can cut and run. Well, 
those are not the only choices we have. They were not the choices that 
we used in the 38 deployments in the 1990s when I supported our 
Democrat President when we sent troops to Somalia, Haiti, East Timor, 
Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia. You name it we were there.

[[Page 11481]]

  The decision of when we left those countries was made by our military 
leaders. It was made by the generals and the commanders, not arm-chair 
politicians back here who try to do what was done by the Congress 
during the Vietnam War.
  Believe me, I want our troops back home. But there is a process that 
we can use that I think is very logical. You know, when I have been to 
the theater, the generals talk about the way that they assess the 
capability and the readiness of the Iraqi brigades.
  They categorize them into four levels. They know how to assess the 
readiness of the Iraqi brigades. They have perfected it. What we should 
be doing is what is already happening. We do not tie the removal of our 
troops to an artificial date. We tie it into the assessment that our 
generals make of the capability of the readiness of the Iraqi brigades.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning I went back to my district. I was at the 
Boeing plant where we rolled out the newest model of the CH-47F, the 
cutting-edge platform for our Army for the next 50 years. It is a great 
aircraft.
  The speaker there, the keynote speaker for this rollout was an Army 
colonel. In fact, he was the airwing commander of the 101st Airborne 
Division. He oversees 167 aircraft in theater right now. He is home for 
two weeks of R&R. He oversees 3,200 of our troops that are on the 
cutting edge. He wants to be home with his family. He has been in the 
service 24 years. This was his second deployment. He is from Edgewater, 
Maryland; he is not my constituent.
  And I said to Colonial Warren Phipps, Colonel, we are debating today 
in Congress whether or not we should set a date certain. What do you 
think? You are there. Is that the right thing for us to do? He said, 
With all due respect, sir, that is the worst thing that our Congress 
could do for my troops under my command.
  That is the worst thing we can do, because it would telegraph and 
signal the enemy when they can plan their attacks, and when they can do 
harm to my colleagues.
  Well, I will be honest with you, Mr. Speaker. I did not support 
artificial dates under President Clinton, and I do not support 
artificial dates under President Bush.
  I want the ultimate decision of when the troops come home not to be 
done by us, but by the field generals in the command situation, command 
leadership in Iraq, who understand that the safety and security of the 
troops is their number one priority as well as ours.
  What this young colonel said was, Congressman, we are making great 
success. Today the Iraqis are handling more and more of their own 
security. That should be the determining criteria on when our troops 
come home.
  As this colonel sees with his own eyes that the Iraqis are engaged 
and are handling more and more of their own defense. He said, Today, 
Congressman, they are going out on their own missions. He said, when I 
have meetings and we are doing planning sessions, if I close my eyes, 
when I hear the Iraqis planning, it is just as though it were American 
generals planning for our operations.
  He said, Now is not the time to cut and run. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution and not cut and run.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight, I have been watching this 
on TV and listening all day long. I am really kind of saddened by the 
fact that it seems to be an issue between making excuses for why we are 
in Iraq, and the other side is cut and run.
  I remember being in the Congress before we voted on this resolution. 
I remember being summoned into a hearing with all of the intelligence 
agencies there. I remember a colleague asking these intelligence 
agencies, is Iraq an immediate threat to the United States, yes or no? 
Every single one of those intelligence agencies represented, every one 
said no.
  And here we are 3 years later with all of the loss of life. Some say, 
just stay the course. Stay the course for what? There is not even a 
plan. Mr. Weldon was right, we had a plan in Kosovo, we had a plan in 
Bosnia, we had plans. Where is the plan?
  We have a plan by Mr. Murtha. There is no cut and run date in it. 
There are no specifics on it. But it is a plan. Why are we not debating 
a plan?

                              {time}  2045

  It is embarrassing that we are here this far into the war, people 
watching us and having Congress without the ability to exercise 
democracy, without the ability to have a vote on the only resolution 
that is ready for a vote, which is Mr. Murtha's. I associate myself 
with the remarks he made about what he saw and what we experienced 
going into Iraq.
  I wish the majority in this House would have allowed a debate on Mr. 
Murtha's resolution.
  I rise to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Murtha and to 
everyone who supports our men and women in uniform. We all support the 
troops and the sacrifices they and their families have made. But, 
that's not what this debate is about.
  I've been listening all day to this debate and find Members are still 
making excuses for why we got into Iraq in the first place.
  You are not hearing what the intelligence community really told this 
house.
  Before the vote on authorization of the war all the intelligence 
agencies were gathered together for a Congressional briefing. One of my 
colleagues asked the question:
  ``Is Iraq an immediate threat to the United States, tell us Yes . . . 
or No?''
  It was surprising to me that each intelligence community 
representative said--``No, Iraq is not a threat to our national 
security.''
  And even more shocking to see was that so few of my colleagues were 
listening.
  So, why have we been sucked into a war that was not necessary to 
protect our national security?
  And here we are 3 years later. Over 20,000 U.S. military personnel 
have been killed or wounded in Iraq.
  The loss of American lives is tragic and unnecessary.
  Especially because Iraq never was a threat to the United States, nor 
is it now.
  So, today, why aren't we discussing an end to wasteful spending, to 
unnecessary loss of lives and building a stronger America?
  We can't because, as you have heard so often today, the majority has 
stopped listening.
  They have made up their minds. They are just as wrong today as they 
were 3 years ago.
  Look--we need a plan. Congressman Murtha is the only one with a plan. 
Congressman Murtha's bill, H.J. Res 73, is doable and its 
implementation would be respected by the rest of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the President is listening to this debate. And 
more importantly I hope he implements the Murtha plan.
  The world would be better off for it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a 
very distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Calvert.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, just last week we witnessed American, 
coalition and Iraqi forces taking the fight to the enemy by eliminating 
the terrorist leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. During the very same week the 
Iraqi people looked as their first democratically elected Prime 
Minister finalized his cabinet by selecting a new Minister of Defense, 
a new Minister of Interior, a new member of the state for national 
security.
  The two events are clear evidence that Iraqi forces are making 
progress on two major fronts in the ongoing war. On one front the 
coalition and Iraqi forces remain in the hunt for insurgents and other 
groups that threaten a free and democratic Iraq. On the other front the 
Iraqi government continues to show encouraging signs into developing a 
much needed stabilizing body the country is longing for.
  During my three trips to Iraq I have observed our military engaging 
the enemy, protecting the innocent citizens, training the Iraqi forces 
to make and control and support the new elected government. Despite the 
positive developments on the ground, we continue to hear naysayers 
around the world questioning the importance of the outcome in Iraq.

[[Page 11482]]

  On the other hand, al Qaeda leadership and its terrorist network 
fully understand the consequences of war, calling Iraq the place for 
the greatest battle of the modern era.
  I have a copy of a document captured from the safe House where al 
Zarqawi met his end. In it al Qaeda leaders lament the fact that their 
strategy for undermining America's resolve in Iraq is failing. They 
know that time, time to undermine America's resolve, time to foment a 
civil war, time to get media on their side, time to spread death and 
destruction to Iraq's neighbors is running out for them.
  Ironically the document notes that al Qaeda originally saw time as 
being on their side in Iraq. It states time has been an element in 
affecting negatively the forces of occupying countries due to losses 
they sustain economically and in human lives which are increasing with 
time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be a service of 
the American forces and harmful to the resistance.
  Winston Churchill understood the importance of resolve when a 
nation's interests are on the line. Winston Churchill, quote, I was 
only the servant of my country and had I, at any moment, failed to 
express her unflinching resolve to fight and conquer, I should at once 
have been rightly cast aside.
  This body recognized that necessity when we passed the authorization 
of the use of military force against Iraq. While five pages long, the 
really vital 10 words are, ``be it resolved by the Senate and the House 
of Representatives.''
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the combat veteran from the 173rd 
who preceded the gentleman from California in the 173rd, 15\1/2\ 
minutes, and ask unanimous consent that he may yield time to other 
Members of the Veterans Caucus.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution will not secure any success in Iraq. It 
will not bring our troops home. It will only signal the death of true, 
honest debate within the walls of this great Chamber.
  Today's so-called debate is politics at its worst. We are playing 
politics while U.S. men and women are being killed, wounded and kept 
away from their families. I remember laying in an Army hospital bed 
just home from Vietnam while another Congress played politics.
  He was disdainful then, and when I think of those brave men and women 
I visited at Walter Reed, Bethesda, Ramstein, it makes me sick today. 
Let's do our job and bring our troops home as soon as possible.
  For weeks we have been told, and the American people have been 
promised by the Republican majority, that there would be a debate on 
this floor on the Iraq war. Instead we get what the news is calling 
today Republican election year strategy. This resolution ignores the 
issues most important to the men and women serving in Iraq, their 
families and the taxpayers who have already been billed nearly a half 
trillion dollars.
  It ignores the issues raised by some of our most respected generals, 
and it ignores the lack of accountability and oversight that has led to 
some of the most egregious and embarrassing examples of waste, fraud 
and abuse on record. We need to be working nonstop to bring our troops 
home as soon as possible, not trying to score political points while 
they are fighting a war.
  We need to be working to keep them safe, as safe as possible, until 
they are home. For starters, we should send a strong, loud message to 
the insurgents who will not occupy Iraq and will not control Iraq's 
oil, a message that we want to leave, as bad as they want us to leave.
  On my last visit to Iraq, everyone I spoke with said that they want 
the Iraqis to assume more security responsibility faster. Our military 
has done its job, often in two, three or four deployments, an 
unconscionable demand on our troops, an unconscionable demand on their 
families, and an unconscionable demand on their communities. Make no 
mistake, it has taken a toll on our military. Stay the course is not a 
strategy for success, and we are not doing our job by being a rubber 
stamp for this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, this isn't honest debate. While the majority plays 
politics, our men and women serving in Iraq are in terrible danger.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), a veteran of the Second World War.
  Mr. DINGELL. ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the 
President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is 
not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the 
American public.'' Teddy Roosevelt.
  I remember how proud I was to serve my country in World War II, and I 
remember how proud I was of the support of Americans, and I remember 
how proud I am now to be a Member of this body. I know how important it 
is that we support the troops, and I remind my colleagues over here, we 
all, everyone in this room, supports our troops without exception. We 
have honest differences about the policies or how we got where we are. 
We are not permitted to discuss those under this gag rule.
  What this body should do, and I remember how proud I was of the 
different meaningful debates which we had here, where there was 
opportunity to amend, to discuss, to have a 5-minute rule, to have a 
motion to recommit, so that a national policy bringing us together 
could be forged in a proper legislative forum and a proper legislative 
fashion.
  We are told, either expressly or implicitly, by the administration, 
and by people on that side of the aisle, that there is something 
unpatriotic about questioning the behavior of this administration or 
the policies or the way they are being conducted. Let me not answer 
that yet. But let me give you the answer that Teddy Roosevelt, a great 
patriot, a Republican, a wonderful President, had to say: ``To announce 
that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to 
stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and 
servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American people.'' Listen 
to that. That is what we are supposed to do.
  We are not supposed to be a congregation of yes men and lickspittles. 
We are supposed to be the voice of the people and to hammer out the 
policies of this Nation in an honorable and open fashion. That is not 
happening today.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a fair and proper procedure nor is it a 
debate.
  H. Res. 861 comes before us under a closed rule, no amendments are 
allowed. This body is told by the rule, no amendments are allowed. Take 
it or leave it, we are told.
  I say shame. What is there to fear from an open debate and what is 
there to cause us to lose the right to amend this legislation?
  There is much which we can approve in H. Res. 861 and much on which 
we can arrive at agreement and consensus.
  There are things in this resolution which are controversial, and 
these require, more than ever, honest and frank discussion.
  I find the language of paragraph 3 to be a particular problem. We 
should not foreclose our options on redeployment.
  It may well become that there is such a need and such an interest in 
the United States, and arbitrary pronouncements such as this will 
actually haunt us.
  Like many other Members of this body, I supported the President's 
father when he came to Congress seeking authorization to liberate 
Kuwait.
  There the process was honest, open, and truthful. The intelligence 
was clear, the mission was finite, and the world was united. Here the 
process is closed, the debate filled with hyperbole and half-truths, 
the world is alienated, and our mission is murky and indefinite.
  Here the reasons given for invasion of Iraq were that Saddam Hussein 
had weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons.
  Like many others, I did not believe the evidence supported the 
administration.
  I believed we had careless use of intelligence: honest mistake, 
careless with use of the facts, or willful deceit.
  History tells us one or all of these unflattering conclusions are 
supported by the unfortunate facts of the administration's behavior.

[[Page 11483]]

  Now for my own position: Like all of us, I support our troops. I 
consistently vote for more money, more equipment, and more resources to 
support them in every way I can to win and to bring them home safe and 
well.
  I have not called for withdrawal of our troops. I have suggested no 
tactics or strategy, but then neither has the administration, which 
seems to have for its purpose and tactics more of the same, stay the 
course.
  Our failures and mistakes are many, leaving weapons and munitions 
everywhere uncollected and available to criminals, insurgents, 
jihadists, and al-Qaeda members.
  We disbanded the army police and security services, necessary to 
keeping order and assisting in husbanding victory and peace.
  I am outraged at the fact that this exercise appears to be 
politically motivated. Charges verging on disloyalty are directed at 
loyal Americans who criticize the administration failures or suggest 
better tactics or strategies.
  Listen to Republican leadership instructions to their members: 
``Democrats on the other hand are prone to waver endlessly about the 
use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats' only 
specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield.''
  These words are false, deceitful, dishonest, outrageous, and vicious. 
So here we have today's proceedings: Political attacks on Democrats. 
Disregard of truth. Disregard of facts, and most importantly, disregard 
of the need to correct failed policies. I cannot, and will not, support 
such a phony and arrogant process.
  We must deal more fairly with one of the great issues of our day, 
which has cost us over $450 billion, 2,500 dead Americans, 20,000 
casualties, the trust of our people and the respect of the people of 
the world.
  We are losing the equivalent of a battalion a month and spending 
$1\1/4\ billion a week.
  Our troops are performing magnificently, but the administration is 
functioning without any adequate plans.
  The results are disastrous consequenes for our troops, for our 
country, for our relatIons with our friends and allies, particularly 
people in the Arab world.
  We need a real opportunity to discuss these matters and to provide 
real congressional input into this situation. That is being denied to 
the Congress and the country here.
  I cannot support this process and I express the thoughts of the 
people on this war and on a strange, foolish, and irresponsible 
process.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say earlier the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) rose and talked about what he 
called a lack of oversight on the Armed Services Committee with respect 
to Iraq. I want to enter into the Record, if I might, the fact of 41 
full committee hearings, 21 on the war on terror, two on 
reconstruction, two on troop rotation, three on the Iraqi forces, four 
on force protection, four on detainees and five markups on that issue.
  I would just point out that the most extensive investigation in the 
history of detainees was completed by General Taguba, who gave us a 
voluminous report with something like 116 annexes. I made that 
available to everybody, Democratic, Republican, on the Armed Services 
Committee, including Mr. Snyder, and a total of three members from the 
Democrat side of the aisle on our committee looked at that the report. 
It is still available for Mr. Snyder. When he gets finished reading it 
we will have more hearings for him.

                 HASC Breakdown of Iraq/GWOT Activities


                       Total Committee Events--93

       Detainees--17
       Force Protection--10
       ISF--6


                      Full Committee Hearings--41

       General GWOT/Iraq--21
       Reconstruction--2
       Troop Rotation--2
       ISF--3
       Force Protection--4
       Detainees--4
       Mark-Ups--5

 Full Committee Briefings, Subcommittee Hearings, and CDR Hearings on 
                             Iraq and GWOT

       10/21/2003:
       Readiness Subcommittee
       Resetting and Reconstituting the Forces
       2/2/2004:
       Members Only Force Protection Briefing
       3/9/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret Codeword on Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
     the Evolving Situation in Haiti
       3/31/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret Codeword on Activities of the Iraq Survey Group
       4/1/2004:
       Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee Hearing
       Land Component Request for FY05--included Force Protection
       4/2/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret Codeword on GWOT
       4/28/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret Codeword on Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
       5/4/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret brief on Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Investigation
       5/17/2004:
       Issue Forum
       Stability Operations by the Iraq Coalition
       5/18/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret on Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Investigation
       5/18/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret/SCI on Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Investigation
       6/2/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret on DOD Detainee Interrogation Program at GTMO
       6/10/2004:
       Members only Force Protection Briefing
       6/24/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Members Only on ICRC Review of U.S. Detainee Operations
       6/24/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret Codeword on Iranian Nuclear Weapons Deployment 
     Program and Involvement in Iraq
       7/8/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret on Army Force Protection Programs in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan
       7/14/2004:
       Member Session
       Members Only review of copies of reports from ICRC related 
     to the Iraq Theater of Operations' Detention Facilities
       7/21/2004:
       Member Session
       Members Only review of detainee operations in Iraq and 
     photographs related to a new investigation of Iraqi detainees 
     while in the custody of U.S. forces
       9/26/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret Codeword on Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
       11/18/2004:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret Codeword/SCI on Operations in Iraq
       1/25/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Top Secret Codeword on Ops and Intel in Support of Tsunami 
     Relief, Iraq, and Afghanistan
       1/26/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret on Efforts to Train Iraqi Security Forces and the 
     Up-coming Elections
       2/2/2005:
       Readiness/Tactical Air Land Subcommittees
       Ground force vehicle and personnel protection and rotary 
     wing safety of flight issues
       2/2/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret on OIF and OEF Force Protection Initiative
       2/15/2005:
       Strategic Forces/TUTC
       Able Danger Program
       *Followed by a closed briefing
       3/16/2005:
       Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee Hearing
       Future Combat System, Modularity, and Force Protection
       6/8/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       TS on Metrics, Trends, and the Iraqi Security Forces
       6/16/2005:
       Member Session
       Members Only review of copies of reports from ICRC related 
     to the Iraq Theater of Operations' Detention Facilities
       6/23/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Members only from Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.) on his 
     experiences and observations in Iraq
       6/23/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret on Iraqi Security Forces
       7/14/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret on the Schmidt/Furlow Detainee Investigation Report
       7/19/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       From TYCO Corp. on Rapid Fielding of the low-cost Warlock 
     Blue Jammer for IED Force Protection
       7/21/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       DOD's work in developing and tracking metrics for OIF
       7/28/2005:
       TUTC/Oversight and Investigation of the Financial Services
       Committee Hearing
       Financing of the Iraqi Insurgency

[[Page 11484]]

       10/26/2005:
       Radical Islam Gap Panel
       Alternative Views on U.S. Counterterrorism Policy--Roles, 
     Missions, and Capabilities
       10/27/2005:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret on Activities involving the ICRC and enemy 
     combatants detained by American Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
     and GTMO
       11/1/2005:
       Terrorism and Radical Islam Gap Panel
       DOD Roles, Missions, and Capabilities in Counter-Terrorism
       11/13/2005:
       Radical Islam Gap Panel
       Understanding Aspirations of Radical Islam: Why Mainstream 
     Islam is Radically Different
       11/9/2005:
       Terrorism and Radical Islam Gap Panel
       TS Brief on Counter-Terrorism Intelligence
       11/10/2005:
       Terrorism and Radical Islam Gap Panel
       S Brief from State on Counter-Terrorism Policy
       11/17/2005:
       Terrorism and Radical Islam Gap Panel
       S Brief from DIA on Counter-Terrorism Policy
       2/1/2006:
       Joint Subcommittee Hearing and Brief on Force Protection
       2/16/2006:
       TUTC Hearing
       Combating al Qaeda and the Militant Jihadist Threat
       3/1/2006:
       Mark-up for H. Res. 645
       Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of 
     Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives all 
     information in the possession of the President or the 
     Secretary of Defense relating to the collection of 
     intelligence information pertaining to persons inside the 
     United States without obtaining court-ordered warrants 
     authorizing the collection of such information and relating 
     to the policy of the United States with respect to the 
     gathering of counterterrorism intelligence within the United 
     States.
       3/2006:
       Full Committee Brief
       TS Brief on Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
     Organization (JIEDDO)
       3/8/2006:
       Full Committee Briefing
       Secret Brief from General George Casey, U.S. Forces 
     Commander in Iraq
       3/8/2006:
       TUTC Hearing
       Special Operations Command: Transforming for the Long War
       3/15/2006:
       TUTC Hearing
       Implementing the GWOT Strategy: Overcoming Interagency 
     Problems
       3/30/2006:
       Readiness/Tactical Air Land Subcommittees
       Army and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment 
     and Rotorcraft
       4/4/2006:
       Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee Hearing on Force 
     Protection Initiative
       4/6/2006:
       Tactical Air and Land Forces Briefing
       TS on Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 
     Activities are being used in theater to counter IEDs.

        House Armed Services Committee Hearings on Iraq and GWOT

       Sept. 10, 2002:
       The State of the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Program 
     and the History of the United Nations Inspections Efforts in 
     Iraq
       Sept. 18, 2002:
       U.S. Policy Towards Iraq
       Sept. 19, 2002:
       Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program and Technology 
     Exports
       Sept. 26, 2002:
       U.S. Policy Towards Iraq
       Oct. 2, 2002:
       U.S. Policy Towards Iraq
       Apr. 4, 2003:
       Operation Iraqi Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction: 
     Iraq Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict
       June 12, 2003:
       The State of Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations in 
     Iraq
       July 10, 2003:
       Operation Iraqi Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction--
     Operation Iraqi Freedom: The Commander's Perspective.
       Sept. 25, 2003:
       Operation Iraqi Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction--
     U.S. Policy and Operations in Iraq
       Oct. 2, 2003:
       Operation Iraqi Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction--
     Operational Lessons Learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom
       Oct. 8, 2003:
       Operation Iraqi Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction--
     Iraq: Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
       Oct. 21, 2003:
       Operation Iraqi Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction--
     Operation Iraqi Freedom: Outside Perspectives
       Oct. 29, 2003:
       Operation Iraqi Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction--
     Iraq Reconstruction and Stability Operations: The Way Forward
       Jan. 28, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom Force Rotation Plan
       Apr. 21, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Iraq's 
     Transition to Sovereignty
       Apr. 21, 2004:
       Performance of the DOD Acquisition Process in Support of 
     Force Protection for Combat Forces
       May 7, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--The On-Going 
     Investigation into the Abuse of Prisoners within the Central 
     Command Area of Responsibility
       May 21, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Conduct and 
     Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
       June 14, 2004:
       Mark-up of H. Res. 640--Resolution of Inquiry requesting 
     that the SECDEF transmit to the House any picture, 
     photograph, video, etc. produced in conjunction w/ any 
     completed DOD investigation conducted by MG Taguba relating 
     to allegations of torture or violations of the Geneva 
     Conventions of 1949 at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or any 
     completed DOD investigation relating to abuse of a prisoner 
     of war or detainee by civilian contractors working for DOD.
       June 16, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Status of 
     U.S. Forces in Iraq after June 30, 2004
       June 17, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Training of 
     Iraq Security Forces
       June 22, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Progress in 
     Iraq
       July 7, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Army and 
     Marine Corps Troop Rotations for Operation Iraqi Freedom 3 
     Operation Enduring Reserve
       July 15, 2004:
       Mark-up on H. Con. Res. 472--SOC on apprehension, 
     detention, and interrogation of terrorists are fundamental in 
     successful prosecution of GWOT and protection of lives of 
     U.S. citizens at home and abroad.
       July 15, 2004:
       Mark up of H. Res. 869--Requesting POTUS and directing 
     other federal official to transmit to HOR docs relating to 
     treatment of prisoners or detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
     GTMO.
       Aug. 10, 2004:
       Final Report of the National commission on terrorist 
     attacks upon the U.S.
       Aug. 10, 2004:
       Denying terrorist sanctuaries: policy and operational 
     implications for the U.S. military
       Aug. 11, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Implications 
     of the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission on the 
     Department of Defense
       Sept. 8, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--The 
     Performance of U.S. Military Servicemembers in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan
       Sept. 9, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--Report of 
     the Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense 
     Detention Operations
       Sept. 9, 2004:
       Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq--
     Investigations of Military Activities at Abu Ghraib Prison 
     Facilities
       Mar. 17, 2005:
       Current Operations and the Political Transition in Iraq
       Apr. 6, 2005:
       Iraq's Past, Present and Future
       May 5, 2005:
       Status of Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Armoring Initiatives and 
     IED Jammer Initiatives in OIF
       June 21, 2005:
       Marine Corps Underbody Armor Kits
       June 23, 2005:
       Progress of the Iraqi Security Forces
       June 29, 2005:
       Detainee Operations at GTMO
       Sept. 29, 2005:
       Operations in Iraq
       Oct. 20, 2005:
       Army's 4th ID Up-Armor HMMWV Distribution Strategy
       Nov. 3, 2005:
       Your Troops: Their Story
       March 14, 2006:
       Mark-up for H. Res. 685
       Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of 
     State and Secretary of Defense provide to the House of 
     Representatives certain documents in their possession 
     relating to any entity with which the United States has 
     contracted for public relations purposes concerning Iraq.
       April 4, 2006:
       Improving Interagency Coordination for GWOT and Beyond

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of 
our time. We have a lot less time than on the other side.
  Mr. HUNTER. We have reserved the balance of our time. I think we have

[[Page 11485]]

got a transition here, Mr. Speaker, with the next committee coming up.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from California for the purpose of putting a statement in the Record.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, When we made the decision to invade Iraq I said this:

       The President is asking us to pass this resolution now, but 
     he has not yet made the case for war.
       I cannot support the President's request that we authorize 
     military force against Iraq. I make this very difficult 
     decision for three important reasons: The United States is 
     not acting in self-defense or from an imminent threat from 
     Iraq, the United States should not be pursuing unilateral 
     action without international support, and the President has 
     not stated an exit strategy.
       I believe there are times when countries must resort to 
     war, and indeed international law recognizes the rights of 
     nations to defend themselves. I strongly support our campaign 
     against terrorism. But are we voting this week on a case of 
     self-defense? It would certainly be self-defense if Iraq 
     supported the al Qaeda attack on September 11, but the 
     evidence of such support is lacking.
       I have listened to the administration and met with top 
     officials. I have yet to see any credible evidence that Iraq 
     is connected with al Qaeda. The experts readily admit that 
     there is no real connection.
       I can believe that Iraq is a threat to the region and to 
     some American interests overseas, but I do not believe the 
     threat is imminent or must be handled with a unilateral 
     military strike.
       This resolution is an unwise step for America that will in 
     the end weaken America.

  How unsatisfactory are the words ``I told you so''.
  We invaded Iraq even though it was not involved with al Queda and, 
when we diverted our gaze from the War on Terror, we let Osama Bin 
Laden get away and now his organization has metastasized so that his 
capture would no longer be the disruptive blow to al Queda that it 
could have been then. Our soldiers have served bravely but their 
courage has not been matched by adequate leadership by the brass 
starting with the Commander in Chief. The problems that face us now in 
Iraq are not primarily military ones but we are expecting our military 
to accomplish them anyway.
  This entire venture was a mistake, but the question is what do we do 
now? I think the answer is that it's time for the Iraqi's to take 
responsibility for their own country. Our American soldiers signed up 
to defend America. Let the Iraqi's do the same for their country.
  We have spent American lives and treasure in Iraq. It is now the 
obligation of the Commander in Chief to present a strategy for a 
successful completion of American activities there so that our troops 
can be removed from Iraq as soon as is practicable.
  Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different 
result is the definition of insanity. It is time for leadership from 
the Commander in Chief that is more than ``stay the course'' and more 
of the same.
  The war in Iraq is not the war on terror and never has been. I voted 
to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan because it was necessary 
that we disrupt that terrorist hotbed that had helped breed the 
terrorists who attacked us on September 11th. Now even that necessary 
endeavor in Afghanistan is faltering because of the diversion into 
Iraq.
  If we are to win the war on terror, we must focus our efforts on the 
terrorists and not on Iraq. We are spending $8 billion or more a month 
in Iraq and need to utilize those funds instead effectively in the 
fight against terrorists and also to protect the United States from the 
potential of terrorist attacks.
  We have other threats around the world and have, tragically, damaged 
our military readiness to face them through our miscalculations in 
Iraq. To maintain the strong military might that America needs we need 
to bring the Iraq misadventure to an end as soon as is practical.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from New York for the same purpose.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my statement on Tuesday, 
I rise in opposition to the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with much of the content of House 
Resolution 861, particularly the expressions of gratitude for the 
service and sacrifice of our troops.
  The language of the resolution, however, includes a commitment to 
keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely and an outright refusal to set a 
date for withdrawal. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the 
resolution.
  Eighty-two percent of the Iraqi people want us out of their country, 
and 47 percent say it is justified to attack American troops. It is 
simply unacceptable to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely under these 
conditions. I continue to call for the withdrawal of American forces 
from Iraq, and challenge the Iraqi people to stand up and defend their 
own country.
  Mr. Speaker, when we debated the original Iraq war resolution, the 
administration told us that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass 
destruction, that there were ties between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and 
that Iraq was within a year of having a nuclear capability.
  Fast-forward to the deliberations of the 9/11 Commission. They 
concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties 
between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and no nuclear capability.
  Mr. Speaker, these votes weren't 8-4 or 7-5, they were all 12-0 that 
the very basis for the war did not exist.
  When I go back home, Mr. Speaker, and my constituents ask me to 
summarize where we are in the war on terror, I tell them this: As we 
approach the fifth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in the 
history of our country, we have committed hundreds of billions of 
dollars in Iraq. More important, over 20,000 young Americans have 
either been killed or seriously wounded going after Saddam Hussein, who 
did not attack us, while Osama bin Laden, who did attack us, is still 
alive, free, planning another attack on our country.
  That, Mr. Speaker, is the very definition of failure in the war on 
terror.
  We went after the wrong guy.
  But after the invasion, did we have a responsibility to help the 
Iraqi people build a new government and a new way of life? The answer 
to that question is yes. And we have fulfilled that obligation. We have 
helped them through not one, not two, but three elections. It is now 
time for the Iraqi people to stand up and defend themselves.
  There is a general rule of military engagement that says that you do 
not signal to your enemy what you are going to do in advance. But there 
are exceptions to every rule, and there are two exceptions to this 
rule.
  Number one is that the insurgents in Iraq are using as a recruitment 
tool the argument that we have no intention of leaving their country, 
and that we're going to steal their oil--and it is working. It is 
fueling the insurgency.
  As for our friends in Iraq, those who want this new government and 
new way of life, they seem perfectly content to let our soldiers take 
all of the enemy fire. The problem with security in Iraq is not the 
system of training; it's the fact that the Iraqis are not stepping 
forward to defend their own government.
  So, today, Mr. Speaker, my basic disagreement with the President is 
this: He says that we should stay in Iraq until the Iraqis declare that 
they are ready to defend their own country; and I propose that we 
announce a timetable for withdrawal, start withdrawing our troops, and 
make our position very clear to the Iraqis: If they want this new 
government and this new way of life, they have to come forward, 
volunteer, stand up, and defend it.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring our troops home.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am manager of the bill for the Judiciary 
Committee for our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to initially present an update as to where we have been and 
where we are in Iraq. Many months ago an Iraqi citizen said to me, you 
all must remove Saddam. We can't do it, he said, because we know what 
he is capable of doing to us in retaliation. I said to him if we do 
remove him, will you embrace us or will you kick us? He said, I don't 
know.
  I responded, that is my concern. I don't know either. I believe his 
anti-Saddam remarks at that time represented a majority view in Iraq, 
but my concern proved prophetic. Our exercise in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, and 
colleagues, has not been without mistakes. Our entry strategy was 
superb. Our post-entry strategy was tentative at best, inept at worst.
  A better response to the looting that ensued in the early days should 
have been in place. The disestablishment of the Army, without an 
alternative plan, in my opinion, was premature. Some would blame the 
United States for the delayed political development, but

[[Page 11486]]

after all, our forefathers were deliberate in forming our country's 
operational apparatus, so I think the political complaint is probably 
unfounded.
  Was Saddam an evil, brutal murderer, a flagrant violator of human 
rights? You bet. Was he involved in international terrorism? You bet. 
Was he directly or indirectly involved in the 9/11 attack? I don't 
know. I can neither confirm nor reject that theory. My point, Mr. 
Speaker, is that intelligence was flawed. Mistakes were made. But the 
cause for freedom is a noble one, and progress has, indeed, been 
realized.
  I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, about the lack of 
objectivity in reporting the war on terrorism. Some liberal talk show 
host reports imply that no good has been accomplished. Conversely, some 
conservative talk show hosts portray Baghdad as moonlight and roses. 
Clearly these two slanted versions are inaccurate and unfair.

                              {time}  2100

  Let me say a word about the PATRIOT Act, Mr. Speaker, and this will 
be discussed in more detail subsequently.
  But the PATRIOT Act was reported in the full House by the Judiciary 
Committee, and it addressed the nexus of the sale of illicit narcotics 
and terrorist financing. These two shadowy worlds of narcotics 
trafficking and terrorism is an element of terrorism that I think is 
lost on many Americans. They are joined at the hip, and I am 
particularly pleased that the PATRIOT Act did respond to that end.
  Seventeen months ago, Mr. Speaker, I publicly indicated that troop 
withdrawal was conspicuously absent when the war on terrorism was 
discussed. Oh, we spoke of appropriating more funds, we spoke of 
dispatching additional troops, but virtually no one ever even remotely 
included troop withdrawal in their discussions.
  Now, I am not suggesting troop withdrawal tomorrow, but I want our 
armed servicemen and -women home sooner rather than later. Some may 
declare, oh, we cannot cut and run. Cut and run? We have had a presence 
in Iraq in excess of 3 years. 2,500 armed services Americans have given 
the ultimate sacrifice to the cause of freedom, Mr. Speaker. Thousands 
of permanent and disabling injuries have been inflicted upon members of 
our armed services in addition to the spending of billions of dollars.
  I do not know what constitutes cutting and running, but I do know 
that when we have logged a wartime duration of 3 years, when 2,500 
Americans have given their lives for freedom, and Lord only knows how 
many Americans have been injured, this does not constitute cutting and 
running.
  The time has come, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to pass the baton to 
the Iraqi Government. Now, this decision will ultimately be made 
militarily, and properly so, by the commanders on the ground; but I do 
not want this matter of withdrawal to be lost in the shuffle.
  If freedom and peace prevail in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, history will be 
generous in its praise to President Bush and the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) who chairs the judiciary 
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the 
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland 
Security, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this global war on terror resolution. 
The war on terror is being fought on two fronts, both abroad and here 
at home. We applaud the diplomatic and military achievements overseas, 
but we also need to remain vigilant here in our own country.
  Until the terrorists are defeated, Americans will continue to be 
their targets as long as we stand for freedom and democracy.
  One of our weapons in the war on terror is the USA PATRIOT Act. That 
bill, which originated in the Judiciary Committee, gives law 
enforcement officials and intelligence officials the ability to 
cooperate during investigations.
  More than 250 people in the United States have been charged with 
crimes tied to international terrorist investigations and have been 
convicted or have pled guilty because of the USA PATRIOT Act.
  In response to the events of September 11, 2001, we also passed 
legislation that created a Director of National Intelligence so that 
all of our intelligence capabilities would be coordinated by one 
official.
  We passed the REAL ID Act which contains several antiterrorism 
provisions, including one that makes certain foreign nationals 
deportable because of their ties to terrorism.
  We must continue to pass legislation that makes it more difficult for 
terrorists to enter the United States. That means enacting meaningful 
border security legislation like the bill that the House passed last 
December.
  Those who would do us harm, Mr. Speaker, respect no borders. 
Potential terrorists and thousands of others continue to enter our 
country illegally every day.
  In America, we are blessed to have the freedom that others only dream 
about, but freedom is never free. It must be nurtured and protected, 
sometimes at great cost in lives; but we will not surrender to 
terrorists. That only empowers them. We will fight them today so we can 
enjoy a better tomorrow. Any other course only resigns us to an 
uncertain future.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the brave men and 
women of the 21st Congressional District of Texas who are fighting this 
war overseas. The most difficult action I have ever taken as an elected 
official is to call the families of the 14 servicemembers from my 
district who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families' 
patriotism and love of country is almost indescribable. Their faith is 
great because they know our cause is great.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad this resolution has been brought to the floor, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who fought in the Korean War 
and was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the majority has seen fit to 
bring to this floor a political statement where if you vote against it, 
you are voting against our troops; and if you vote for it, of course 
you are supporting the President's policy. But being a politician, I 
can understand that.
  We cannot say enough about the courage and the dedication of our 
young people, the volunteers and the National Guard's people that are 
putting their lives on the line each and every day. Tragically, we 
reached a point that we passed the 2,500 mark in terms of loss of life, 
and tens of thousands are permanently maimed.
  When we laud them, as we have heard, as supporting the President's 
policy, I really think this is so unfair, and why? Because with our 
fighting men and women, when that flag goes up, they salute it not 
because of a President's policy, but because of respecting their oath 
to the Commander in Chief.
  When I was in Korea, I do not remember any of the soldiers that were 
in combat questioning the wisdom of Commander in Chief President 
Truman. They never asked did the Congress declare war. They never asked 
why were we involved in a civil war between the North Koreans and the 
South Koreans. They never thought that the North Koreans were going to 
invade our communities.
  I tell you that our fighting men and women today are not saying that 
they challenge the Commander in Chief. They do not ask whether there 
were weapons of mass destruction. They do not ask whether or not Saddam 
Hussein was a part of al Qaeda. They do not ask those political 
questions, and

[[Page 11487]]

neither did I when I was a sergeant in the infantry.
  But I am not a sergeant in the infantry now. I am a Member of the 
United States Congress, a Member of this House of Representatives, and 
each one of us has the right to challenge any direction, not of the 
Commander in Chief, but the President of the United States. That is the 
most patriotic thing we can do because, in doing that, whether it is 
Vietnam, whether it is Korea, or whether it is Iraq, we are protecting 
as best we see it, the lives and the safety of the men and women that 
have volunteered.
  Let us face it, they did not volunteer to knock off Saddam Hussein. 
They volunteered because they were looking for a better way of life, 
the same way I did when I volunteered in 1948, and you can see where 
they come from. It does not take away from their patriotism, but they 
did not take a poli-sci course in terms of how do you bring peace in 
the Middle East. I mean, they were not there looking for Saddam 
Hussein. They were looking for a better opportunity, which I guess they 
received. They come from our inner cities. They come from our rural 
areas. They come from the areas of high unemployment. But when they get 
in the military, they are patriots who do not challenge the policies of 
a President or Commander in Chief. So they are not advocates. They are 
patriots.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) who sits as a member 
of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Coble for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from visiting our troops in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. I witnessed the impact of Zarqawi up close and 
personal. I have seen the damage Zarqawi inflicted. I visited the areas 
where Zarqawi lived and terrorized people, and I met the brave soldiers 
who ultimately tracked him down and killed him.
  It was Sunday evening, May 28, 2006, and I was in Amman, Jordan, with 
a small delegation of six Congressmen. As I walked through the metal 
detector to enter the hotel's lobby, I thought of Zarqawi. It was here, 
in Amman, Jordan, that Zarqawi, a native of Jordan, killed 60 people by 
bombing three hotels on November 9, 2005.
  The next day was Memorial Day, Monday, May 29, and I was in Iraq 
visiting with our troops. Once again, my thoughts turned to Zarqawi. I 
toured the Special Operations Command Center with General Stan 
McCrystal, a three-star general in charge of tracking down Zarqawi. All 
over the walls of the command center were posters of Zarqawi. General 
McCrystal and his team were confident that they would get Zarqawi, and 
they briefed us on their efforts.
  That same day I flew in a Blackhawk helicopter around the area of 
Ba'Qubah where Zarqawi was ultimately located. I also toured Baghdad, 
where Zarqawi intimidated the U.N. by bombing their headquarters and 
where al Jazeera TV once broadcast a videotape showing Zarqawi 
personally beheading an American citizen.
  A week later, on Wednesday, June 7, I was at the White House with a 
few other Members of Congress to brief President Bush about what we saw 
in Iraq. At exactly 3:57 p.m., National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley 
slipped a note to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary 
of State Condi Rice. President Bush read the note, smiled and winked at 
Condi Rice. Zarqawi was dead.
  General McCrystal later personally went to the scene and determined 
for himself that Zarqawi had officially been killed. President Bush 
already called General McCrystal to thank him and his troops, and today 
Congress thanks them as well.
  Mr. Speaker, Amman, Jordan, is a long way from my hometown of 
Orlando, Florida. Tonight, thousands of people in Orlando will walk 
into hotel lobbies without having to go through a metal detector, 
unlike the hotels in Amman, Jordan. Why? Because our soldiers are 
taking the fight to the terrorists, like Zarqawi in the Middle East, so 
the rest of us can live freely in the United States.
  However one feels about the war in Iraq, realize that our troops 
deserve our support 100 percent. God knows they have earned it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on House Resolution 861.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 62\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBLE. And the other side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 57 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who chairs the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution on the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  No one can honestly say that everything has gone just as planned in 
the war on terror. As with any war, we continue to face many 
challenges, some predictable, others unforeseen.

                              {time}  2115

  But I have no doubt that we will ultimately prevail and we will 
prevail because of the bravery and sacrifice and commitment to 
excellence of so many of our courageous men and women in uniform who 
have selflessly answered the call to duty.
  Because of these patriots, Saddam Hussein is on trial for his life, 
for his crimes against humanity. His evil sons, Uday and Qusay, are no 
doubt roasting in hell. There are no more mass graves in Iraq being 
filled with the bodies of the innocent. And 25 million Iraqis, instead 
of fearing torture and execution for such crimes as insulting the 
President, can now, instead, actually vote for their leaders. And Iraq 
now has an elected government under a new constitution. And because of 
the skill and professionalism of our troops and our allies in the war 
on terror, terrorist kingpin, Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead, and al 
Qaeda is left without its mastermind in Iraq. And in Afghanistan, in 
the face of extremely difficult conditions, our courageous men and 
women have overcome al Qaeda and the Taliban, allowing for free 
elections and the first democratically elected President, President 
Karzai, in that nation's history.
  The job done by our soldiers and our sailors, our airmen and marines 
has been nothing short of superb. It is because of them that we will 
ultimately prevail in the war on terror. Of that I have no doubt. Like 
many of my colleagues, I have had the opportunity to visit with our 
troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and I have returned home with even 
more respect and admiration for the great work our servicemembers do 
each and every day. And like many of my colleagues, I have attended 
funeral services for too many of our heroes who have given their lives 
on the battlefield in the service of their Nation. May God bless them 
and the families that they have left behind.
  Mr. Speaker, these sacrifices remind us that ultimately the people of 
Iraq must control their own destiny. Many of us have supported the 
important mission of training Iraqi troops to take responsibility for 
the security of Iraq. Ultimately, the Iraqi people, the troops, the 
police officers there have to be responsible for the security of Iraq. 
There is only so much that our troops can do. This must continue to be 
a primary focus so that our brave men and women can return home as soon 
as possible.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 
3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), a combat 
veteran of the Korea war.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ladies and gentlemen, General Anthony Zinni and other retired 
generals have been outspoken in their opposition to the planning and 
execution of our occupation of Iraq. But our administration rejected 
their sound recommendations which predicted exactly what would happen 
if we didn't plan for

[[Page 11488]]

the occupation. These generals explained that our forces were not 
provided enough resources to do the job; that we alienated allies that 
could have helped in rebuilding Iraq; and that the Defense Department 
ignored planning for the postwar occupation, unaware of the growing 
insurgency there.
  I have heard from too many military families, those children of 
theirs who have been wounded or killed in duty. Their grief is so much 
harder to bear knowing that often we did not adequately equip their 
sons and daughters in battle.
  Back home I have met many times with Lila Lipscomb, a proud mother 
from Flint, Michigan, who lost her son Michael in Iraq. Initially, Mrs. 
Lipscomb supported the war, on the assumption that the government knew 
best. A week after finding out her son had died, she received a letter 
from her son in which he forcefully argued that we should not be in 
Iraq because there was no connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden.
  Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey in Iraq and became a voice for 
mothers of soldiers who oppose the war. Cindy's loss motivated her to 
unite with other grieving mothers in opposition to the war. And her 
willingness to speak truth to power has drawn attention to the 
misconduct of the war and the terrible price that service men and women 
and their families have paid.
  Let me tell you this: We need to encourage our friends and allies 
around the globe to help with Iraqi reconstruction and peacekeeping. We 
just don't have sufficient resources to manage this work on our own. We 
haven't learned from the first gulf war. If we can bring the 
international community into Iraq to help establish a democracy, 
protect its citizens, and rebuild its infrastructure, it will free 
American forces and resources to address the real problem we face: 
Terrorism.
  Let's heed the advice of our colleague, Mr. Murtha, and redeploy our 
troops to find Osama bin Laden and fight terrorists. If we can shatter 
the myth that occupying Iraq is the same thing as fighting terrorism, 
then these 10 hours of debate tonight will have been worth something 
after all.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the distinguished gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King), who sits as a member of the Judiciary, 3 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and I 
appreciate the privilege to address you, Mr. Speaker, and also this 
Chamber.
  If we take ourselves back to September 11, 2001, we had a lot of 
small problems then that we thought were big problems, and all of a 
sudden we had a great big problem. We were attacked by an enemy that 
most of us hadn't paid much attention to, if indeed we had ever heard 
of that enemy. We believed that that day wouldn't be over before on top 
of the attacks we knew about there would be other attacks on top of 
that. We believed in the following days there would be more and more 
attacks in this country because of an organized effort that would be 
continuing with suicide bomber attacks that would continue to cost the 
lives of Americans.
  We mobilized this. The President stepped up in New York at ground 
zero and took a leadership role. He said if you're not with us, you're 
against us. If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. And he 
carried that out.
  And as we began to get mobilized to go to Afghanistan, there were 
those on the other side of the political equation that said you can't 
go in there and successfully invade and occupy a nation like that; that 
has never happened in the history of the world. The terrain is too 
difficult, the fighters are too tenacious, and it is a fool's errand to 
go into Afghanistan and think you can succeed in there militarily. But 
in fact that is what happened.
  They said it would be another Vietnam, but it wasn't another Vietnam. 
The Afghani people voted on that soil for the first time in the history 
of the world, and American troops were there to see to it that they 
were able to do that. They have chosen their own leaders and directed 
their own national destiny, 25 million people.
  And the advisers that put that together, both civilian and military, 
were the same advisers that advised President Bush on Iraq. The 
similarities are almost identical: Difficult country, 25 million 
people, you can't go there and succeed. The same advisers. And because 
some people can find one or two generals that had a different idea, 
they seem to believe that the President hasn't used the best wisdom 
possible.
  In the shortest time in the history of the world, an armored column 
went across the desert and invaded and occupied the largest city ever 
in the history of the world to be invaded and occupied, and that is 
Baghdad, successfully, 25 million people. Even though we had some 
people who have spoken on this floor tonight that were inclined to 
surrender before the operation ever began. And now we have an operation 
going over there that has freed 25 million more people. And Afghanistan 
and Iraq are the lodestars for the Arab people in the Arab world.
  When the Berlin Wall came down on November 9 of 1989, many in this 
place did not predict that freedom would echo across Eastern Europe for 
hundreds of millions of people, but it did. And freedom can echo across 
the Arab world for tens and hundreds of millions of people the same way 
that it echoed across Europe. That is the Bush doctrine. That is the 
vision: To free people. Because free people never go to war against 
other free people. We don't, at least.
  And to the extent that the world is a freer place, it is a safer 
place, especially a safer place for Americans. So, Mr. Speaker, I 
appreciate the privilege and I stand with our military.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to 
correct some disinformation that the previous speaker put out.
  It should be noted that this Chamber was near united on going into 
Afghanistan. Moreover, we believed strongly that is where we should 
have been. So it wasn't anywhere close to what he explained.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. 
Tanner), who served 4 years active duty in the U.S. Navy and retired as 
a full bird colonel after 26 years with the Tennessee National Guard.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, our country was founded and bases itself on 
civilian control of the military. And when I wore the uniform of our 
country, I, like all other military people in uniform, followed orders. 
I obeyed my commanders and I tried to do whatever the mission was that 
was set before us. That is what you do in the military of the United 
States under civilian control.
  But I am not in uniform any more. I am a civilian now, and part of 
that civilian authority. And it is our patriotic duty as part of that 
civilian authority to ask questions, to constantly reexamine the 
strategy, to constantly reexamine the policy of this country, to do 
everything we can to, one, accomplish our mission; and, secondly, and 
more importantly, protect the men and women who are actually doing the 
fighting for us now.
  That is why this debate, I would have hoped, would have been more 
broad; that we would have had more opportunity, because this debate in 
this country has to take place in this building on this floor here and 
in the Senate Chamber. It is the patriotic obligation and duty of 
civilian authority to do that, and I am proud to be here tonight.
  Now, I have supported resolutions like this in the past, but I want 
to ask Mr. Coble a question, sir. There was a news report this morning 
that the new Iraqi government is negotiating with some of the elements 
there in Iraq that are insurgents who have been murdering Americans, 
and this was what one of the Iraqi government officials said this 
morning, according to these news reports, and I quote: ``There is a 
patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that these 
attacks on Americans are legitimate acts of resistance in defending 
their homeland. These people will be pardoned, definitely, I believe.''
  Now, unless that can be cleared up, I am not prepared to vote for a 
resolution which says in part that the United States and its coalition 
partners will

[[Page 11489]]

continue to support Iraq. If this government in Iraq is going to grant 
amnesty to people who kill Americans because they feel it is their 
patriotic duty and they are defending their homeland, then we have got 
to reassess where we are with these people.
  Do you know whether or not this has been cleared up?
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Tanner, I do not know. I am told that it was announced 
that it was a mistake. But I cannot verify that, and this is a case of 
first impression with me, what you have just shared with me.
  Mr. TANNER. Well, I don't want to catch you off guard, but we need to 
clear this up before we vote on this resolution. I do not think the 
American people will support a government that grants amnesty to people 
who kill American soldiers.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who, by the way, is the founder 
and chairman of the bipartisan, bicameral Anti-terrorist Funding Task 
Force.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk briefly about one aspect of 
our fight against terrorism that is often overlooked, and that is our 
efforts to detect and eradicate terrorist funding networks around the 
world. The fight against terror finance goes hand in hand with the war 
on terror.

                              {time}  2130

  Terrorists infiltrate our financial systems to distribute the money 
that they need to support their evil activities around the globe. They 
exploit a wide variety of alternative funding networks that range from 
charities to commonplace criminal activity like drug peddling and 
illegal cigarette sales.
  My colleagues would likely agree that while we may have targeted the 
financial resources of terrorists networks at times prior to 9/11, the 
fight against terror finance didn't begin in earnest until after the 9/
11 attacks.
  The 9/11 hijackers used U.S. and foreign banks to transfer the 
roughly half-million dollars necessary to the plan to execute their 
attacks on America.
  We fought back against terror financiers with people like Dennis 
Lormel, a veteran FBI agent who was tasked with tracking down the 
financial lifelines that enabled the 9/11 hijackers to operate.
  We fought back with people like David Aufhauser, who was then general 
counsel at the Treasury Department who was put in charge of a small 
interagency terror finance group which met regularly at the White House 
after 9/11.
  And we fought back here in this House. Chairman Oxley and the ranking 
member, Mr. Frank, convened a Financial Services Committee hearing on 
terror finance just 3 weeks after the attacks. Shortly thereafter, this 
body passed the PATRIOT Act, which provided critical new terror finance 
tools.
  We have held numerous hearings since to improve the government's 
antiterror finance efforts and to identify which foreign countries need 
to do more to stop terror financing within their borders.
  And we have created the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorist 
Financing Task Force to bring a stronger focus on bolstering our fight 
against terror financiers.
  In just a few years, we have made significant progress in combating 
terror-funding networks. We still have a long way to go, but we are on 
the right track.
  Last December, the 9/11 Commission came out with a report card 
grading the government's response to 9/11. The government's efforts 
against terror finance got the highest grade of them all, an A minus.
  Just last week, an al Qaeda planning document was found in al 
Zarqawi's hideout which laments our successes in restricting the al 
Qaeda financial outlets. This House has played an important role in 
this effort, and it has been approached in a bipartisan way even when 
dealing with terror finance in Iraq. Continued progress on this complex 
issue requires a sustained commitment from our Congress.
  Last year, members from both sides of the aisle joined me in a letter 
pressing Syria for more action in stopping the flow of fighters and 
finances into Iraq.
  Members from both sides of the aisle joined me in asking the 
government of Italy to crack down on open fundraising efforts for Iraqi 
terrorists in their country.
  As we move forward, our challenges continue to grow more daunting as 
terrorists perpetually adapt to our methods to stop them. They are 
constantly finding new ways to raise and distribute money.
  So we must work even harder to keep up with terrorists' ever-changing 
financing techniques. We must continue pressing foreign governments to 
do the same.
  Continued progress on this complex issue requires a sustained 
commitment from Congress. By stopping the flow of terrorist money, we 
can diminish the ability of terrorists to attack our citizens and our 
country. Fighting terror finance must remain a critical component of 
the War on Terror.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding time for some of the veterans 
on the Democratic side of the aisle to have the opportunity to speak 
out against this sham resolution, and I yield back to him the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to oppose this resolution and to call for a significant 
reduction of U.S. forces this year and an end to the occupation in 
2007.
  I voted against the invasion in 2002 because I believed the war would 
be a strategic blunder of historic proportions. And it has been.
  We owe the men and women we sent to Iraq and their loved ones more 
than a few hours of grandstanding on this floor and an empty resolution 
of support.
  We must work toward a national consensus to end this war, a war born 
in deception and managed under a delusion. Today's news that the 
American death toll has surpassed 2,500 is the grim reminder of the 
danger and sacrifice our Armed Forces face daily in Iraq. We need to 
end our occupation of Iraq so America can rebuild our economy at home 
and regain respect abroad.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who sits on the House Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, again we return to the people's House to 
discuss the people's business and the central question that cuts to the 
very core of our existence: free men and women engaged in an armed 
struggle to advance freedom elsewhere in the world; our all-volunteer 
military, standing in the breach against Islamofascism and terror in 
Afghanistan and in innumerable other places around the globe. But the 
central front for our discussion this evening in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, in support of the 
troops, in support of this mission, as I often recall the words of Mark 
Twain that history does not repeat it, but it rhymes.
  I review the debate that has gone on in the people's House today, so 
many willing to compare this to Vietnam. So many coming to this floor 
using the term ``quagmire,'' and yet any dispassionate, objective 
evaluation of what has transpired would be remiss if we did not include 
not one, not two, but three elections where we have seen turnout by the 
Iraqi people exceed on each occasion what had gone on before.
  We see a nation being born, fighting terror, and we see American 
troops, volunteers, stepping forward.
  Others have made the point, Mr. Speaker, that there is no more solemn 
and sacred obligation than casting a vote to put our military into 
harm's way. I have been at Walter Reed with one of my constituents 
prior to surgery. I had that young man say to me: Congressman, I am a 
cav scout. That's my job; that's my profession. Help me do all I can to 
get back with my unit.
  The men and women of our military are professionals doing a tough 
job. I don't doubt the sincerity and intent of those who oppose this 
resolution, but I do respectfully take issue with their judgment.

[[Page 11490]]

  If not us, who? If not now, when? We have no choice. Failure is not 
an option, and to those for whatever reason eager to snatch defeat from 
the jaws of victory, al Zarqawi is dead. A democracy is being born. 
Freedom is on the march. This remains an imperfect world with mistakes 
and challenges that likewise remain, but let us stand steadfast, true 
to the course, true to the cause, true to freedom. Vote ``yes'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), a Vietnam 
veteran and the recipient of two Bronze Stars.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of the 
resolution. There is much in the resolution to like. It honors those 
Americans who fought in the global war on terror, and especially those 
who have been wounded and died; and it expresses a commitment to a 
sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq. And it urges we protect 
freedom.
  But the resolution fails to address a key question that most 
Americans are asking: When are the troops coming home? Let me be clear, 
I have long opposed setting a date certain for immediate withdrawal of 
U.S. forces because such plans encourage our enemies and put our troops 
at risk.
  However, speaking as a Vietnam veteran, I believe every 
unconventional conflict has a tipping point where the presence of 
foreign soldiers on sovereign soil begins to become counterproductive, 
and I learned that we cannot secure a foreign land all by ourselves. We 
must plan a transfer of authority where a sovereign state assumes the 
solemn task of securing their own people within their own borders. And 
I believe this tipping point is fast approaching.
  We must patiently but firmly insist that the new Iraqi Government 
assume these responsibilities, and we must also be systematic in 
bringing home those American soldiers who have so bravely served us on 
the ground in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I observe in this great Chamber two portraits: one of 
George Washington, a revolutionary leader; the other is France's 
General Lafayette who helped us with our revolution from 1777 to 1781. 
It is instructive to note that General Lafayette did not stay here 
forever, nor did we want him to go. Good friends know when to come; 
good friends know when to go.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to be resolute about our 
support for the troops. But it is also time to send a clear message 
that our commitment is conditional on their successes, and our days in 
their country are not indefinite.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of the Resolution. There is 
much in this resolution to like.
  After all, it honors those Americans who have fought in the Global 
War on Terror, and especially those who have been wounded or died.
  It expresses a commitment to a ``sovereign, free, secure and united 
Iraq.'' And it urges that we ``protect freedom.''
  But this resolution fails to fully address a key question that most 
Americans are asking: ``When are the troops coming home?''
  Now let me be clear--I have long opposed setting a ``date certain'' 
for ``immediate withdrawal'' of U.S. forces because such plans 
encourage our enemies and put our troops at risk.
  However, speaking as a Vietnam Veteran, I believe that every 
unconventional conflict has a ``tipping point'' where the presence of 
foreign soldiers on sovereign soil begins to become counter-productive.
  I learned that we cannot secure a foreign land all by ourselves. We 
must plan a transfer of authority where a sovereign state assumes the 
solemn task of securing their own people within their own borders.
  I believe that this ``tipping point'' is fast approaching in Iraq. We 
must patiently, but firmly, insist that the new Iraqi Government assume 
these responsibilities.
  We must also be systematic in bringing home those American soldiers 
who have so bravely served us on the ground in Iraq.
  President Bush and this Congress must clearly tell our partners in 
Iraq--particularly, the new government--that they must step up to the 
plate and assume their solemn responsibilities for securing their 
country.
  The new Iraqi Government must understand that the American people 
will not allow their own sons and daughters to stay indefinitely; and 
that it's time for the Iraqis to assume more of the burden of sacrifice 
that any war and any revolution might bring.
  It is time for Iraq to come together and show the American people 
that it is ready to defend itself, govern itself and sustain itself.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I observe in this great chamber two large 
portraits. One is of George Washington, our revolutionary leader. The 
other is of France's General Lafayette, who helped us with our 
revolution from 1777 to 1781.
  It is instructive to note, that General Lafayette did not stay here 
forever; nor did we want him to. Good friends know when to come--and 
when to go.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to be resolute about our 
support for our troops and their important mission. But it is also time 
to send a clear message to our friends in Iraq, that our commitment is 
conditional on their own successes, and that our days in their country 
are not indefinite.
  And although I wish this resolution could have made this point more 
clearly, I will support the resolution.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague, Mr. Murtha, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to close this very grim and dark 
chapter in American history, a chapter that is leaving a dark stain on 
the moral fabric of our Nation and compromising our credibility among 
the communities nations.
  As Gandhi once said: ``Liberty and democracy become unholy when their 
hands are dyed with innocent red blood.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have buried 2,500 of our Nation's mothers, fathers, 
daughters, sons, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters. The lives of 
18,000 men and women have been changed forever. Some have lost their 
arms, their legs, and their sight in this unnecessary conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, war is messy. War is bloody. It tends not only to hide 
the truth, but to sacrifice the truth. While we may have won some 
military victories, those do not erase the mistake of a preemptive war.
  They will not silence the questions that are troubling the minds of 
the American people. They know today that Iraq did not pose an 
immediate threat. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and they 
see that we are deeply involved in a misguided conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, I deeply believe that the American people want us to 
bring our children home. We are not safer today than we were before we 
went to war. This war is not the answer, so we must find a way out of 
no way to bring our young men and our young women home. Bring them 
home.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the next speaker, could 
you tell me how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 49 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 54\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) who sits on the House 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this resolution.
  Over a quarter of a century ago when I served in my first term during 
my first period of service in Congress, I remember making a very 
difficult phone call. That phone call was to the parents of a young man 
in uniform who had died in our failed attempt in the desert to attempt 
to rescue our hostages in Iran.
  I recall the feeling of helplessness we had at that moment, not 
understanding what we were doing, not having a strategy as to how we 
respond to what was, very simply put, a terrorist attack.
  I recall being awakened one morning to learn that we had suffered the 
loss

[[Page 11491]]

of our marines in Beirut. I recall the attack on the USS Cole. And 
then, of course, I recall with all of us the terrible tragedy of 9/11.
  Say what you will about the President's policies and say what you 
will about the imperfections involved, the fact of the matter is since 
9/11 this President, this administration, has embarked on a strategy 
that says we will not wait to be attacked. We will not wait to respond 
exactly where they attacked us. We will change the rules of the game, 
and we will decide where and when we will attack.
  We understand that this is a global war on terror. Those who suggest 
that the war in Iraq is not essential to our defense in the war on 
terror should only listen to the words of Mr. Zarqawi and the 
correspondence that he had last October where he suggested one of the 
very first objectives of al Qaeda was to make sure we were defeated in 
Iraq.

                              {time}  2145

  We should understand that we have done great things in response to 
this, on a bipartisan basis. We have given the President the tools to 
use, the PATRIOT Act, intelligence gathering that he did not have the 
capacity for before. And let me just mention a number of plots that 
have been deterred.
  The West coast airliner plot in mid-2002. The U.S. disrupted a plot 
to attack targets on the West coast of United States using hijacked 
airplanes.
  The East Coast airliner plot in mid-2003,
  The Jose Padilla plot to blow up apartment buildings in the United 
States in May of 2002.
  The 2004 U.K. urban targets plot where the U.S. and partners 
disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom.
  The 2003 Karachi plot.
  The Heathrow Airport plot in 2003.
  The 2004 U.K. plot.
  The 2002 Arabian Gulf shipping plot.
  The 2002 Straits of Hormuz plot,
  The 2003 tourist site plot where the U.S. and a partner nation 
disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.
  We are making progress precisely because we are playing away games, 
not home games. Let's not forget that as we debate this important 
resolution.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker and Members, our job is to 
protect our Nation. We have thousands of young men and women who are 
doing it today.
  I believed in early 2003 we should do more to capture or eliminate 
the people who caused the 9/11 attacks. They were predominantly in 
Afghanistan, not in Iraq.
  Today it seems we have a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and 
increasing attacks in Iraq on our troops and Iraqi citizens.
  We have seen success in capturing Saddam and eliminating al Zarqawi. 
I have never doubted the ability of our young men and women in our 
Armed Forces. We saw what they were capable of doing in the first days 
of the war when they stormed Iraq and Baghdad within days, overwhelming 
the Iraqi forces.
  The accomplishments we have seen in Iraq can be attributed directly 
to these troops' discipline and persistence in fighting the insurgency.
  Mistakes have been made, and the most experienced members of our 
Armed Forces have pointed that out. One of the individuals who spoke 
out was retired Marine General, Former Chief of U.S. Central Command 
Anthony Zinni, who said, ``We grow up in a culture where 
accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes 
and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that 
happening, it worries us. Poor military judgments has been used 
throughout this mission.''
  As this war has gone on, the lack of planning and poor judgment by 
this administration has become more apparent.
  I have here the May 1, 2003 press release from the White House in 
which President Bush, on board the U.S. Abraham Lincoln, declared all 
major combat operations have ended. We now know that this was one 
miscalculation among many.
  Since that time, seven young men from our 29th Congressional district 
in Texas have lost their lives in Iraq. Across this Nation, 2,300 
service personnel, men and women have lost their lives since the 
President made these remarks.
  Reading over these remarks, it is clear that the administration had 
no clear plan for securing Iraq after the invasion and no clue about 
what was to follow the next 3 years.
  Given the size and the strength and the effectiveness of the 
insurgency, the administration's intelligence should have given some 
indication that there would be problems down the road and done a better 
job of preparing both our public and, more importantly, our troops on 
what was to come the following month and the following years.
  It is clear that we did not have enough troops on the ground 
immediately after the invasion, and that shortage continues.
  Congress doesn't direct troops on the ground. We are not the 
Commander in Chief. But we are charged with sending our sons and 
daughters into battle, and therefore we need an honest and open debate 
about what is occurring in Iraq.
  I strongly disagree with the way the administration planned and 
carried out this war. I will continue, though, to vote for the defense 
appropriations and the supplemental dollars because we have to give our 
troops protections that they need, and we learn every day that they 
need even more.
  Many brave men and women have given their lives in Baghdad and all 
across Iraq. We honor those families for their sacrifice, their 
ultimate sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, this war is not the one we anticipated fighting or the 
war we were led to believe we were getting into, but I believe we must 
leave a secure Iraq that can defend itself and be a symbol for 
democracy to prosper.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the question came up previously from a 
colleague about did Iraq intend to give amnesty to those who have 
killed American soldiers, and I want to clarify that. The National 
Security Adviser said just earlier regarding alleged comments from the 
Prime Minister that supposedly amnesty would be given to some who have 
killed Americans. He said, ``This is not the case. I am sorry to say 
the Prime Minister of Iraq has been misquoted and misunderstood. He did 
not mean to give amnesty to those who killed Americans.'' So that 
should clarify that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there are those who have said it is a quagmire in 
Iraq. It is a mistake for us to be there. Some made these statements 
from personal heartache. Some, on the other hand, were made from 
partisan political motivation, and some from disdain for our President 
and a desire to see his efforts fail, even though it risks world 
stability and national security.
  But our soldiers are there. They know they have done great things and 
will continue to accomplish more. They have seen the admiring faces of 
Iraqi children that were never present in Vietnam. They have heard 
gratitude from many there in Iraq that was never heard in Vietnam.
  Our valiant soldiers not only fight, protect and defend, they also 
see the frantic efforts of terrorists who are terrified that democracy 
and the people will begin to rule over them and their oppressive 
dictatorial ways. They keep many terrorists occupied there rather than 
here in America.
  Mr. Speaker, as legislators, we get to ask a question that I didn't 
get to ask as a judge. It was inappropriate because of the separation 
of powers. And that is, who will be hurt or helped by the actions and, 
in my case as a judge, by the ruling?
  Well, here in this debate as legislators we get to ask that question. 
Who will be hurt by pulling out? Those yearning for freedom who have it 
within their grasp will be hurt. And ultimately America will be hurt 
because of terrorist activities that would resume and multiply unabated 
in Iraq, and bin

[[Page 11492]]

Laden would have been proven right, that we didn't have the stomach to 
go all the way to victory.
  Who would be helped by our pulling out? Well, there are some families 
that would not endure the heartache from losing or having a wounded 
soldier in their family. But the price in lost lives might be far more 
expensive in the future. Who would really be helped would be ruthless, 
heartless, finger detaching, hand removing, throat slashing, 
decapitating, women raping and abusing, child misusing, corpse abusing, 
merciless, calloused, deranged, religious zealot, murderers who think 
they are going to get virgins in the next life, but may find they are 
the virgins with what happens to them.
  Let me just close by saying, some have not had nice things to say 
about our colleague, Mr. Murtha, and others wanting to pull out of Iraq 
quickly. But I understand the faithful visitation that he does 
routinely. So I say thank God for his big heart. I say thank God for 
his compassion. Thank God for his visits to the wounded. Thank God for 
his ministering to grieving families. But thank God he was not here and 
prevailed after the bloodbaths at Normandy and in the Pacific, or we 
would be here speaking Japanese or German.
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I ask the Speaker, was the gentleman at any of those locations? Was 
the gentleman at either Normandy or any of those locations?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield?
  You want to know which locations?
  Mr. MURTHA. Yes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Normandy was a horrible bloodbath.
  Mr. MURTHA. I said were you there?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, no, I wasn't.
  Mr. MURTHA. Were you in Vietnam?
  Mr. GOHMERT. No, sir, I wasn't.
  Mr. MURTHA. Were you in Iraq?
  Mr. GOHMERT. I have been over there. I haven't been fighting.
  Mr. MURTHA. Boots on the ground?
  Mr. GOHMERT. And I do admire the gentleman's compassion, and I do 
appreciate all that he has done for our wounded. He has done a great 
service, and that would be you, Mr. Murtha. Thank you for your work.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the process that we are dealing with this 
evening is nothing less than an outrage. The idea that on an issue of 
this great importance those of us in the minority are not being allowed 
to offer a resolution of our own is an insult to the democratic process 
and tells us why we have to end one party government in America.
  The Republican resolution talks about democracy in Iraq. I am all for 
that. But I would also like to see some democracy on the floor of the 
U.S. House of Representatives.
  Three and a half years ago, when we were asked to give the President 
the authority to go to war in Iraq, I voted against that resolution, 
and I think history will indicate that that was the right vote.
  Three and a half years ago President Bush told us that Iraq had 
weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was likely to attack us, and 
that it was necessary to wage a preemptive war against them. President 
Bush was wrong.
  Three and a half years ago, we were told that there was a link 
between Iraq and al Qaeda. That was wrong.
  Three and a half years ago, we were shown all of those aluminum tubes 
which allegedly told us about a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. That 
was wrong.
  Three and a half years ago, we were told that Iraq was importing 
depleted uranium from Niger. That was wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, terrorism is a major problem for our country and the 
world. Unfortunately, in many respects, the war in Iraq has created 
more terrorists than it has stopped, and has deflected our attention 
away from the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
  Mr. Speaker, let us bring our troops home as soon as possible. Let us 
mount a focused campaign against terrorism with military force, with 
improved intelligence capabilities and with an understanding that we 
need to work with the entire world.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, Iraq is a part of the global war on terrorism, and a 
strong democratic Iraq means a safer America.
  Rather than debate the past, I choose to look at where we are today 
and where we will be tomorrow. In the days and weeks and months ahead, 
the global war on terrorism will come to a turning point. Today the 
question is, do we continue to fight and defeat the terrorists who will 
stop at nothing to destroy Iraq's democracy?
  Ultimately, the success of democracy in Iraq will be decided by the 
Iraqis themselves, for it is they who must take their country back.
  Like many of our colleagues, I have traveled to Iraq. I have visited 
with its leaders, including the new Prime Minister. I have also visited 
with our troops, including from my home State of New Jersey. I have met 
with members of the Signal Battalion from Westfield and our Finance 
Battalion in Flemington before their deployments. Their courage in the 
face of danger and willingness to serve inspire us all.
  Difficult days still lie ahead. We acknowledge the sacrifices of our 
Armed Forces and their families here at home. For those Americans who 
have made the ultimate sacrifice, 2,500 as of today, their sacrifice is 
immeasurable, and America extends our hands and our hearts to their 
families.
  Looking forward, not backwards, I believe we must stand with the 
Iraqis who are fighting for their country, because a strong democratic 
Iraq means a safer America. There can be no alternative to winning the 
global war on terrorism. There can be no alternative to a democratic 
Iraq, lest it return to tyranny and a breeding ground for international 
terrorists who would then seek to fight us far closer to our own 
shores.
  Let us choose a democratic Iraq and a safer America. I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, how did this happen? We have lost 2,500 
American servicemen and women. They have been killed in Iraq. 18,000 
U.S. soldiers grievously wounded. We have spent over one-third of a 
trillion dollars in Iraq on this war, so far. Yet, 80 percent of the 
Iraqi people want us to leave. 80 percent of the Iraqi people want us 
to leave. They are shooting at our soldiers, blowing up our soldiers 
with improvised explosive devices.
  How did we get here? Oh, yeah. I remember. President Bush said that 
Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States and had 
weapons of mass destruction. So many of us voted to send our troops to 
Iraq to eliminate this threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction 
and this imminent threat to our national security.

                              {time}  2200

  It turned out not to be true. There were no weapons of mass 
destruction. Saddam Hussein was no imminent threat to the United 
States. Well, we deposed him and that is a good thing. But there was a 
huge power vacuum and many of us felt, even though we were misled going 
into war, that we had a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people 
stabilize their country and bring democracy there, and we have been 
there now 3 years, 2,500 dead, 18,000 of our young men and women 
wounded, a third of $1 trillion spent, and 80 percent of the Iraqis 
want us to leave.
  I support the Murtha resolution, which says that we should withdraw 
most of the U.S. troops back to the United States and leave a quick 
reaction force in friendly countries around the region.
  Some say Iraq is part of the war on terror. Nonsense. There are 25 
million people in Iraq, 25 million people in Iraq, less than 1,000 
foreign fighters. This is a civil war. The Iraqi Shiias,

[[Page 11493]]

Sunnis, and Kurds cannot agree how to divide up Iraq now that we got 
rid of Saddam. Well, it is 3 years later. All of this American loss of 
life. President Bush says stay the course, and in fact, it will not be 
President Bush who gets rid of this war. It will be the next President. 
Well, you know what? Americans do not want this war without end. Deploy 
most of our troops back to America within 6 months. Redeploy a 
significant number in friendly countries around the horizon in case 
other countries want to meddle.
  War without end is not the American way. We met our moral obligation 
to the people of Iraq. Now it is up to the Shiias, Sunnis, and Kurds in 
Iraq to decide whether they want to live in peace with one another or 
not.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), who sits on the Financial Services and 
Transportation Committees.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, for our families and country 
to truly be secure, we must prevail in the war on terror. Iraq is a 
central front in that war.
  Mistakes have been made, but so have corrections. But the fundamental 
fact remains that John F. Kennedy's words have never been more true: 
``If men and women are in chains anywhere in the world, then freedom is 
in endangered everywhere.''
  Men and women in the chains of tyranny, without hope, provide the 
breeding grounds for terrorists that endanger America and the entire 
civilized world. Terrorism can only be defeated by bringing hope to 
harsh places.
  America has always found that the best way to make our families 
secure is to confront tyranny and expand the frontiers of freedom. That 
is our mission in Iraq. And with a democratically elected government 
and Iraqi troops increasingly taking over for our troops, we are on a 
path to success.
  Others offer a different path, a path that says get out now no matter 
what the commanders in the field say; get out now, whether or not 
milestones have been achieved; get out now, whether or not Iraq becomes 
a sanctuary for terrorists to regroup and attack America again; get out 
now no matter what signal that sends to Iran.
  Let me be clear. Cutting and running is one path, but it is the wrong 
path. The only path for security for our families is victory in the war 
on terror.
  The troops that I visited in Iraq in each of the last 3 years have 
told me that they should come home as soon as possible, after we have 
defeated the terrorist threat and set out a lasting peace.
  I support this proposal and encourage all my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Resolution offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois, a man who has spent his life as a tireless 
advocate for freedom and respect for the fundamental dignity of all 
human life.
  It cannot be overstated how important it is that we are here for 
today's debate. There is no more important issue facing this Congress 
or this country than winning the War on Terror.
  Our mission in Iraq is a central front in that war.
  At stake is not only the safety of our families and our country but 
also the resolve of this great Nation to stand up and oppose the forces 
of terror wherever they may appear.
  Make no mistake about it: there is more at stake in our mission in 
Iraq than helping rebuild a country decimated by a despot for decades. 
We must defeat the terrorists overseas, so we don't have to fight them 
here at home.
  Mistakes have been made, so have corrections, but the fundamental 
fact remains that John F. Kennedy's words have never been more true: 
``If men and women are in chains anywhere in the world, then freedom is 
endangered everywhere.''
  People in the chains of tyranny without hope are the breeding ground 
for terrorists that endanger America and the entire civilized world. 
Terrorism can only be defeated by bringing hope to harsh places.
  We must also remember our own proud historical tradition: America has 
always found that the best way to provide for our security at home is 
to confront tyranny and expand the frontiers of freedom.
  That is our mission in Iraq.
  And with a democratically elected government and an Iraqi army and 
police force increasingly taking over for our troops, we are on a path 
to success, and a path to bringing our troops home.
  Others offer a different path, a path that says, get out now, no 
matter what the commanders on the ground think; get out now whether or 
not milestones are achieved; get out now, whether or not Iraq becomes a 
sanctuary for terrorists to regroup and attack America again; get out 
now, no matter what signal it sends to Iran and other countries that 
would endanger our security.
  Cutting and running is one path. But it is the wrong path.
  The only path that makes our families secure is victory in the War on 
Terror.
  Mr. Speaker, beyond the lessons of history, I look to what the 
soldiers on the ground are saying.
  The soldiers I have spoken to on the ground in Iraq, at places like 
Camp Victory in Baghdad, many of them men and women from the Minnesota 
Army National Guard, want to come home as soon as possible.
  However, they realize better than most that if they come home before 
they have defeated the terrorist threat, there will be no lasting 
peace--there will be no victory in the War on Terror. They know that if 
we don't finish the job in Iraq, we'll have to finish it someplace 
else.
  Like them, I want to finish the job in Iraq, because if we don't 
finish it there, the horror of 9/11 should inform us that the war will 
be brought to us here at home.
  Mr. Speaker, let us remember in our thoughts and prayers those who 
have sacrificed, as well as those who continue to stand in harm's way 
around the world fighting the War on Terror. Let us deserve the bravery 
and selflessness of our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the American people are 
increasingly aware of where things stand in Iraq, despite the glib 
assurances and political spin we get from sources like the whereas 
clauses of the resolution before us and the Pentagon's most recent 
quarterly report, which has been so devastatingly refuted by Middle 
East expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies.
  The real question before us and the question most Americans are 
asking is, how long must our troops stay in Iraq? Our military's 
valiant efforts have clearly facilitated such important steps as such 
as the formation of a democratically elected government in Iraq. But 
the troubling reality is that our continued presence also makes success 
more elusive. It serves as a disincentive for Iraqi military and 
political leaders to take courageous risks to stabilize their country 
and assume responsibility for their government. Equally important, our 
presence is a magnet for international terrorism and an incitement for 
the insurgency.
  In order to jump-start progress, our troops must begin to come home. 
We must leave in a way that maximizes Iraq's chances to govern and 
defend itself. At the same time, we cannot become hostages to the 
failures of administration policy, prolonging or staying in a situation 
where our very presence is a continuing provocation. How we leave does 
matter, but we must leave.
  That is why Representative Brad Miller and I introduced a resolution 
last fall, H.J. Res. 70, which would require the President to deliver 
an exit strategy for Iraq. Tonight I am renewing that call. Let me 
explain briefly in clear terms what a responsible exit strategy means.
  First, we need to hear that the President has a plan for reducing our 
presence in Iraq within a reasonable time frame. ``As they stand up, we 
will stand down'' is not a strategy. It is a slogan. Secondly, we need 
to hear that such a plan would begin with an initial near-term drawdown 
of U.S. forces to send a clear message to the Iraqis that our presence 
is coming to an end. We also need to hear a pledge from the President 
that we will not establish long-term bases on Iraqi soil.
  And, finally, we need to hear that there is a plan for filling the 
void left behind when our troops depart, to mobilize resources within 
the international community, to ensure that Iraq's neighbors do not 
interfere in internal Iraqi affairs, and to support the ongoing 
development of the Iraqi Government and security forces.

[[Page 11494]]

  These are the elements of a responsible exit strategy. This is the 
type of leadership that the President owes our troops and the American 
people.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), who sits on the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001, proved that our enemy is 
determined to kill Americans. Instead of sitting idle, our Nation went 
on the offense. We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. We 
removed the regime in Iraq that had invaded neighbors and financed 
terrorism. And we have kept terrorists on the run, limiting their 
avenues of attack, disrupting their finances and eliminating safehouses 
around the globe. Mr. Speaker, it is not by coincidence that our Nation 
has not suffered another attack here at home.
  Some have doubts about our mission in Iraq. But I believe Americans 
can find solace in the midst of sacrifice and hope in the midst of 
hardship. The reason is simple: We are clearly on the road to victory 
and success in Iraq, and our Nation is safer today because of it.
  Since the fall of Saddam's regime, 70 percent of eligible Iraqis for 
the first time in history elected a national unity government. They 
have ratified a democratic Constitution for the first time ever, and 
they helped us eliminate al Qaeda's mastermind, Zarqawi.
  Mr. Speaker, progress in Iraq makes America safer. Terrorists are 
being pursued, not harbored. We have seen movement toward democracy in 
neighboring countries. Work remains, but freedom is making progress. 
And freedom, Mr. Speaker, lays the foundation for a more secure future 
for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I have also had the privilege of visiting our troops in 
Iraq. They are outstanding young men and women, and they overwhelmingly 
believe in their mission. I urge my colleagues to offer their 
unqualified support to our troops abroad until their mission is 
complete.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the 
current administration has gotten too many things wrong in Iraq and has 
totally misrepresented the lessons of the post-9/11 world. It is now up 
to Democrats to get things right in Iraq so we can focus our military 
efforts to fighting terrorists around the world who want to harm us.
  Today I ask my colleagues: Will we realistically confront terrorists 
and terrorism with all the elements of our national power, or will we 
continue to ignore a proven approach in order to follow a shop-worn, 
idealistic approach that drains our military of its resources and 
America of its goodwill with the very partners we need to fight 
terrorists? That is the choice that our country faces in Iraq and in 
our national security.
  Democrats must speak out against this administration's tendency to 
overlook problems and push for a policy that centers on oversight of 
U.S. taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, we do not practice oversight. 
This Congress practices ``overlook.'' We must respond to public 
frustrations by creating a secure future for our military and 
reestablish a foundation for American efforts to fight terrorists and 
terrorism across the globe. Congress must confront the legacy of the 
waste, fraud, and abuse that plagues our efforts in Iraq.
  As Democrats, we must continue our efforts, in spite of the current 
opposition, to bring this waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq to light.
  Some talk about cutting and running. But I say we must confront the 
legacy of cutting and running from veterans health care. Just as the 
next generation of combat veterans return home, the long-term veterans 
health care budget falls $8.6 billion short from projected needs. We 
must reject that legacy of Iraq.
  And, finally, I join my colleagues in commending our U.S. military 
working in conjunction with Iraqi security and Iraqis themselves for 
locating and eliminating Abu Musad al Zarqawi. His terrorist violence 
is gone. But we have learned in Iraq that fighting a classic guerrilla-
type war means that a victory like killing Zarqawi cannot be celebrated 
too long. Much remains to be done in Iraq, and Democrats have to make 
right where the administration has gone wrong. Our obligations compel 
us to ask the tough questions that are currently ignored.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who sits on the Ways 
and Means, Budget, and Joint Economic Committees.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just recently read a lecture from the most highly 
respected scholar on Middle East affairs and Islam in America, Bernard 
Lewis. He went through Osama bin Laden's original fatwa. He went 
through a lot of writings of al Qaeda back in the early to mid-1990s, 
and what they declared is very chilling. They declared that their war 
was going to be against the two superpowers at the time: the Soviet 
Union and America. They believed they defeated the USSR in Afghanistan. 
I would like to think peace through strength is what beat it here and 
the fact that communism did not work. But they think they beat it.
  Now they think they have one last enemy to beat before they can reach 
their caliphate from Spain to Indonesia: America.
  Mr. Speaker, the war on terror did not begin on 9/11. It began on 2/
26. February 26, 1993, when they first hit us at the World Trade 
Center. Then in 1996, the Khobar Towers. Then in 1998 at our two 
embassies in Africa. Then in 2000, the USS Cole. Then in 2001, 9/11.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at war. They have declared this war against us 
long ago. The sooner we realize it, the better we are. The best way to 
win this war is to play away games and not home games.
  The good news on this front is we have not had another 9/11 since 9/
11. We have not had a major terrorist attack here in America.
  If Iraq becomes democratic, if Iraq becomes free, they lose. They 
cannot win and manifest their distorted belief. They want to have a 
world like what we saw on display in Afghanistan, the Taliban, 
throughout the entire Middle East. If democracy and freedom can 
persist, if it can take root, if it can succeed, as it is succeeding in 
many parts of the Arab world, the terrorists lose.
  And the most important thing in all of this that all of us should 
have in the front of our minds is will our children grow up in America 
with the fear of terrorism in the front of their mind or will it be a 
distant memory in history? I grew up in Jamesville, Wisconsin, as a 
happy kid. I want my kids to grow up in Jamesville, Wisconsin, with the 
same kind of happiness, not with the fear of terrorism.
  This is a global war, a war we have to win, a war that only America 
through its leadership can win for the rest of the world. The sooner we 
wake up to that, the better off we are and the more peaceful life we 
can leave to our children.

                              {time}  2215

  That is why our troops overseas are doing a great job. That is why we 
have to see this thing through. The terrorists think we are weak 
because of our freedoms. They think that we do not have the stomach. 
They think they can turn our public opinion. That is not true.
  Let's prove that that is not true, and let's win this war on terror.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution because its words honor 
our troops, but its deeds do not. It is not at all controversial that 
we honor and respect the heroism of those who serve us.
  But they deserve so much more than the hollow words of this 
resolution. They deserve a plan that for the first time would achieve 
an intelligence alliance, it would make strikes like the

[[Page 11495]]

one against Zarqawi on a regular basis against the leaders of the 
resistance.
  But this resolution has no plan. They deserve a real plan to fortify 
and improve the Iraqi security forces so as they step forward, our 
troops can come home. But this resolution offers no such plan. They 
deserve a clear path to political stability and broadening political 
participation so the government of Iraq is viewed as an Iraqi 
Government and not a tool of any outside forces. This resolution has no 
such plan.
  We are in the problems that we are in today because the 
administration has given us slogans, not solutions. This resolution is 
very much in that sorry tradition. This debate is a sham, Mr. Speaker. 
It is a pep rally. It is not a discussion of the alternatives before 
the country.
  So although I join the words of the resolution in praising our 
troops, let's move beyond the words to the deeds. The way to honor 
those who fight for this country is to match their sacrifice with our 
own wisdom. This resolution falls far short of that objective and we 
should oppose it.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, a 
Vietnam veteran who sits on the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution today. I 
have enjoyed the debate immensely. The rhetoric has been sometimes 
heated, the facts sometimes obscured. But I think it is healthy for the 
American people to see this debate. I am sorry that the gentleman from 
New York is not here. I wanted to have a discussion about what buck 
sergeants know and what they do not know in today's Army. But I suppose 
we will have to let that one slide by.
  But I will tell you that my son, serving in Iraq today, and his 
colleagues and his soldiers in the 101st and the other soldiers and 
marines that I have talked to, they know why they are in Iraq. They 
know what they are doing. They know what their mission is. And they 
understand that not everyone here does, that Iraq is the front line in 
the war against Islamist extremists in the words of the 9/11 
Commission.
  But I am here this evening to talk about a trip that I took to Iraq a 
week ago at the request of the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
to assess the progress of the Iraqi armed forces. I am pleased to 
report that I was very heartened by what I found. I think all of us now 
understand that the Iraqi Army is progressing with amazing speed. We 
know the numbers. Over 260,000 Iraqi security forces, over 100 Iraqi 
Army battalions, almost 30 Iraqi police battalions, either leading the 
fight or serving with their coalition partners.
  But it is not the numbers that count; it is the quality of the 
troops. It is what they are able to do. In a previous trip to Iraq in 
November of 2005, I had the opportunity to meet with and assess the 
progress of the Iraqi counterterrorism forces. These are special forces 
trained by our Special Operations Command, and they are impressive.
  The Iraqi special forces have proved their mettle in combat and in 
training. Last month, last month a young captain became the first Iraqi 
to graduate from the United States Army Ranger School, an exceptional 
feat achieved by only 35 percent of any foreign military personnel who 
try.
  Over Memorial Day weekend, my confidence was further boosted when I 
visited with Major General Bashar Ayoub, commander of the Iraqi 9th 
Mechanized Division, and Major General Jamal Khalid, Commander of the 
Iraqi Second Division. Both commanders expressed their frustration with 
the bureaucracy in the interim ministry of defense but both generals 
demonstrated a quite confidence and professionalism exhibited by 
seasoned battle-hardened commanders.
  These two commanders demonstrated the will and the ability of the 
Iraqi security forces to battle the terrorists and the insurgents who 
plague their country.
  In our discussions, Mr. Speaker, they were blunt. They were proud of 
their accomplishments. They were confident in their ability to move 
forward, but they recognize that they continue to rely on U.S. 
logistical and medical assistance, that they cannot move forward by 
themselves. Not now.
  We have made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, not only to our American 
forces, but to these Iraqi forces. We have got to stay with them and 
help them achieve their freedom and their independence.
  We have made a commitment--not only to the American men and women of 
our Armed Forces--but to those who wear the uniform of the Iraqi 
Security Forces. They have shed their blood alongside our soldiers and 
Marines in pursuit of a stable and peaceful Iraq.
  Now is not the time to abandon them, now is the time to stand firm 
with those who defend freedom in a land that has known only tyranny.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of the rule this morning, 
our Republican colleagues suggested something pretty revolutionary, 
that is, that we do something we do not normally do often around here, 
and that is read the resolution. They said they encouraged us to review 
it, and vote based on whether we agree or disagree with the content of 
the resolution.
  So I reviewed the resolution. And as our colleagues suggested, I 
intend to vote against it based on the fact that there are several 
things in the resolution that I strongly disagree with.
  First, on page 2 of the resolution, it states as follows: ``Whereas 
by early 2003, Saddam Hussein and his criminal Ba'athist regime in Iraq 
constituted a threat to global peace and security.''
  I think the only way one could conclude this would be to conclude 
that there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I did 
not vote for the war resolution because I never believed the President 
when he asserted that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 
the first place. I did not believe it then. It was subsequently proven 
not to be the case. And I most certainly cannot support a resolution 
that asserts it now.
  Second, the resolution asserts that: ``The terrorists seek to destroy 
the new unity government because it threatens the terrorist's 
aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East.'' There is probably 
some truth to that.
  However, what is probably a lot more true is that the war in Iraq has 
increased, not decreased, terrorism and the resolve of the terrorists. 
It has created conditions in Iraq that allow terrorism to thrive.
  Finally, the Resolution asserts that ``Iraqi forces are, over time, 
taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing 
proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to 
secure Iraq.'' If that were true, we would have started bringing our 
troops home by now. At some point we've got to make Iraq assume 
responsibility for itself and its own people. I just don't believe they 
or we have come to grips with that.
  There obviously are a number of things in the Resolution with which I 
agree. But we were given no opportunity to amend the Resolution to 
strip out the things that are untrue and/or offensive or, for that 
matter, to add to the things with which we agree. My Republican 
colleagues have, once again, chosen to politicize a matter that should 
be above partisan politics. I cannot vote for the Resolution in this 
form and will, therefore, vote ``no.''
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the amount of time 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 31 
minutes, and gentleman from Pennsylvania has 37\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a veteran of the U.S. Army, who sits on 
the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution for many reasons. But one is that I know we are achieving 
real progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know this not from government 
reports or media sources, but from two fine Pennsylvanians. I want to 
quote from an e-mail I received

[[Page 11496]]

this morning from a constituent, an Army officer in northwest Iraq 
commanding the military transition team.
  And he writes, ``There are many positive things going on over here 
that the American public never hear about. My little 10-man team 
contributed over 150 boxes of school supplies to the schools in my 
area. Other units purchased grain to give out to small villages. I am 
very proud of the accomplishments of U.S. and Iraqi forces and it truly 
is a shame that all of the news tends to be negative towards the 
activities of the soldiers, both American and Iraqi who are working 
very hard every day to make this country safe.''
  I am very pleased and honored this summer to have an intern, Mike 
Wright, who is a soldier in the 82nd Airborne. When he arrived in 
Afghanistan in July 2002, the people had nothing: no schools, no 
healthcare, no paved roads. But in 7 months his unit helped build the 
first school and health clinic. When his unit came back to Afghanistan 
in late 2004, it was a different place. New facilities, factories, more 
electricity, and miles of paved roads.
  When arriving in the village, he tells me his unit would be greeted 
by small children, smiling youngsters throwing colorful plastic flowers 
at them. These examples are among many that illustrate real progress, 
laying a foundation for future peace, shaping the world where the 
terrorist message will fall on deaf ears.
  Mike told me this also, ``The Afghani war veterans, the old-timers 
have asked him, why did you abandon us when the Soviets left?''
  Today their biggest fear is that we will leave before the mission is 
done and allow the Taliban or other tyrants to take over. We must know 
that the Iraqi civilians remember 1991 and fear the same thing. We must 
complete this mission.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, their side of the aisle, your side of the 
aisle, has a major problem. Yesterday, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki 
suggested that they would provide amnesty for those people who killed 
or who wounded our soldiers. We are going to see who are the patriots 
here in the future.
  In a speech that Jack Murtha gave on April 20 this year, he started 
off by talking about President Teddy Roosevelt. He said, ``There must 
be no criticism of the President or that we have to stand by the 
President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is 
morally treasonable to the American public.''
  You are going to have to explain that. You made a very big mistake. I 
voted for the war, for the efforts of the President, the Chief, the 
Commander in Chief in December of 2002. And here we are a few years 
later, looking back at what that decision was based upon.
  Talk about impunity, we have had people come on the floor in the last 
2 years to impugn this gentleman's character. The CIA impugned the very 
facts that the administration has tried to provide. Every day a former 
CIA agent says that this administration failed to listen to the advice 
and counsel of those folks who have boots on the ground. That is a 
shame.
  And the other side, the other side has simply provided a rubber 
stamp, a rubber stamp to all of the policies. You have mindlessly 
rubber-stamped the mismanagement that has cost our sons, and you may 
laugh, these are our sons and daughters, our sons and daughters their 
lives.
  And now, here we are today--considering a partisan, political 
resolution that ultimately means nothing; a resolution that won't 
assist our troops on the ground; a resolution that does not help us 
move forward in bringing our men and women home.
  This is just another shameful example that the leadership of this 
body is not fit to serve. This Congress has failed to fulfill its most 
basic of duties. Shame should permeate every hallway and every hearing 
room.
  If we were serious--truly serious--about helping our men and women in 
the military, we would not waste our time on this resolution.
  Instead we would delve into the deception, the intelligence failures, 
the scapegoating of the C.I.A., and the mismanagement that has placed 
us where we are today. The generals, the men and women of our Armed 
Forces have done their job. We have voted time and time again in 
budgets and supplements supported their protection, yet we have had the 
real culprit come to this floor and demean, undermine, those who ask 
questions or may criticize. Teddy Roosevelt turned over from the 
clownish gyrations of the Congressmen or women from Ohio.
  And we'd also take up H.J. Res. 73--Congressman John Murtha's well-
reasoned, essential call to redeploy our troops from Iraq.
  We are faced with a choice--more of the same from the Bush 
administration, or Jack's way. I believe that rapid turnover of Iraq to 
the Iraqi people is essential and that our troops need to be redeployed 
at the earliest practicable date. That is why I am proud to cosponsor 
my friend's resolution.
  Today is just another sham in the House of Representatives, but that 
is what we've come to expect.
  Our troops deserve better.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black-
burn) who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, our colleagues across the 
aisle are asking the American people to divorce our mission in Iraq 
from the global war on terrorism. I think it is impossible. I think it 
is irresponsible, and it is bad policy.
  If only terrorism were as clear cut a problem as they want us to 
believe, and if only elimination of the Taliban would have been 
sufficient to free us from the threat of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, have 
we not learned anything from September 11? It should be crystal clear 
that terrorism went far deeper than one rogue regime in Afghanistan.
  But that is where they are in this debate. They are ignoring reality. 
Our troops, my folks from the 101st and the National Guard, know that 
if we are going to be free of terrorism, if the goal is to prevent 
terrorism from killing 2,000 Americans on our soil tomorrow or 
forevermore, then we must bring major change to the Middle East.

                              {time}  2230

  It is an unpleasant reality, but it is a reality. That is where we 
are in Afghanistan. That is where we are in Iraq. Progress is being 
made. Libya has changed, the Taliban is basically gone now, al Qaeda 
has significantly weakened and bin Laden is on the run.
  Pakistan is an ally in the war on terrorism. Iraq, despite a 24/7 
massive media campaign of negative news, is making progress, and we 
have eliminated al-Zarqawi. On this issue of amnesty, the Iraq National 
Security Adviser corrected the record and, for the record, stated that 
the Prime Minister was misquoted.
  I have that entire interview and the transcript for the record, and I 
would like to quote for my colleague's benefit another portion, and I 
quote, he, as a matter of fact, if you were there, and this is the 
Iraqi National Security Adviser speaking, if you were there in this 
meeting with President Bush a couple of days ago, he looked the 
President in the eye and he said, thank you very, very much for 
liberating our country. I thank the American wives, the women, the 
American mothers for the treasure and the blood that they have invested 
in this country. It is worth investing for liberating 30 million 
people, and we are ever so grateful.
  Mr. Speaker, we all stand grateful. We stand grateful.

       From CNN Interview:
       Kagan. Doctor, I know there's a big effort by your 
     government in your country to try to prevent civil war. And 
     as part of that, The Washington Post reports today that your 
     prime minister is considering offering amnesty to Sunnis or 
     to others who perhaps attacked only U.S. troops. This, not 
     surprisingly, causing great consternation here in the U.S., 
     even talking about it and being raised on the floor the U.S. 
     Senate today. Is this, indeed, the case? Is your government 
     thinking about offering amnesty to those that attacked only 
     U.S. military?
       Rubaie. This is not the case. I'm sorry to say that the 
     prime minister of Iraq has been misquoted and misunderstood. 
     He did not mean to give amnesty to those who killed the 
     Americans.
       Aa matter of fact, if you were there in his meeting with 
     President Bush a couple of days ago, he looked the president 
     in the eye and he said, thank you very, very much for 
     liberating our country. Please thank the American wives and 
     American women and

[[Page 11497]]

     American mothers for the treasure and the blood they have 
     invested in this country. It's well worth investing, of 
     liberating 30 million people in this country. And we are ever 
     so grateful.
       And we will--the blood of the Iraqi soldier and blood of 
     Iraqi civilian soldier is as sacred to us as the American 
     soldier. We are fighting the same war, we are fighting 
     together, and this is a joined responsibility. And we will 
     never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers 
     or killed Iraqi soldier or civilian.

  Mr. MURTHA. Let me ask the gentleman, my good friend, how many more 
speakers he has?
  Mr. COBLE. I say to my good friend from Pennsylvania, I have two more 
speakers, Mr. Murtha.
  Mr. MURTHA. I will be the last speaker.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2 minutes the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who is the 
chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of the Government Reform 
Committee, and who has been to Iraq 12 times.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have been listening to this debate all day. The argument I am 
hearing most from the opponents of this resolution is we shouldn't have 
gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein in spite of the fact that many 
of them voted to go into Iraq.
  I am hearing from opponents that there was and is no connection 
between Islamist terrorists and the war in Iraq, in spite of the fact 
that the prince of al Qaeda, al Zarqawi, did his gross handiwork in 
Iraq. Fortunately, he is dead.
  I am hearing from opponents of this resolution that we have made many 
mistakes in Iraq, as if that is justification for arguing that we need 
to leave. We have made a number of mistakes. We permitted the looting 
of government buildings. We didn't secure the munitions depot. We 
disbanded their army, their border patrol and police, and then asked 
the 150,000 coalition forces, mostly brave American soldiers, to 
protect and defend 26 million Iraqis living in a country the size of 
California.
  These were mistakes, but mistakes do not justify leaving prematurely. 
They help explain why things could be better, and why, because we learn 
from our mistakes, we are doing better.
  Since the transfer of power to Iraq in June of 2004, we have seen 
considerable progress, three free elections that put our elections in 
the United States to shame, the training of hundreds and hundreds of 
thousands of Iraqi security forces, the establishment of a government 
chosen by a national assembly comprised of 30 percent women.
  I am not afraid we will lose the war 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 truly a dear and noble effort that must succeed.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I was just out to a hospital a week or so ago, and a young woman 
whose husband was in the bed right next to her, and she said, I didn't 
join the Army to fight for Iraq. He joined to fight for the United 
States.
  We don't send people to fight for other countries. We send them to 
fight for the United States' national security. That is the first 
lesson we learn, and then we send them with overwhelm force and then we 
have an exit strategy.
  What we are looking for is all the same thing. All of us want the 
same thing. We want a resolution. We want a positive resolution to what 
is going on in Iraq. We want a plan. We want a plan that we can live 
with. It is not enough to say stay the course. We need somebody to tell 
us exactly how we are going to do this.
  When you talk about the amount of money this is costing us per month, 
and I think about $8 billion, which almost as long as I have been on 
the Defense Subcommittee, and all of the money that I have seen in the 
Defense Subcommittee, and I can't recognize what $1 billion is, $450 
billion at the end of this year.
  Then I think how long did it take us to pay for the Vietnam War? It 
took us almost 18 years at 18 percent interest rates to pay for the 
Vietnam War. There were a lot more people, a lot more of a cross-
section of people fighting in the Vietnam War, and yet a plurality of 
people still supported the Vietnam War to the very end.
  Let me read something. People say they don't want a time schedule. 
Nobody has said they don't want a time. Let me read these comments from 
some of the people that traveled back from the President from Iraq 
recently. She says in her news release, here is Bush Tuesday night on 
the way home on Air Force One discussing his conversation with Iraqi 
leaders. There are concerns about our commitment and keeping our troops 
there. They are worried almost to a person that we will leave before 
they are capable of defending themselves. I assured them they didn't 
need to worry.
  That is what we hear back here all the time. But apparently what he 
says almost to a person, not including the President and the Vice 
President, the President and Vice President of Iraq.
  The Associated Press reports this morning, Iraq's Vice President has 
asked President Bush for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign 
forces from Iraq. The Iraqi President's office said, the Vice 
President, a Sunni, made the request during his meeting with Bush on 
Tuesday when the U.S. President made a surprise visit to Iraq.
  I supported him in this. This is the President of Iraq. I supported 
them, said the President, in a statement released Wednesday. Now, 80 
percent of the Iraqis want us out of there, 62 percent of the people in 
the United States want us out of there.
  It is not surprising to me that they are going to offer amnesty to 
some of the Iraqis who are killing Americans, because 47 percent of the 
Iraqis think it is all right to kill Americans.
  We have diverted ourselves away from the war of terrorism. All of us 
agree about the war on terrorism. All of us have the same goals in the 
war on terrorism. What we are concerned about is we are caught in a 
civil war in Iraq. There is only 1,000 al Qaeda or less in Iraq. We 
destroyed the leader of al Qaeda.
  What we are worried about is the Sunnis and the Shiias. The Shiias 
are 100,000, and there are 2,000 Sunnis fighting with each other. The 
way we have to do it is one of the biggest problems we have. When you 
fight a military operation, you have to destroy everything. Fallujah, 
for instance. We put 300,000 people outside their homes and only 
100,000 came back. That is nation building. Yet we are trying to make 
friends in that country. You can't make friends if you operate the way 
the military does.
  And I agree with the military. To protect American lives, we have to 
go in with overwhelming force. When you go in with overwhelming force, 
you are going to inadvertently kill civilians.
  Then when you send in people who are untrained and they go into a 
country, into a job like a prison and they don't know what they are 
doing, they don't know how to handle it, untrained people that caused 
us a terrible public relations disaster.
  So you have this combination of untrained troops, inadequate forces, 
and then on top of that, you have no plan to remove the military. Every 
military leader I have talked to has said the same thing to me. They 
have said, we can't win this militarily.
  All of us want the same thing. We want a resolution to this thing. We 
want to not only bring our troops home. Internationally it is important 
we have stability in the Middle East. There is no question. All of us 
want the same thing. It is how we get it. And we have to have 
international cooperation.
  As I had mentioned, and I will end with this, in the first war we had 
international cooperation. We had 160,000 international troops and 
400,000 American troops. And $60 billion came from the international 
community and we paid between 4 and $5 billion.
  In this particular war so far, we have spent $450 billion and not 
only the financial treasure but the human treasure that we have lost in 
the United States.

[[Page 11498]]


  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, our final speaker from this side tonight is 
the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina who sits on the Armed 
Services Committee, vice chairman of the Special Forces Subcommittee 
and is a leader on the bipartisan congressional delegation to Iraq and 
Afghanistan, Mr. Hayes. I yield 2 minutes.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from North 
Carolina for yielding and I rise today to engage in this discussion on 
Iraq. But I don't think this is solely a discussion on Iraq because 
what happens in Iraq will have far-sweeping ramifications across the 
Middle East and around the world.
  When I am asked about a time line for removing our troops, my answer 
is not a day more than we need to ensure victory. We could leave 
tomorrow. We could set an arbitrary deadline, 6 months, a year, and 
tell the terrorists how long they need to stick it out before we leave. 
But what would the ramifications of that be?
  Unfortunately, I think there is a perception in this country that we 
are fighting a broad-based resistance from the Iraqi people, and we are 
not. Iraqis and their new government want to have a peaceful, free and 
democratic existence.
  I don't think it is a coincidence that violence escalated from the 
terrorist factions when the new government formed. While the violence 
in Iraq will not cease overnight, it is apparent to me that real 
progress has been made in the year since I last talked firsthand to our 
soldiers in Iraq.
  One of the most compelling changes made since last year is that Iraqi 
security forces are coming online and are more involved in planning and 
executing missions to stop terrorist activity. In a briefing with 
Special Forces leaders, we learned that more than 30 percent of all 
day-to-day missions are planned and carried out by the Iraqis 
themselves. This is significant because it frees our soldiers to focus 
on capturing and eliminating key figureheads, as evidenced by the 
recent death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
  There was so much attention on al Zarqawi that the appointment of 
three security ministers to complete the new Iraqi cabinet was all but 
missed. The fulfillment of the new government and these three posts in 
particular is a critical development in securing their nation from 
internal and external terrorist factions.
  Mr. Speaker, the key to victory in Iraq is the Iraqi people. As their 
government forms, as it gains influence, as their military is able to 
defend the people and the infrastructure, we can continue to pull back. 
And we should. But we have to ask ourselves what legacy we want to 
leave behind in this region, because that is the fundamental question 
we are asking today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage in this discussion on Iraq. But I 
don't think this is solely a discussion on Iraq, because what happens 
in Iraq will have far-sweeping ramifications across the Middle East and 
around the world.
  When I am asked about a timeline for removing our troops, my answer 
is not a day more than we need to ensure victory.
  We could leave tomorrow. We could set an arbitrary deadline--six 
months, a year--and tell the terrorists how long they need to stick it 
out before we leave. But what would be the ramifications of that?
  I recently returned from leading a bipartisan Congressional 
Delegation trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, where I met with Special 
Forces troops to assess the training progress of Iraqi security forces 
as well as met with top Iraqi government leaders to discuss their 
commitment to building a coalition government and securing their own 
country.
  It's been a year since I was last in Iraq. Since that time, I have 
attended many briefings and received many reports, but seeing our 
troops and talking with leaders was the most telling status report of 
all.
  Unfortunately, I think there is a perception in this country that we 
are fighting a broad-based resistance from the Iraqi people--and we are 
not. The Iraqis and their new government want to have a peaceful, free 
and democratic existence.
  There has been and continues to be a very small but determined 
portion of the population in Iraq combined with al Qaeda who are 
determined to stop freedom at any cost. They will kill indiscriminately 
and there is no target off limits--coalition forces, police, women, and 
children.
  Their goal is to break our resolve with these barbaric acts of 
terror. The Iraqis who profited under Saddam's regime do not want a 
free and stable Iraq. Al Qaeda does not want a free and stable Iraq. 
Freedom is not conducive to their long term goals. Accountability is 
not conducive to their long term goals. Democracy is not conducive to 
their long-term goals. Saddam's former loyalists and al Qaeda thrive on 
poverty, despair, violence and fear. The bottom line is that they 
cannot afford for freedom to succeed.
  Conversely, we cannot afford freedom to fail. How detrimental would 
it be if we wave the white flag to al Qaeda and the Sunni terrorists? 
Do you think they will allow the people of Iraq to live in freedom and 
peace? Do you think they will allow the democratic process to continue?
  A while back, some of my colleagues on the other side of the isle 
raised a good point--we walked away from Afghanistan following the 
Soviet withdrawal. What emerged from that void were the Taliban and a 
safe haven for al Qaeda. Is that what we want the legacy of Iraq to be? 
If you think we made a mistake in the past, why would we repeat it?
  If we walk away prematurely, how can we deal with Iran? How can we 
deal with North Korea?
  As I said in the beginning, what we do in Iraq will have 
ramifications across the world for many years.
  I don't think it is a coincidence that violence escalated from the 
terrorist factions when the new government formed. While the violence 
in Iraq will not cease overnight, it is apparent to me that real 
progress has been made in the year since I last talked first-hand to 
our soldiers serving in Iraq.
  One of the most compelling changes made since last year is that Iraqi 
security forces are coming online and more involved in planning and 
executing missions to stop terrorist activity. In a briefing with 
Special Forces leaders, we learned that more than 30 percent of all 
day-to-day missions are planned and carried out by the Iraqis 
themselves. This is significant because it frees our soldiers to focus 
on capturing and eliminating key figureheads, as evidenced by the 
recent death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
  Zarqawi was an important leader for al Qaeda and a powerful figure 
for terrorists around the world--both tactically and symbolically. He 
was responsible for orchestrating the death of many civilians and 
coalition soldiers. I don't believe his death will end all violence in 
Iraq, but his demise is an important psychological boost to the Iraqi 
people and a blow to those across the world who sympathize with 
militant extremists and terrorists.
  The end of one of the most notorious terrorists in the world was a 
great day for our military forces, but I would point out that our 
special and regular forces have had many victories that didn't gain 
media attention or just could not be brought to light due to their 
sensitive nature--and we all owe our troops a great deal of gratitude 
for all they do.
  There was so much attention on Zarqawi that the appointment of three 
security ministers to complete the new Iraqi cabinet was all but 
missed. The fulfillment of the new government and these three posts in 
particular is a critical development to securing their nation from 
internal and external terrorist factions.
  Mr. Speaker, the key to victory in Iraq is the Iraqi people. As their 
government forms; as it gains influence; as their military is able to 
defend the people and the infrastructure, we can continue to pull back. 
And we should. But we have to ask ourselves, what legacy we want to 
leave behind in this region, because that is fundamental question we 
are asking today.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is our job to protect our 
Nation and we have thousands of young men and women doing that today. I 
believed in early 2003 that we should do more to capture or eliminate 
the people who caused the 9/11 attacks. They were predominately in 
Afghanistan. Today it seems we have a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, 
and increasing attacks in Iraq on our troops and Iraqi citizens.
  We have seen success in capturing Saddam and eliminating AI-Zarqawi. 
I have never doubted the ability of the men and women of our Armed 
Forces--we saw what they were capable of in the first days of the war 
when they stormed Iraq and Baghdad within days, overwhelming the Iraqi 
forces. The accomplishments we have seen in Iraq can be attributed 
directly to the troops' discipline and persistence in fighting the 
insurgency.
  Mistakes have been made, and some of the most experienced members of 
our Armed

[[Page 11499]]

Forces have pointed that out. One of the individuals who spoke out was 
retired Marine General and former chief of U.S. Central Command Anthony 
Zinni who said:

       We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to 
     accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from 
     them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it 
     worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout 
     this mission.

  As this war has gone on, the lack of planning and poor judgment by 
this administration has become more apparent. I have here the May 1, 
2003 press release here from the White House in which President Bush--
on board USS Abraham Lincoln--declared all major combat operations have 
ended. We now know that this was one miscalculation among many. Since 
that time seven young men from our 29th Congressional District in Texas 
have lost their lives; across our nation over 2,300 servicemen and 
women have lost their lives since the President made those remarks. 
Reading over these remarks it is clear that the administration had no 
clear plan for securing Iraq after the invasion, and had no clue about 
what was to follow for the next three years.
  Given the size, strength and effectiveness of the insurgency, the 
administration's intelligence should have given some indication that 
there would be problems down the road and done a better job of 
preparing the public and more importantly our troops for what was to 
come in the following month and years. It is clear that we did not have 
enough troops on the ground immediately after the invasion, and that 
shortage continues. Fortunately, thanks to the relentless efforts by 
our Armed Forces, progress is being made.
  Congress does not direct troops on the ground and we are not the 
Commander-in-Chief, but we are charged with sending our sons and 
daughters into battle and therefore we must debate what is occurring in 
Iraq. While I disagree with the way the administration planned and 
carried out this war, I support our troops and will continue to vote 
for Defense appropriations and supplemental dollars.
  Many brave men and women have given their lives in Baghdad, Fallujah, 
Ramadi, Mosul and across Iraq to bring peace and democracy to that 
country. We honor them, their families, and the ultimate sacrifice they 
made serving their country. I want our troops to come home soon.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the war we anticipated fighting or the war 
we were led to believe we were getting into, but I believe we must 
finish our mission to leave a secure Iraq that can defend itself and be 
a symbol that democracy can prosper in the Muslim world.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of America. I 
rise in support of our active troops and those who have given their 
lives and those who will give their lives so that we will prevail in 
this Global War on Terrorism. These troops are part of an all-volunteer 
force that is the envy of the world.
  I rise to reassure the American and Iraqi people that we reject any 
timetable for the withdrawal or redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. Al 
Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have attacked our families, 
neighbors and friends numerous times over the last three decades. What 
has been the response? For the most part, there has not been an 
adequate response. And Mr. Speaker, that is hard to admit. Some would 
tell you we didn't respond due to lack of political will, others would 
say America just didn't have the stomach. From the killing of 241 U.S. 
service members in Beirut in 1983 to the attack on the USS Cole in 
2001, America responded in a cautious manner.
  This is no longer the case. Due to the events of September 11, 2001 
our country was forced to reevaluate our defensive and offensive 
strategies. Led by our Commander in Chief and with the support of the 
Congress, our government decided to take the fight to every cave the 
enemy hides in--sending an unmistakable message. We will fight the 
enemy overseas and prevent him from reaching our shores.
  Having been to Iraq during the recent Memorial Day holiday, I am 
pleased to report the message is getting across. Our enemies are 
starting to realize that America and its allies are not leaving and are 
not intimidated. I say to the Iraqi people--we will not abandon you. We 
are committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, 
free, secure and united Iraq.
  During my 4 trips to Iraq in the last 3 years I have been heartened 
by the continued resolve of our forces. After receiving briefings from 
the Generals, I always make sure to spend an equal amount of time with 
the senior enlisted men and junior officers who are leading at the tip 
of the spear. The casualty count among this group is rising--and that 
is hard to grapple with--but it is for a purpose.
  A man who was responsible for so many of these casualties--Zarqawi--
is now dead. He was killed by a 500 pound bomb dropped from an F-16. 
This weapon and this method of employment were thoroughly developed and 
tested at Eglin Air Force Base in Okaloosa County, Florida. The 
dedicated air force active duty, civilian personnel and contractors 
from the Test and Evaluation Community and the Air Force Research 
Laboratory can be equally proud.
  I would like to remind my colleagues and the American people of the 
courage it must take to vote in a country that has never known 
democracy while under the threat of death simply for making one's voice 
heard. This courage is commendable and is a cause worth fighting for.
  Mr. Speaker, America and her citizens are strong. We will continue to 
lead the way in showing the Iraqi people how to establish a free and 
democratic nation and we and they will never forget the sacrifice of 
those who made their democracy possible.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give strong support to H. 
Res. 861. For more than three years, the man Osama bin Laden called 
``the prince of al-Qaeda'' orchestrated terror attacks that killed 
thousands of Iraqis, American troops and coalition forces. Now, thanks 
to hard work and dedication of the U.S. military and our coalition 
partners, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's reign of terror is over.
  Since the U.S. and our coalition partners liberated Iraq, bin Laden 
has sought to defeat the efforts of the people of Iraq to transform 
their nation into a peace-loving democracy so he can turn it into a 
radical Islamic state where al-Qaeda calls the shots. The air strike 
that killed Zarqawi has dealt bin Laden's organization a crucial blow 
by eliminating the man he trusted to wage his jihad in Iraq. It is a 
major victory in the War on Terror.
  Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House VA Economic Opportunities 
Subcommittee, I feel strongly about coming to the floor today to honor 
our brave servicemen and women who are defending our homeland in the 
Global War on Terror. They have fought valiantly since the vicious 
unprovoked attacks of 9/11. They liberated the people of Afghanistan 
from the Taliban, an abusive regime that once harbored Osama bin Laden 
and his al-Qaeda leadership. The terrorists no longer have a safe haven 
and are on the run. Their hopes of creating a new Taliban-like state in 
Iraq has suffered a major setback with our military's latest success in 
getting Zarqawi.
  Since the end of the initial operation in Iraq, many of my Democratic 
colleagues have called for a full withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. 
When the attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians intensified, so did 
their calls for us to pull out. If we had heeded those calls and not 
allowed our military to complete their mission, Zarqawi would still be 
alive and be making further strides toward turning Iraq into al-Qaeda's 
new home base.
  Whether or not you supported the initial operation in Iraq, the fact 
of the matter is we have to see this through. Our troops deserve our 
support and all the resources they need to get the job done. And I am 
committed to giving them both.
  Since the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, we have captured or 
killed thousands of suspected terrorists. Our servicemen and women have 
rooted terrorists out of hiding all over the globe. They deserve our 
utmost support and praise for keeping us safe and making the world a 
better place as they continue to fight the global war on terror.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support our country's effort 
in the global war on terror. This war takes many forms and is waged on 
many different fronts. It involves the vigilance of our citizens in 
their neighborhoods to the first responders who patrol our cities. It 
courses through every state in the union. It must stand vigilant along 
our southern border and face the difficult challenges along the even 
lengthier and more remote terrain of the northern border. And yes, the 
global war on terror takes place across the vast oceans that no longer 
offer our homeland the protective barriers they once did.
  As Americans view on their television sets the hatred spewed by the 
likes of Ahmadinejad of Iran and whoever is the face of al Qaeda, we 
stand resolute in our beliefs of freedom and democracy. We carry 
emotions with us that are equal to those who wish us and our allies 
harm. But our emotions are not bent on creating destruction but 
preventing it, not on crying out for the annihilation of an entire 
nation but on rebuilding and helping those who choose to enter the 
civilized world community. To those who wish to be our friends, there 
is no more generous nation than that of the United States of America 
and to those who wish us harm no more determined of a nation when our 
values and safety are threatened.

[[Page 11500]]

  In order to win this war, we must support our troops who are deployed 
around the world. They protect and defend our nation and our allies 
everyday. These young men and women carry the patch of our flag on 
their arms and the spirit of our nation in their hearts.
  We also must continue to rebuild our intelligence agencies so they do 
not fall into the lackluster conditions they did before and work with 
others in the world community to stop threats before they reach our 
shores. There is still a great deal more work to do, but we will pursue 
until the job is finished.
  While we fight this battle across the world, others may wonder where 
we draw our energy from. It is important that our friends and enemies 
realize one important and crucial fact: the war on terror is spurred on 
by the hearts and minds of every American who will not let the world 
forget what happened on that tragic day in September.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, today we come to the floor to debate the 
merits of H. Res. 841, legislation honoring the men and women of our 
armed forces and declaring our commitment to a sovereign, free, and 
united Iraq. As our country continues to engage Al Qaeda and other 
international terrorist organizations around the globe, it is important 
that we convey the depth of our resolve. We cannot allow Osama Bin 
Laden and his lieutenants to succeed in their attempt to drive our 
forces from Iraq and topple that country's democratically elected 
government.
  Today, we are engaged in what I hope will be the first of many public 
debates on our national strategy to combat the growth and development 
of global terrorist networks. In Iraq and Afghanistan, as was clearly 
described by the 9/11 commission, we must stand for a better future by 
working with the international community to give the citizens of these 
countries a fighting chance to develop secure democratic institutions. 
These countries must never again be allowed to descend into the 
lawlessness that gives sanctuary to international criminals and 
terrorists.
  Last week, coalition and Iraqi forces scored a major victory over 
foreign terrorists working to foment a civil war between the Sunni and 
Shia peoples of Iraq. Our cooperative efforts to eliminate Jordanian 
terrorist leader Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi should stand as a landmark along 
the road to independent security in Iraq. It should also serve as an 
opportunity for this Congress to publicly expand its oversight 
activities to include the Iraqi Governments ability to maintain 
security and expand reconstruction activities absent the direct 
assistance of our forces on the ground.
  Over the last few months we have seen momentous changes in Iraq. 
Prime Minister Maliki's freely elected government has announced plans 
to expand reconstruction efforts, begin the national reconciliation 
process, and put an end to independent military forces in the country. 
Last month, Iraqi security forces played an active role in 90 percent 
of security operations and acted independent of coalition support in 
nearly 40 percent of those missions.
  These successes have given us the opportunity to consider the 
eventual withdrawal of our forces and those of the 28 coalition allies 
who continue to support the development of a free and stable Iraq. 
However, in doing so, we have a responsibility to do so based on 
conditions on the ground, and should not be bound by an arbitrary 
timeline for withdrawal that could only strengthen our enemies resolve. 
Doing so would do a grave injustice to the brave men and women of our 
armed services, who have already sacrificed so much in the cause of 
freedom.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 
861. Calling this a true debate on Iraq is a joke, and the Republican 
majority knows it. The Majority Leader has admitted the true motive--to 
use this issue in the fall elections against the Democrats. Shame on 
him and shame on the Republican majority for callously restricting what 
should be a full debate about the most important issue facing our 
country. Shame on them for trying to set a political trap and not 
allowing amendments or a full debate. If we were allowed a fair 
process, the facts would be revealed. And the facts are not pretty.
  After the tragedy and horror of September 11, 2001, everyone saw the 
threat posed by Al Qaeda. I voted for the authorization for President 
George W. Bush to use force against the Taliban in Afghanistan who were 
harboring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. I am a strong supporter of the 
war on terrorism.
  When President Bush came to Congress and asked for authorization to 
invade Iraq, he made no case that that country was an imminent threat 
to the United States, or, in fact, related to our international fight 
against terrorism. So, I opposed the authorization for President Bush 
to use military force against Iraq in 2002, and that vote was the 
proudest vote I have taken in nearly 10 years in Congress.
  Despite the paucity of evidence to invade a sovereign nation, 
Congress authorized President Bush to go forward and we invaded Iraq. 
Instead of remaining focused on combating terrorists, the true imminent 
threat to our country, we got detoured into Iraq. Our courageous men 
and women in uniform did a tremendous job in the effort to defeat 
Saddam Hussein. I have supported them every step of the way and 
continue to support them as I stand here today.
  Having toppled its government, I felt we had an obligation to see 
Iraq transition to a new democracy. Like most Americans I was patient 
as Iraq struggled to establish a new civil society and government after 
years of oppression.
  In the three years since the invasion, Americans have provided 
security and rebuilding assistance. Despite the gross mistakes, 
mismanagement, and misjudgments of our civilian leadership, Iraq is now 
a sovereign, free country, a country with a new constitution and a new 
government. At this point in time, we have done what we can. We've 
given the Iraqi people an opportunity. It is now their opportunity to 
grab freedom. It is now their country to lose.
  Unfortunately our efforts have come at a tremendous cost. Major 
General John Batiste, a commander in Iraq and military aide to Mr. Paul 
Wolfowitz, noted that ``Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have 
been a deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.'' 2,500 
of our best and brightest young people have paid the ultimate sacrifice 
to our country. About 18,000 have been wounded. All Americans are 
forever in their debt. In addition to the heartbreaking human toll, 
there is a financial one as well. We have now spent or appropriated, 
according to the Congressional Research Service, about $320 billion on 
the war in Iraq.
  Enough is enough. Enough devastation for mothers and fathers who have 
lost children in Iraq; enough heartache for their loved ones and 
friends; enough young lives cut short; enough being forced to 
shortchange domestic priorities like health care and homeland security 
because billions are being spent on Iraq. We have given the Iraqis a 
chance. That is all they can ask of us and that is all we can ask of 
ourselves. As such, it is time to shift troops to the periphery of the 
conflict and redirect some resources currently being used in Iraq back 
to America.
  Despite what the Republican majority suggests through this 
Resolution, saying it is now time to begin redeploying troops and that 
President Bush needs to develop a plan to do so is not arbitrary. It 
is, in fact, a reasonable calculation that the cost of Iraq is no 
longer worth any benefit we may achieve by continuing our armed 
presence there. The majority of the American people have made it clear 
they feel it is simply not worth more blood to achieve perfection in 
Iraq. They are right. It is time we in Congress listened.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution to 
affirm the United States of America will ultimately achieve victory in 
the Global War on Terror.
  On September 11, 2001, 3,000 of our fellow Americans were brutally 
killed by Islamic terrorists under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. 
President Bush responded by declaring war against terrorism and its 
strongholds throughout the world. He said we would fight the enemy on 
their ground to prevent terrorists from once again attacking our 
citizens on U.S. soil.
  The Bush Doctrine stated: ``Any nation that continues to harbor or 
support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile 
regime.'' U.S. and Coalition forces have verified his words with 
irrefutable action. The state-sponsored ``safe harbor'' Al Qaeda 
enjoyed in Afghanistan ended when U.S. and Northern Alliance forces 
routed the Taliban in a decisive military victory.
  Afghanistan now has a newly elected parliament, a market economy, 
equality for women, and millions of children attending school for the 
first time. We still face challenges in this nation, but it is on its 
way to becoming a stable and secure democracy, freed from the 
oppression of the Taliban extremists. Most importantly, Al Qaeda can no 
longer use this nation as a launching ground from which to attack the 
United States.
  In Iraq, Saddam Hussein repeatedly refused to comply with U.N. 
weapons inspection. Sovereignty was turned over to Iraqis a year and a 
half ago; a Constitution was drafted last summer and ratified in 
October; and a new government is being established. The seeds of 
democracy are beginning to take root, and a major threat of state-
sponsored terrorism against the U.S. was removed.
  Despite the danger of violent retaliation from radical extremists, 59 
percent of Iraqi citizens

[[Page 11501]]

exercised their right to vote in January, and approximately 70 percent 
in December. Iraq is on its way to fully assuming responsibility for 
its own security and governance.
  The challenges we face are undeniable and difficult. President Bush 
was correct when he said this war would come at great cost in blood and 
treasure. However, the cost would be much higher--intolerably high--had 
we not decisively acted to protect the security and interests of the 
United States.
  Who can forget the cheering of Iraqi citizens in the streets as 
Baghdad was liberated and the statue of Saddam Hussein toppled to the 
ground? Who can forget the courage of the Iraqi's who proudly displayed 
the purple ink on their index finger after exercising their right to 
vote? Who can forget the sight of Saddam Hussein cowering like a 
cornered rat when U.S. soldiers forced him from hiding? Above all, who 
can forget the sight of the North and South Towers of the World Trade 
Center collapsing, the burning embers of the attack on the Pentagon, or 
the scorched field in Pennsylvania that will forever stand as a 
testament to heroism and self-sacrifice. Our successes in the Global 
War on Terror have prevented additional horrifying images from filling 
our TV screens, saving untold innocent American lives.
  We may never know what catastrophes have been averted by the 
dedication and vigilance of U.S. servicemen and women. Nearly 2,500 
Americans have nobly given their lives in exchange for the peace that 
we have enjoyed here at home these past four and one-half years. The 
very fact that we have not endured another terrorist attack on U.S. 
soil proves their lives were not given in vain. We have not seen 
additional attacks such as those in London and Madrid, or experienced 
the fear Israelis face on a daily basis. We owe our safety and security 
to the soldiers who are giving their all to protect our families, 
communities, lives and liberties.
  Al Qaeda remains a persistent danger to the United States. This 
terrorist network operates in over 60 countries around the world. It 
brainwashes men and women into becoming suicide bombers; destroys 
religious sites; bombs and beheads innocent civilians; and seeks the 
destruction and overthrow of America, our values, our people, our 
freedoms and our way of life.
  We cannot allow Al Qaeda the opportunity to establish a permanent 
base in Iraq from which to attack the United States. The collapse of 
Iraq's new democratic government would be a huge victory for Al Qaeda, 
drawing additional recruits for bin Laden's brand of terrorism from the 
ranks of young Muslims. It is well-known that bin Laden seeks nuclear, 
chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction to inflict severe 
casualties on the United States and allied countries.
  Al Qaeda conducted poison gas experiments on dogs in Afghanistan, and 
the governments of Britain, France, and Jordan have each foiled plans 
by Al Qaeda to use chemical weapons. U.S. intelligence sources have 
documented repeated attempts by Al Qaeda to purchase nuclear material, 
including weapons grade uranium. Nations such as Iran and North Korea 
are a potential risk for transferring nuclear capabilities to terrorist 
insurgents.
  We must not fall into a sense of complacency. The continued threat 
from Al Qaeda to our citizens at home and abroad is real. Thankfully, 
U.S. and Coalition forces have captured or killed more than three-
fourths of Al Qaeda's known pre-911 leaders. These include senior field 
commanders, masterminds of the September 11th attacks, communications 
coordinators, and other key operational leaders. Just last week, the 
leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq was killed by U.S. forces.
  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had repeatedly attacked religious shrines and 
Iraqi political leaders to destabilize Iraq, provoke a civil war, and 
create a haven for terrorism. The February bombing of the Askariya 
shrine in Samarra--one of Iraq's holiest religious sites--ignited a 
firestorm of reprisals that led to the deaths of over 130 Iraqis. 
Killing the man who incited this violence was a resounding victory 
toward building a safe, secure, stable Iraq.
  More than 4,000 suspected Al Qaeda members have been arrested 
worldwide since 9/11, and Al Qaeda cells have been identified and 
dismantled in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Over $140 
million in terrorist financial assets have been confiscated or seized 
from over 1,400 bank accounts worldwide.
  Mistakes have been made in the War on Terror, but the Bush Doctrine 
of dissuasion and deterrence is working. Pakistan broke its state-
sponsored ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and Libya surrendered its 
WMD and disavowed terrorism. Until recently, Iran had frozen its 
uranium enrichment program, but is now threatening our country amid the 
perceived weakness that we will pull our forces out of Iraq before that 
nation is able to govern and protect itself from terror. This dangerous 
situation underscores the fact that we must finish the job we began to 
ensure the continued safety and security of the American people. We 
must not give in to terrorism by pulling out of Iraq too early.
  Fortunately, the talents and capabilities of our U.S. servicemen and 
women are protecting our nation well. Air Force Chief of Staff, General 
T. Michael Moseley, told reporters in February that Air Force 
satellites can locate activities and individuals on a global scale, and 
targets can be held at risk or struck down with the lethality of a 
weapon that detonates within several feet of the target. Al-Zarqawi 
learned this lesson the hard way.
  General Moseley continued: ``It must be a bit disturbing [to 
terrorists] to know that if you act against the United States or its 
Coalition partners, the U. S. Air Force will find you and strike you. 
And there's nothing you can do about it. We may never know what has not 
happened because of this capability.''
  General Ronald Keyes, head of the Air Force's Air Combat Command, 
rightly said: ``If you're a terrorist and you've got static on your 
phone, that's me . . . That shadow passing over you, that's me. That 
computer that will not boot, that's me. That noise you thought you 
heard until it's too late, that is me. And it will continue to be me 
until our children and grandchildren and those of freedom-loving 
nations everywhere emerge from this plight of terrorism.''
  We can and we must improve our intelligence and military capabilities 
to ultimately eradicate terrorism worldwide. This war has not been 
waged perfectly, but it has in arguably succeeded in preventing 
additional terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, protecting American lives 
and liberty, and forcing terrorists to spend their time running rather 
than plotting additional ways to murder innocent citizens and spread 
darkness and destruction.
  Voting ``yes'' for this resolution today will send the clear message 
to Al Qaeda that the United States is truly united in defeating 
terrorism and promoting a strong and stable Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking our U.S. soldiers, 
sailors and airmen for their incredible sacrifices, and in supporting 
this resolution to protect our citizens from terrorism at home and 
abroad.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. 
U.S. policy toward Iraq should be focused on bringing home U.S. troops 
as soon as possible while minimizing chaos in Iraq and maximizing 
Middle Eastern stability. I believe that 2006 must be a year of 
significant transition toward full Iraqi sovereignty both politically 
and militarily and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
  Americans deserve a serious discussion in Congress about the future 
of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Instead, the Republican resolution before 
Congress today fails to address the road forward. A resolution to 
achieve a sovereign, free, and united Iraq is not a strategy.
  This resolution is a partisan attempt to avoid the debate that the 
American people are demanding. It blurs the line between the War on 
Terror and the war in Iraq in an effort to legitimize Bush 
Administration mistakes, and fails to deal with key issues such as the 
effect of our `stay-the-course-at-any-cost' policy on other threats to 
our national security and military recruitment and the lack of 
oversight and accountability over the billions of dollars wasted or 
stolen in the war and reconstruction effort.
  I am a strong supporter of our troops, and I have voted consistently 
to give them the funding and equipment they need to carry out their 
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our courageous men and women in 
uniform have met their challenges with skill, bravery, and selfless 
dedication. We mourn the loss of the 2,500 who have died in Iraq, and 
offer our support and prayers to the 8,501 who have been injured so 
gravely they cannot return to duty.
  While this resolution expresses our gratitude toward the troops, it 
fails to acknowledge the missteps, misrepresentations, and misjudgments 
that have fatally flawed our involvement in Iraq from the very 
beginning, making the mission of our troops more perilous. The 
President rushed to war based on false and faulty intelligence against 
the protests of the majority of our allies. Warnings from U.S. 
commanders about troop levels and equipment went unheeded, and 
shortsighted decisions were made which seriously damaged our efforts to 
establish peace and security in Iraq.
  The Administration's horrendous miscalculations have damaged our 
ability to aggressively confront other emerging threats around the 
world and have endangered the stability of the Middle East. To make 
matters worse, the Administration has consistently rejected calls for

[[Page 11502]]

accountability for some of its worst mistakes, including the 
squandering of billions of dollars in reconstruction funds, torture at 
Abu Ghraib and the provision of inadequate equipment for our troops. 
The sham resolution before us today is intended to avoid an honest 
discussion of these issues.
  The American people deserve better than today's partisan 
grandstanding and the contempt of the Republican leadership for their 
genuine concern about U.S. policy toward Iraq. For this reason, I will 
oppose the resolution.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the current state 
of affairs in this country and around the world. We are in the midst of 
a global fight against terrorism, and cannot allow partisan politics to 
undermine our efforts to root out this disease.
  I rise today in strong support of the brave, young men and women in 
our military for their sacrifice, dedication and hard work on behalf of 
all Americans and people fighting for freedom worldwide. Our courageous 
soldiers have removed a tyrannical dictator from power and are helping 
eliminate the ability of thousands of terrorists to harm innocent 
civilians.
  The war in Iraq has been difficult, but progress is being made. Last 
week, al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader in Iraq, was killed. Shiites, 
Sunnis, and Kurds are working through their differences. Women are now 
allowed to get an education.
  Iraqi units are taking the lead on missions to root out insurgents. 
And we have already brought 30,000 troops home and turned bases over to 
the Iraqis; but we cannot leave Iraq and allow it to be turned into a 
breeding ground for international terrorism. We must not leave this 
problem to our children or grandchildren. And we must always remember--
we are fighting the terrorists over there so we do not have to fight 
them here at home! The global terrorist network is constantly 
recruiting, training and planning its next attack.
  That is why we must continue to fight terrorists overseas to try and 
prevent them from reaching our doorstep. However, we must not be 
foolish enough to believe that they are not already here. That is why I 
do not understand why people would have us leave Iraq--Why they would 
take a defensive stand against terrorism. We had that mindset on 
September 10, 2001, and it cost us thousands of lives on 9/11.
  We must not take the path that is easy. We must take the path that is 
right. We must take the fight to the terrorists and continue to do so 
anywhere we are threatened. We must also secure our borders. There is 
no doubt that our porous borders are vulnerable to people who want to 
do us harm. Since the deployment of the National Guard to the border, 
we have already seen improvements in border security. In the first ten 
days of June, there has been a 21 percent decline in illegal border 
crossings compared to the same time period last year.
  Let us not forget--Terrorism is not an ideology; it is a tactic to 
make people fearful. Throughout history, terrorism has failed and it 
will do so again. People in repressive societies yearn for freedom 
because it is a natural right of humankind. The challenge facing our 
generation is to help those that seek to be free. This goal is being 
realized in Iraq and the effects are being felt around the world. We 
will win the War on Terror.
  As we debate this war, let's remember that we are fighting an enemy 
who wants us dead. This leaves no room for partisan politics. It 
requires a united America.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support our efforts to 
secure Iraq in the ongoing Global War on Terror and to honor the brave 
work our servicemen and women are doing to protect our freedoms at home 
and to promote democracy abroad.
  Iraq is the central front in the Global War on Terror. Al-Qaeda views 
Iraq as the main battleground to spread their ideology of hate and 
violence against the Iraqi people and the civilized world. The simple 
fact is we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight 
them here on our homeland.
  I have visited Iraq and have seen firsthand the atrocities brought on 
the Iraqi people and their infrastructure by Saddam Hussein's regime. I 
stood in the spider hole that Saddam Hussein was cowering in before his 
capture and was able to meet many of the brave men and women in uniform 
who are serving there. Now, the ``Butcher of Baghdad'' is behind bars 
and is on trial for brutal crimes against his own people, and democracy 
is slowly coming to fruition in a Nation and a region of the world that 
has never known it.
  It has been an exciting week in Iraq, with the completion of Iraq's 
National Unity Government and the death of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, a 
terrorist and ally of Osama bin Laden. This week was capped off by 
President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad Tuesday to reaffirm our 
Nation's commitment to securing a peaceful Iraq.
  Only with our continued presence and coalition support will Iraq be 
able to make the transition to a peacful and prosperous democracy. It 
is imperative that we remain patient and vigilant as we continue our 
missions in Iraq and in the Global War on Terror.
  Mr. Speaker, may God continue to bless our brave men and women 
serving to protect our homeland.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 
861, which, above all, honors our brave men and women prosecuting the 
Global War on Terror and declares that the United States will prevail. 
I am pleased we are debating this resolution today, because it is 
imperative that Congress confirm to the world that Americans stand 
united in support of our troops. It's also imperative to leave no doubt 
that the U.S. has the unity and resolve to defeat the terrorists and 
win the War on Terror.
  U.S. and coalition forces have made great strides in these efforts to 
date. We have liberated Afghanistan from the brutal Taliban and 
continue to support the democratically elected government of President 
Hamid Karzai.
  We have overthrown the world's most depraved genocidal maniac in 
Saddam Hussein, who now sits in a jail cell awaiting judgment before 
the people who not long ago suffered greatly under his brutality. And 
we have significantly disrupted al Qaeda's terrorist network by 
systematically hunting down its leaders, its financiers and its 
footsoldiers. Our brave troops deserve great credit for killing the 
murderous head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
  Now we are engaged in the difficult task of rebuilding Iraq and 
training Iraqi security forces and police officers. We need to expedite 
the training of Iraqi security forces so they can secure their country, 
and our troops can come home with their mission completed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an overwhelming ``yes'' vote on this resolution 
to show our brave troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the War 
on Terror that they continue to have strong, bipartisan support in 
Congress. Our prayers are with all our brave troops. More than 2,600 
Minnesota National Guard troops are serving in Iraq in support of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. An additional 367 are serving in Afghanistan 
and elsewhere. All our brave troops are in my daily prayers, along with 
their families who are making great sacrifices at home. We also pay 
tribute to our brave troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in the 
defense of freedom. May these American heroes rest in peace and may God 
comfort their grieving families.
  Mr. Speaker, great moments and triumphs in American history require 
bravery, valor and selfless service. The men and women of our Armed 
Forces personify these values. Moreover, our troops have the skills, 
dedication and full support of the American people to prevail in the 
War on Terror. Today, the Congress can demonstrate our continuing 
strong support, as well.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution 
before us and the courageous servicemen and women that are currently 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that today's debate 
was limited since this is such a serious issue facing our Nation.
  In addition to combating terrorism throughout these two countries, it 
is essential that two key components are met to achieve success in 
Iraq--security and stability. The Iraqis must continue to move toward 
self-governance and fulfilling their own destiny, which will increase 
stability in this new democracy. And, as our American troops continue 
to train the Iraqi Army and Special Police, the Iraqis can move toward 
taking control of their own security. Lessening the American footprint 
in Iraq and bringing our troops home is the goal, and it will be met 
because of the success our troops have already had in stabilizing Iraq 
provinces (14 out of 18) and by training Iraqi forces.
  Having been to Iraq and having met with both the military brass and 
our enlisted men and women in the war zone, I am optimistic that we can 
continue moving toward a successful conclusion of this mission. 
However, I have real concerns that setting an arbitrary timetable for 
withdrawal of U.S. troops would be a detriment to our national security 
and the security of our troops. It is essential that we not publicize 
our plan for withdrawal which would make our servicemen and women 
vulnerable to attacks. In doing so, we would defeat our purpose and 
jeopardize their safety. Terrorists are patient and calculating, with 
some cells waiting years to be activated. We must not back down on our 
right to defend ourselves.
  While I am clear on my record for not allowing for a specific 
timetable for withdrawal, I have been supportive of denying funding to 
be used for constructing permanent U.S. military

[[Page 11503]]

bases in Iraq. We should not have permanent American bases there. In 
addition, I supported the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill which 
requires quarterly reports on conditions for withdrawing from Iraq and 
the progress being made toward achieving such conditions.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a strong 
supporter of our men and women in uniform, I am committed to honoring 
those who have served and are currently serving our country in the 
Armed Services. So many men and women and their families have made so 
many sacrifices, and some have paid the ultimate sacrifice. We must 
make sure that their efforts have not been in vain.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I know that we are achieving real progress 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know this not only from government and media 
sources, but from two Pennsylvanians.
  I want to quote from an email I received this morning from a 
constituent, an Army officer in Northwest Iraq commanding a Military 
Transition Team:
  ``There are many positive things going on over here that the American 
public never hears about . . . My little 10-man team contributed over 
150 boxes of school supplies to the many schools in my area . . . Other 
units took up a collection and purchased grain to give out to one very 
small, poor village. I am very proud of the accomplishments of U.S. and 
Iraqi forces and it truly is a shame that all the news tends to be 
negative toward the activities of the soldiers (American and Iraqi) who 
are working very hard every day to make this country safe.''
  My summer intern was a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division. When he 
arrived in Afghanistan in July, 2002, the people had nothing--no 
schools, no health care, no paved roads. But in seven months, his unit 
helped build the first school and health clinic.
  When his unit went back to Afghanistan in late 2004, it was a 
different place--new facilities and factories, more electricity, and 
miles of paved roads. When arriving in a village, his unit was greeted 
by smiling youngsters mobbing them, throwing plastic flowers.
  These examples are among many that illustrate real progress--laying a 
foundation for future peace, shaping a world where the terrorist 
message will fall on deaf ears.
  My intern from the 82nd also told me this: Afghani war veterans, the 
``old-timers,'' asked, ``Why did you abandon us when the Soviets pulled 
out?'' Today their biggest fear is that we will leave before the 
mission is done, and allow the Taliban or other tyrants to take over. 
Iraqi civilians remember 1991 and fear the same thing.
  We must complete the mission.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and 
in strong support of our troops. They are far away, waging the war on 
terror so that we can be safe here at home. In particular, I want to 
congratulate not only those who directly were involved in the demise of 
Al-Zarqawi, but all of those troops whose mission each and every day is 
heroic and brave and appreciated by us all.
  Every building they secure, every Iraqi troop they train, every 
vehicle they service, potato they peel, or small mission they 
accomplish is a blow against terrorism and a boost for our freedom.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for this 
war. But within months they started dissembling, claiming they'd been 
misled and clamoring for troop withdrawal.
  President Bush always warned that the war on terror would not be won 
easily or overnight. He asked for patience.
  We are an impatient people, always in a hurry, often seeking the 
quick success. But our troops do not work on the 24-hour news cycle or 
a two-year campaign cycle or any timetable other than to execute each 
mission as it builds toward the larger objective.
  That patience is paying off. Already we have seen in the information 
seized at Al-Zarqawi's hideout that the terrorists feared that time was 
working against them. I shudder to think if those on the other side of 
the aisle had their way where Al-Zarqawi would be today.
  In closing, let me just say that when I visited Iraq with my 
colleagues to thank our troops for all they are doing, it was they who 
thanked us for caring enough to visit them over there. We owe them such 
a debt of gratitude, and yet their spirit of service and commitment to 
their mission led them to thank us.
  Mr. Speaker, no American troop should ever have to thank a member of 
Congress. They should know that we are with them, that we support them, 
and that our support and thanks are there for them and with them 
always.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, a free and prosperous Iraq is 
one which is no longer a breeding ground for terrorism, no longer a 
wealth of support for radical Islam, no longer a source of 
destabilization in the Middle East. The simple truth is that an Iraqi 
people with hope for the future is an Iraqi people with whom we can 
work for peace.
  And, nobody knows this better than the terrorists themselves.
  They know they win only if they can maintain a strong, divisive, 
bloody insurgency in Iraq. They know they only win if they can keep the 
Iraqi people feeling despondent for their future.
  Let me be clear: The litmus test for whether or troops should stay or 
withdraw or on what timetable is not about nation-building. The U.S. 
should not be in the business of nation-building, now or ever. There is 
nothing in the Constitution which grants this Congress the authority to 
engage in nation-building, nor does the American public wish that we do 
so. Instead, the nation which we must always remain steadfast engaged 
in protecting and building up is this nation--America.
  The future of the Iraqi people is in their hands and left to their 
imagination.
  But, the truth of the matter is that life for the Iraqi people--
despite the ongoing war on their soil, has been more hopeful than it 
was before wasting away in the shackles of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. 
And, it is only getting better.
  For those Iraqis who survived Saddam's policies of genocide, 
political imprisonment, and near-constant state of war, they went 
without jobs, food, and medicine. All the while Saddam and his cronies 
pocketed billions in illicit oil profits and grew fat from Oil-for-Food 
program kickbacks.
  The Iraqis have had increasingly broad and successful elections. They 
have developed a constitution and established a government. Just last 
week, the Iraqis appointed key ministers for defense, national 
security, and interior. Now that the Iraqi people are free to direct 
their own economy, their own policies, and their own destiny, there is 
hope for a brighter future.
  Just last year, in 2005, the Iraqi economy grow by 3 percent. This 
year economists predict that the economy will grow by 10 percent, with 
a GDP that will have almost doubled since the fall of Saddam Hussein. 
As freely elected economic officials begin to work for the benefit of 
all Iraqis, the future of the Iraqi economy is bright.
  The Iraqi people are rebuilding their capability to care for their 
own medical needs. Last year, 98 percent of children under the age of 
three were vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella. Basic care 
has been provided for 1.5 million new mothers and their children, 
ensuring that a new generation of Iraqis will grow up strong and 
healthy.
  Over 110 medical facilities have been renovated and 600 centers have 
been equipped with basic clinical and lab equipment. By providing 
training for 2,500 health care workers, Iraqis will build a structure 
for living longer, healthier lives far into the future.
  Iraq once boasted one of the most educated female populations in the 
Middle East. Under Saddam Hussein's iron fist, they fell to near 
perfect illiteracy. Working together, we have helped the Iraqis provide 
for 2,800 rehabilitated schools and 8.7 million math and science 
textbooks. And, young girls can look forward to careers as engineers 
and scientists, instead of looking forward to legalized honor killings.
  The preamble of the Iraqi constitution reads: ``We the people of Iraq 
. . . are determined to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of 
aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and 
their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of 
diversity and defuse terrorism.''
  This is a statement rarely seen in the history of Middle Eastern 
nations. Iraqi legislators are determined to create a free society on 
par with our own. The future of Iraq is one in which men and women are 
free to practice their religion and speak their mind without fear of 
imprisonment or death.
  Every one of us feels for the parents and loved ones of the brave men 
and women who are serving in Iraq. Every one of us wants to see those 
young heroes quickly and safely return home.
  I would like to read from a message I received from one of those 
brave young men who is serving in Iraq. He said: ``There is a tough war 
going on here, but we can either fight the enemy here or back at home. 
If we were to withdraw, there would be a bloodbath of epic proportions 
that would only encourage the enemies of civilization.''
  Now is the time that the Iraqi people may build a bright future of 
freedom, opportunity, and peace upon their rich cultural heritage.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our 
Nation's continuing dedication to the War on Terror and this resolution 
we are debating today. When we think of the War on Terror, we 
immediately think of the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan where our

[[Page 11504]]

soldiers are bravely fighting for the hope and promise of freedom. But 
this debate today should not be limited to debating the fighting in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. This resolution is about freedom and our 
dedication to eliminating terror globally. This resolution puts in 
writing that we, the Congress of the United States of America, will 
honor all Americans who have supported the war on terror as well as our 
international partners in the struggle to defend freedom.
  The War on Terror is not only being fought overseas. This war is 
being fought, and fought successfully, everyday on our own soil by our 
own law enforcement agencies and the law enforcement agencies of our 
allies. We have great partners working with us around the globe to win 
this fight for freedom and, fortunately, one of these great allies is 
also one of our closest neighbors.
  On June 2nd and 3rd a series of counter-terrorism raids by Canadian 
law enforcement teams successfully thwarted possible attacks planned by 
seventeen Al Qaeda inspired terrorists, terrorists who have been found 
to have ties not only in Canada, but in many other countries as well.
  These terrorists took actions to obtain three tons of ammonium 
nitrate and were allegedly planning to use it against the Government of 
Canada and the Canadian people. This is more than three times the 
amount of ammonium nitrate used in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
  This successful raid on behalf of the Canadian law enforcement 
bodies, including the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team 
which coordinated the efforts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the 
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, 
and other local police forces, illustrates both the strength of local 
law enforcement as well as the growing weaknesses of the Islamist 
militant network.
  Their achievement has made our hemisphere safer and brings optimism 
that other nations around the world will have similar triumphs over 
terror. We all salute Canada for its unwavering commitment in the 
global war on terror.
  Their success only emphasizes that we must continue the fight against 
terror on all fronts: foreign and domestic. We must continue to promote 
peace, security, and the promotion and protection of liberty, while 
being vigilant against those extremists who want to do harm to freedom-
loving countries. We must continue to support our armed forces, first 
responders, and our international allies in this war and we must 
continue to work with our close friends, such as Canada, to promote the 
principles of a free and democratic society. I urge strong support for 
this resolution.

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for the 
Record.

                                                     May 31, 2006.
     Representative John P. Murtha,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Murtha: I am a Florida Democrat who feels 
     deeply in your debt for the campaign you are pursuing to get 
     our troops out of Iraq ASAP. When a new Democratic Congress 
     convenes early next year I hope its first order of business 
     will be to present you with a well-deserved Congressional 
     Gold Medal.
       I share your heartfelt concern over the situation in Iraq. 
     It is a national disaster that is robbing our nation of the 
     best of our youth and billions of our national treasure. In 
     this regard I stand squarely behind you and your views of the 
     war. In support of those views I have prepared a piece called 
     Iraq: We Need a Strategy, Not Empty Slogans. It is based on 
     your irrefutable arguments. Its thrust is to demolish the 
     President's position that we must stay the course. (How I 
     hate that phrase!)
       I believe I have made a cohesive, persuasive argument. 
     Please take a few minutes to read this paper and hopefully 
     have it inserted in The Congressional Record. In my judgment, 
     it warrants the attention of every Member of Congress. 
     Accomplishing this is my main purpose in life at the moment. 
     Earlier I sent a copy of the enclosed piece to Senator Bill 
     Nelson, my home-state senator, but subsequently learned he 
     does not favor early departure.
       Here are my bonafides: I am an 85 year-old retired Army 
     lieutenant colonel with 22 years of active service as an 
     Infantry officer. I saw combat in World War II as a rifle 
     platoon leader in the Pacific. I received the following 
     decorations in the course of my military career: 
     Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit, 
     Bronze Star Medal with oak leaf cluster, Purple Heart with 
     oak leaf cluster, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat 
     Infantryman Badge. So you don't have to accept these claims 
     at face value alone, I enclose a copy of my DD 214.
       I am confident that God will grant you the strength to 
     carry on your fight. But all Americans should rise to your 
     support. They need to cast aside complacency and lassitude. 
     They need to stand up to an Administration hellbent on 
     destroying the underpinnings of our democracy. In short, we 
     must sound off.
       With admiration and respect,
                                               Sanford H. Winston,
     LTC, USARet.
                                  ____


              IRAQ: We Need A Strategy, Not Empty Slogans

       God bless Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania 
     Democrat. He is the only Member of Congress with the guts to 
     tell the American people the truth about the Iraq war. He 
     does not spin this story. He calls for the removal of our 
     forces from Iraq ASAP on the basis that only the Iraqis 
     themselves can heal the divisions that thwart their progress 
     toward a viable government. He describes bluntly the 
     irreconcilable mess that is Iraq with its three obdurate and 
     competing factions--Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. He emphasizes 
     the failure of the U.S.-led efforts to provide essential 
     services to the Iraqi people such as electricity and oil 
     production that are below the levels existing prior to our 
     pre-emptive invasion. He makes it clear that the Iraqi people 
     really don't want us there.
       Congressman Murtha asserts that most of our more than 2,450 
     dead and 17,500 wounded--many of them amputations, spinal 
     cord and head injuries--have been caused by improvised 
     explosive devices. IED's continue to extract a great toll on 
     our people even after three years of war and ceaseless effort 
     to neutralize them. Still, we have had more than enough time 
     to devise a practical, achievable strategy for extracting our 
     troops. There is none. Joining Mr. Murtha in the class of 
     great American patriots are the seven retired Army and Marine 
     generals who view the Administration's conduct of the war as 
     deplorable and had the guts to call for the removal of 
     Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
       President Bush has stated our objective in Iraq is 
     establishing ``a democracy which can defend itself, sustain 
     itself--a country which is an ally in the war on terror and a 
     country which serves as a powerful example for others who 
     desire to be free.'' Religion, culture and customs combine to 
     pose impenetrable barriers toward reaching this goal. Iraq is 
     actually in a state of civil war now even though the 
     Administration won't acknowledge that fact. American-trained 
     Iraqi soldiers and police have yet to prove that they are 
     capable, loyal and trustworthy. The Parliament, to this 
     point, has refused to agree on Ministers of Defense, Interior 
     and National Security. Without solid political backing behind 
     appointees to these three ministries the prospects for 
     success are remote.
       The President promotes support of his war by spreading 
     public fear. He refers to our Iraq campaign as a part of a 
     ``global war on terror.'' Is there really an ongoing global 
     war? Are all the Muslims in the world preparing to take on 
     the United States? This thought by the President acts to 
     promote public anxiety, but not enough for him to call for a 
     military draft and marshal the forces we need to prevail in a 
     global war. If he tried to do that the Congress would revolt 
     and his approval numbers in the polls would sag to zero. 
     Administration scare tactics are reinforced by the Vice 
     President who warns that the Muslims are working to establish 
     caliphates that extend from the coast of Spain to the tip of 
     Indonesia. Does this vast conglomerate of caliphates in the 
     offing intend to attack us? If so, our country is not 
     prepared to confront this awesome threat. Hopefully we are 
     summoning aggressive diplomatic activity and the active 
     support of the United Nations, the countries of Mr. 
     Rumsfeld's Old Europe, and other peace-loving allies in 
     readying our defenses.
       Let's make one thing clear. Iraq is our national disaster. 
     It is diluting the resources we need to defend ourselves. It 
     is a tragic sideshow that is bleeding us of our finest young 
     men and women and costing billions of our national treasure 
     which are desperately needed for domestic purposes.
       Bombarded with fear-inducing messages, much of the country 
     appears docile and uninvolved in Iraq. It's business as 
     usual. The only people with a real stake in the war are 
     apparently our men and women in uniform and their families. 
     They represent about one percent of a population nearing 300 
     million. There are few signs of spontaneous patriotism other 
     than Support Our Troops bumper stickers. While the long war 
     continues, the Army is being torn to shreds courtesy of Mr. 
     Rumsfeld. It is forced to pay incentives of up to $40,000 to 
     recruit soldiers and still can't meet its personnel quotas. 
     It promotes unqualified officers to fill its ranks. The 
     Marine Corps is no better off. The National Guard has been 
     worked beyond reason with its people being sent to Iraq on 
     multiple tours. All this in the face of generals on the 
     ground in Iraq saying that our involvement may last 10 years.
       Our people are being fed slogans in lieu of a strategy for 
     the termination of our operations in Iraq. Some examples:
       Stay the course. No mention is made of the price that must 
     be paid to stay the course. The President does not say how 
     many American lives he is willing to sacrifice in such a 
     feckless pursuit. He visualizes a lengthy stay in Iraq if one 
     takes at face value his assertion that he is prepared to hand 
     off the war to his successor if victory has not been attained 
     during his term in office. As Commander-in-Chief, the 
     President must think

[[Page 11505]]

     long and hard about our casualty rate now and in the future. 
     Early in the war, when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul 
     Wolfowitz was asked by a reporter how many of our troops had 
     been killed in action, he had no idea of the actual number. 
     This kind of leadership will not do. To me, stay the course 
     is meaningless rhetoric, not a substitute for a real 
     strategy.
       General Tommy Franks, author of the war plan that propelled 
     us into Baghdad, but who left a big planning void beyond our 
     conquest of the capital city, declared in a recent speech to 
     the National Rifle Association, that our KIAs in Iraq have 
     made the U.S. a safer place by virtue of their sacrifice. 
     Sadly, there is no discernible truth to that claim. It is 
     this general's way of telling us we must stay the course.
       If you break it, you own it. This is General Colin Powell's 
     unrealistic contribution, guaranteed to extend our stay in 
     Iraq until the President's objective becomes a reality. Taken 
     literally, it does not compute. When we broke Germany, did we 
     own it? When we broke Japan, did we own it? When we broke 
     Italy, did we own it? Of course not. We gave them postwar 
     guidance and assistance. Those former enemies repaired the 
     breakage on their own and have since become valued allies. 
     There is no reason why the Iraqi people, with our non-
     military help, can't do the same.
       When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. Empty rhetoric. 
     With the intractable hostility marking relations among Kurds, 
     Shiites and Sunnis, and the unchecked operations of many 
     hostile local militias, it will be a long time before the 
     Iraqis can stand up.
       ``I'll leave when the generals on the ground tell me it's 
     time to leave, not some Washington politician.''--President 
     Bush. Who is the decider anyway, the generals or the 
     President? Besides, isn't he the Number One Washington 
     politician? This is a sorry expression of policy.
       We can't cut and run. This phrase is used carelessly. I 
     recall a first-term Congresswoman from Ohio having the gall 
     to admonish Congressman Murtha, retired Marine colonel, 
     decorated and wounded veteran of Vietnam, with the reminder 
     that Marines do not cut and run. I define cut and run as 
     people taking purposeful action to avoid hazardous duty in 
     time of war. It may sound insensitive to say so, but to me 
     the two most prominent examples of cut and run are the 
     President and Vice President during the Vietnam War. Why 
     don't we just eliminate cut and run from our lexicon? It is 
     Hollywood/John Wayne talk, not real world political talk.
       The media does not report the positive things we do. 
     Hogwash! The American press has done more to build and 
     preserve our democracy than any other national institution 
     including our armed forces. Blaming the media is the last 
     resort of knownothings. Government must learn to tell the 
     truth when dealing with the media.
       There is a way out of the quagmire. To disengage in Iraq we 
     need a new Congress sworn to this end--a Congress in the 
     Murtha mold, a Congress with guts. It is up to the American 
     people to see that we get one come this November. The new 
     Congress can vote to cut off funds that support our 
     operations in Iraq as soon as it convenes. or it can send 
     leaders representing both parties to stand before the Iraq 
     Parliament and announce that Iraq has 90 days to assume 
     responsibility for its own fate.
       To paraphrase General of the Army Omar Bradley's warning on 
     Vietnam, the war in Iraq is the wrong war, at the wrong time, 
     in the wrong place.
       When the time comes, vote Americans, vote! Only you can end 
     this war.

  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are having this 
debate today. Frankly, I think it is shameful it has taken us three 
years to have an ``open'' debate on the war while our soldiers are 
dying, their family members are praying for their safe return, and the 
American public is questioning what, exactly, is our policy over there. 
I just wish the debate were actually open. The lack of debate is even 
more shameful when you consider the fact we have been fighting in Iraq 
longer than we fought in World War I, the European Theater of World War 
II, and Korea. The American people deserve better, and you can bet your 
life the American soldier definitely deserves better than that. The 
American soldier deserves more than ten hours of debate on a policy 
that affects their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I want everyone in America to know the Leadership of 
this House of Representatives wants to stifle debate and control what 
you hear from your government. Every single American citizen should ask 
themselves this, ``What are they trying to hide? What are they afraid 
of? If a policy decision is so sound, you would think they would let it 
be debated until everyone was blue in the face.'' I think the lack of 
confidence the Majority has in the ability of their policies to face 
challenges and amendments should be eye opening to the American public.
  Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed the Majority Leader of the House abandoned 
his earlier talk of a ``civil'' debate on policy and instead decided to 
turn something as serious as a war into a rhetoric filled partisan 
political tool with the goal to make Democrats look ``sheepish.'' In my 
opinion, war and the deaths of American soldiers is too serious to be 
used as a political tool. Don't our soldiers deserve more respect from 
Congress than this? Additionally, anyone who would accuse a Member of 
Congress of not supporting our troops has no shame and those 
individuals should ask themselves whether anything is sacred to them 
anymore. They should ask themselves whether or not there is any depth 
to which they won't sink in order to score political points?
  Mr. Speaker, I was not a Member of Congress when the resolution 
passed giving the President the authority to send our fighting men and 
women to war. However, since I've been a Member of Congress I have 
continued my lifelong support for our troops. I have voted for every 
spending request, and I have been to Iraq to visit our soldiers four 
times. Every Member of Congress should have gone to Iraq by now, and if 
you haven't, go. Whether or not you support this war you need to show 
your support for our soldiers, and they deserve to talk to us face to 
face and let us know what is really happening over there.
  Mr. Speaker, how we got to Iraq should not be the point at this time. 
Historians, politicians, and the American public will debate that for 
years on end, and you can bet they will draw conclusions and hold 
people responsible in the history books and the public opinion of the 
future. However, right now we should focus on how we stabilize the 
country, allowing for a new, free, democratic Iraq to rein, and how we 
get our troops home safe as soon as possible while ensuring our future 
is more stable and secure.
  Mr. Speaker, I support our troops. The Congress and the American 
public support our troops. And I think we should reaffirm our support 
for the troops by giving them every tool they need, like additional 
armor and padding in their helmets to protect them from IEDs, rather 
than forking over taxpayers' dollars hand over fist to Halliburton and 
other defense contractors with little to no accountability. That, I 
think, would be a stronger sign of support for our troops, or the war, 
than any politically motivated resolution brought to the House floor as 
the Majority has admitted in their inter-conference memo of talking 
points of how ``We must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts 
between Republicans and Democrats'' according to Majority Leader 
Boehner's memo. I don't know about you, but I believe our country and 
our troops deserve better than these political tactics.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, it is time for both political parties to 
figure out that our base is America, and the American people, not the 
ideologues of the political fringe.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, with the number of U.S. military 
deaths in Iraq reaching 2,500, it's disappointing that the best the GOP 
leadership can do is demand more of the same. That's exactly what this 
resolution does by calling for a vague open-ended military commitment 
in Iraq. This resolution reaffirms a policy that simply isn't working.
  Instead of acknowledging the difficulties our troops face by offering 
clear alternatives to the President's ``business as usual'' approach, 
this resolution tries to cloud the debate by focusing on the ``war on 
terror.'' Indeed, Iraq isn't even mentioned until the eighth paragraph.
  The real issue at hand is whether this particular U.S. military-led 
effort that we've been following under Secretary Rumsfeld will achieve 
lasting peace and democracy in Iraq. I can understand why the GOP would 
want to divert attention from this critical question--it is precisely 
because of the Administration's policy that Iraq has become a terrorist 
haven where none existed before.
  Since President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared 
``mission accomplished'', the estimated number of insurgents in Iraq 
has quadrupled from 5,000 to 20,000. As a result, the average number of 
daily attacks by insurgents has climbed from 53 to 75, from May 2004 to 
May 2006.
  This war is an expensive quagmire that's weakening the federal 
government's ability to meet our domestic needs. We have spent over 
$300 billion so far on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is 
costing us about $8 billion a month on average, according to the 
Department of Defense. It's no wonder that this Congress was recently 
asked to vote on a budget that cuts education, freezes funding for 
health care research, and shortchanges medical care for our nation's 
veterans.
  The massive deployment of National Guard and Reserve units overseas 
has undermined our capacity to confront terrorist attacks or natural 
disasters here at home. We know that state officials in Louisiana and 
Mississippi struggled to overcome the absence of National Guard members 
from their states in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

[[Page 11506]]

  Despite these grim realities, politicians on the other side of the 
aisle are stubbornly restating that--no matter what--we must ``stay the 
course.'' I strongly disagree. The President and his allies in Congress 
should heed the words of military and diplomatic leaders who have 
warned that a continuing presence in Iraq will neither calm the 
violence nor lead to stability.
  Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on this body to offer and debate real 
strategies for the redeployment of American forces. Instead, this 
resolution allows only a phony debate on the ``war on terror'' which 
will not allow amendments that would offer alternatives to the Bush 
administration's policy in Iraq.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the lessons of history demonstrate that 
threats, left unchecked, become more dangerous over time. In the long-
term isolationism is not an effective solution for peace-keeping 
nations.
  Osama bin Laden, and the al Qaeda terrorist network he founded, were 
at war with the United States throughout the 1990s.
  1993: The first attack on the World Trade Center
  1996: Bin Laden calls on Muslims to harm U.S. troops in the Persian 
Gulf.
  1998: Bin Laden claims: Muslims should kill Americans any where--
including civilians.
  May 1998: Bin Laden foreshadows the future. He warns the battle will 
``move to American soil.''
  June 1998, a grand jury investigation issued an indictment against 
bin Laden
  On the 8th anniversary of the UN sanctions against Iraq, two 
simultaneous explosions occurred at the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania. The bomb in Kenya kills 213 people, including 12 American, 
injuring more than 4,500. In Tanzania, 11 are dead--85 injured.
  August 20, 1998 President Clinton orders cruise missile attacks at 
suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical 
plant in the Sudan.
  Soon after a new indictment was issued against bin Laden.
  However, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were left virtually unchecked 
despite these and other terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s and up 
until 9/11.
  Recently I visited Kenya, including the former site of the American 
Embassy in Nairobi. Today that site has been replaced by a park with a 
fountain, a memorial wall that has all the victim's names on it, and a 
memorial building. During past wars memorials to the victims of 
conflicts and those who served bravely to win them, have usually waited 
until the hostilities ended. In the name of all those who died at the 
sites of all the terrorist attacks, as well as those who have given the 
ultimate sacrifice to fight terrorism, we must ensure those memorials 
future by winning the war on terror.
  Every event from bin Laden's first bomb in 1992 through today has 
been part of one long coordinating al-Qaeda war. The coordinated 
attacks in 1998 should have been a clear warning signal that Osama bin 
Laden and al Qaeda were determined, willing and able to attack 
Americans.
  While Osama bin Laden had declared war on all Americans in 1998, the 
U.S. didn't declare war on terror until September 12, 2001.
  The opportunity to stop bin Laden before 
9/11 came and went. The lessons of history assure us that left 
unchecked the forces of evil will grow stronger and will seek to harm 
us again. Today's discussion is about a simple choice; do we fight 
terrorism tomorrow or do we stop it with our actions today?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 861 and 
believe many of my colleagues on the other side of the isle have said 
that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the Global War on 
Terrorism. I could not disagree more with their assessment. Iraq is the 
central front in the overall Global War on Terrorism. An immediate 
withdrawal would merely embolden our terrorist enemies and lead to open 
season on America and our allies. We cannot allow this to happen. We 
must prevail in Iraq. The stakes are too high to fail.
  Coalition forces are having a great deal of success in Iraq. The 
recent killing of terrorist leader Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, along with 
seven of his aides, is a serious blow to al-Qaeda's operation. The man 
Osama bin Laden called ``the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq'' arguably had 
more innocent blood on his hands in the last few years than any other 
terrorist. Zarqawi led one of the most deadly insurgent groups in Iraq 
in a bloody campaign of bombings, shootings, beheadings, and 
kidnappings aimed at killing Iraqi Shi'as to incite sectarian violence 
and derail democracy in Iraq.
  Furthermore, after receiving confirmation of Zarqawi's death, 
Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces conducted 17 simultaneous raids in 
the Baghdad area, yielding a treasure trove of information and 
intelligence that is being analyzed for future use.
  Iraq's National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said today that 
these documents and computer records would give the Iraqi government 
the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq.
  ``We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaeda in 
Iraq,'' al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaeda is in 
``pretty bad shape,'' politically and in terms of training, weapons and 
media.
  ``Now we have the upper hand,'' he said. ``We feel that we know their 
locations, the names of their leaders, their whereabouts, their 
movements, through the documents we found during the last few days.''
  He also said that he believed the security situation in the country 
would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to 
leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end 
of next year. ``And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-
2008,'' he said.
  Throughout American history, we have been tested in times of war. But 
virtually every time, we stayed the course and prevailed.
  We did not experience quick victory in the American Revolution. In 
fact, it took our Founding Fathers years to win our hard-fought 
independence. We were defeated at the Battles of Long Island, Harlem 
Heights, White Plains and others, and we will never forget the dark 
days at Valley Forge, yet we did not give up our desire for freedom.
  And let's not forget in World War II, where we suffered rapid and 
repeated defeats at Guam, Wake Island, the Philippines and Kasserine 
Pass.
  We must also remember that the terrorists were at war with us long 
before we were at war with them. In April 1983, 63 people, including 
the CIA's Middle East director, were killed in a suicide truck-bomb 
attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Later on that year, simultaneous 
suicide truck-bomb attacks on the American and French compounds in 
Beirut killed 242 Americans and 58 French. In 1988, all 259 people on 
board Pan Am Flight 103 were killed when a bomb believed to have been 
placed on the aircraft by Libyan terrorists exploded. These are just a 
few examples. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker there are others.
  Noted Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis has written that the sources of 
Islamic antagonism toward the West stems from the belief that the 
American way of life is a direct threat to Islamic values. But it is 
basic Western democracy that especially threatens Islamic extremist 
because within its own community more and more Muslims are coming to 
value the freedom that political democracy allows. Lewis has also 
written that attitudes toward the West have evolved through contacts 
with first the Eastern Empire in Constantinople, then Spain, Portugal 
and France, and through years of direct conflict in the Crusades and 
the colonial wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. As we can see, the 
War on Terrorism did not begin on September 11, 2001
  The Global War on Terrorism will not be won next week, next year, or 
even in the next 10 years. Like the Cold War, this struggle is a 
generational conflict, potentially spanning decades. The Cold War 
stretched from Asia to Africa to the very heart of Europe, just as our 
struggle today reaches from the Philippines to the mountains of 
Afghanistan to, as we recently saw, our neighbor Canada. Terrorism 
knows no bounds and will strike wherever freedom reigns, from London to 
Madrid, to a quiet field in Pennsylvania.
  Victory cannot be found on a single battlefield or a single treaty 
signing. Our enemy does wear a uniform and is not governed by 
international rules of war. They have one goal: kill as many Americans 
as possible and establish tyrannical regimes that rule according to a 
violent and intolerant distortion of Islam.
  The War on Terror will be a long war. Yet we have mobilized to win 
other long wars, and we can and will win this one.
  Last year, I traveled to Iraq and everybody I met was enthusiastic 
about doing their job and helping the Iraqi people. We found our troops 
have high morale and a commitment to their mission. The troops told us 
that we are winning the war.
  Because of our intervention, a murderous dictator and a totalitarian 
regime have been overthrown, free elections have been held, a new 
constitution has been drafted and ratified, and a new national unity 
government has been completed.
  Mr. Speaker, Iraq is only one theater in the overall Global War on 
Terror and success in Iraq is vital to victory. Much has been 
accomplished but much is left to be done. The question for all of us 
here is do we have the will to stay the course and leave with honor I 
believe we do. We must finish the job. The stakes are too high to fail.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to have this 
debate. I first of all

[[Page 11507]]

want to say how proud I am of our brave soldiers deployed in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and other regions of the world. Throughout our history, 
our freedom and our way of life have been preserved by the grave 
sacrifices made by the men and women of our military. We cannot thank 
them enough for their service.
  I want to specifically thank the many Reserve and National Guard 
units from my home state of Iowa serving overseas. Throughout the War 
on Terror, Iowa has had one of the highest overseas deployment rates of 
any state.
  Recently, I had the opportunity to welcome back a battalion of Marine 
reservists from Waterloo, Iowa, in my district. I was very impressed by 
the brave soldiers of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 14th Marines who 
risked their lives conducting vital security operations throughout the 
Al Anbar province of Iraq in the dangerous areas of Ramadi, Al Asad and 
Falluja. They left their families and loved ones behind to serve a 
cause greater than themselves--the cause of freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, our mission in Iraq is a vital part of the Global War on 
Terror. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a difficult but 
necessary step to eliminate the threat that his regime had posed for so 
long to the United States and the international community.
  We should take this opportunity to reflect on our many 
accomplishments in Iraq over the past three years.
  Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is over, his sons have been killed, 
and just last week we learned the good news that the leader of the 
Iraqi insurgency, the brutal terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, has been 
eliminated.
  The Iraqi people have taken historic strides towards establishing a 
free and stable democracy. They have participated in free elections for 
the first time, drafted a new constitution, and newly elected Prime 
Minister Nuri Kamal al-Miliki just announced the formation of his 
cabinet. In addition, the Iraqi security forces continue to increase in 
number and have taken a larger role in the defense their country.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time it is necessary to stay the course and 
follow the path to a lasting peace in Iraq. We will continue to provide 
for our troops and ensure that they have the best training, equipment, 
and technology available. And we must not waver in our commitment to 
win the Global War on Terror and protect our homeland from brutal 
terrorists who wish to attack our homeland and our very way of life.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our 
continued mission in Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror.
  I am proud to say that throughout the Global War on Terror, thousands 
of Idahoans have fought valiantly side-by-side with their fellow 
countrymen and newly freed citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. During a 
visit to Iraq in May 2005, I had the opportunity to visit with the 
brave men and women of the 116th Cavalry Brigade. I was amazed at their 
level of professionalism and their enthusiasm for the mission. They 
took great pride in their contributions and were fully committed to 
finishing the job. I have been similarly impressed by our nation's 
military as a whole.
  When I consider what action should be taken in Iraq I look to the 
advice of the experts, those who are on the ground fighting the war. 
The message I continually hear from our soldiers and generals is: 
Finish the job, complete the mission.
  I know there have been many calls in the United States lately to 
withdraw our troops from Iraq or set some kind of artificial deadline 
for withdrawal. Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with this defeatist 
attitude. In fact, a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous 
for America.
  In an interview with Osama bin Laden just prior to the 1998 terrorist 
attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, bin Laden referred 
to the United States as a ``paper tiger'' because of our withdrawal 
from Somalia after the tragic loss of 18 U.S. soldiers. Al-Qaeda 
learned from this, and similar events, that the United States would 
retreat rather than fight. During the War on Terror, Al-Qaeda has 
counted on Americans to similarly become demoralized and once again 
withdraw from the fight. It is the cornerstone of their strategy.
  If we lose heart and withdraw from Iraq before the mission is 
complete, Iraq will become a permanent breeding ground of hate and 
terror instead of the stable mid-east democracy it is becoming. Our 
enemies will become further emboldened by their perceived victory. A 
premature withdrawal from Iraq would only strengthen their resolve to 
use cowardly and barbarous terrorist attacks to achieve their ends. An 
artificial timeline for a withdrawal would only have similar results. 
The enemy need only sit back, wait, and then step forward to declare 
victory once U.S. forces have left. As a consequence, Americans and 
democratic societies throughout the world will be in greater danger 
than ever before.
  We simply cannot afford to back down, return home, and hope this 
threat will dissipate on its own. The terrorists must be confronted and 
must be defeated. We cannot pass this mission on to another generation. 
This is our job and the time is now. By stepping up and completing this 
mission we will give the gift of greater peace and stability to future 
generations.
  I can understand why so many want to cut and run, it would be the 
easy thing to do. I do not hesitate to say that the mission in Iraq is 
a difficult one and it has been costly. The price for freedom is all 
too often painfully high. I, for one, do not ever want to receive 
another notice that a fellow Idahoan, or any American, has fallen or 
been wounded in this war. However, quitting now would only prolong 
bloodshed in the long run, not end it.
  Once again Mr. Speaker, I support America's efforts to complete the 
mission in Iraq, and I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to commit to its completion. At such a perilous time in our nation's 
history let us stand united.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the leadership 
allowing this important discussion on the war in Iraq and the ongoing 
global war on terror.
  We can all regret the faulty intelligence that overestimated the 
presence of WMDs. We can focus on the need to press the new Iraqi 
government to meet speedy and attainable goals for the responsibility 
for their own security. But, we should never underestimate what's at 
stake in Iraq for their people or ours.
  Nor should we ever permit the use of propaganda or terrorist 
barbarism to signal to the brave men and women serving this Nation in 
uniform that the resolve of our country is wavering.
  There are many thoughts that I could lay upon the record of this body 
about the war on terrorism, but sometimes it's better to shut up and 
listen to the voices of those who know much more than you or I. One of 
the casualties of war in my district was a great Marine--Lance Cpl. 
Andy ``Ace'' Nowacki. Andy, 24, was a member of the Grand River Police 
Department and was killed by an lED in Iraq on February 26, 2005. His 
family, though filled with grief, determined that Andy's spirit would 
live on in many ways. One way will come through the establishment of a 
scholarship fund at Lakeland Community College.
  On March 31st of this year, friends, comrades and family gathered to 
honor Andy's memory and raise funds for the scholarship. One of the 
people to speak that evening was Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, the former 
battalion commander of Andy's unit--the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marines. 
Lt. Col. Smith's remarks, which I ask through unanimous consent to 
appear in the Record immediately following my own, centered on the 
question of ``Why.'' He stated in part: ``. . . think the part that's 
most lost in public discourse in the ongoing global war on terror is 
really the ``Why.'' We all know how Andy died . . . I'd like to spend a 
few minutes talking about why Andy died.''
  Mr. Speaker, Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, with the eloquence of a soldier, 
said it better than I could ever hope to, and I commend his words to 
the House:
  I got a call last Saturday when I was on duty from Sheila Nowacki, 
Andy's mom. And she told me a part of the ceremony was going to be a 
pretty moving video, and she had a slight task for me. She asked me if 
I'd speak for a few minutes after the video, and to be positive.
  Now, as the commanding officer of 2/24th, I don't get the option of 
saying no to the families of my KIAs for whom I was responsible, but in 
Sheila's and Dennis's case, I was honored that they even asked me to, 
so I immediately rogered up to the mission. So, here we go.
  The only way I know to be positive in talking about Andy is to talk 
about--from my perspective and from the Marines' perspective in this 
room who shared time with him in combat--why Andy died. Because I think 
that the thing that's most lost in public discourse about the ongoing 
global war on terror is really the ``Why.'' We all know how Andy died. 
Unfortunately, he was struck by an improvised explosive device while on 
an ASR in our zone. I'd like to spend just a few minutes talking about 
why Andy died.
  Andy died because he was out engaging the enemy. The single most 
misunderstood aspect of this war is the enemy. And a professional war-
fighter focuses on one thing and one thing only--the enemy. He doesn't 
focus on time-lines, he doesn't focus on how fast he can stand up Iraqi 
battalions. He focuses on the enemy, and there's a particular reason 
why we need to focus on this enemy. Because this enemy is real, this 
enemy is vile, this enemy is evil. And this enemy has a 100-year

[[Page 11508]]

plan to destroy the United States of America--a one hundred year plan. 
We think in terms of the next football season and they're thinking in 
terms of 100 years from now and how they're going to destroy this 
Nation.
  Can this enemy win this war against us? Unfortunately, I'm here to 
tell you absolutely he can. He can if he continues to focus on two 
things which he focuses on every day. The first thing this enemy 
focuses on is breaking the will of the American people. He does that 
through videos, he does that through propaganda, and he does that 
through information. The second way he can win this war is to continue 
to recruit future generations of jihadists. It's for these reasons, and 
because of this enemy, that Andy was in Iraq. And while so many still 
fail to get it, the enemy doesn't. The enemy understands Iraq is the 
focus of effort, because he understands that as long as Marines and 
warriors like Andy are in Iraq that the will of the American people is 
foremost and in his face. He also understands that that is a will that 
can and does, at every opportunity of battle, destroy this enemy. And 
then the second thing is what us being there does to this enemy. 
Contrary to some popular opinion, is it does not create jihadists by us 
being there. Quite frankly, we deprive them of the next generation of 
jihadists because no one is more helped and/or more impressed with the 
Gentle Giants of America than the kids of the Arab world. If you'll 
just let me tell you two very quick stories, I'll explain why that is.
  One day we were going out to conduct a raid to arrest the Sgt. Major 
and the operations officer of the Iraqi Army battalion that we were 
training. Upon moving into our cordoned positions in the raid force--
hitting the objective and seizing the Sgt. Major of the Iraqi Army 
battalion--his very children, the children of the Sgt. Major that we 
had in flex cuffs and blindfolded, were running around their front yard 
acting as if they were holding weapons and shooting at the Marines. One 
of the Marines went up to them, and he took the interpreter with him, 
and he said, ``Ask these kids what they're doing.'' And the interpreter 
asked them, and the kids said, in English, ``Mistah, we play U.S. 
Marines, Mistah. We U.S. Marines.''
  I don't think those kids are going to grow up to be jihadists. I 
think those kids are going to grow up to be the honorable people that 
they saw the U.S. Marines in their zone to be. Further proof of that 
was mentioned by your emcee tonight when she showed you that picture of 
Andy and those two Iraqi kids. They say a picture tells a thousand 
stories . . . that's not a staged picture. That is honest respect for 
an American Marine, who in this case was Andy Nowacki. And there are 
thousands of them out there affecting those Iraqi kids every day.
  The second story I want to tell you about is the election--the very 
first Iraqi election that occurred in our zone. In order to truly 
understand it, you have to back up to December of 2004. The election 
was scheduled for 31 January of 2005. Exactly two weeks before the 
election was to be held, the Iraqi government said there was no way an 
election would be held in our zone because in that point in time there 
were two triangles that were famous in Iraq. One was the Sunni Triangle 
and one was the Triangle of Death. The Triangle of Death was our zone 
and it was so named because for four months at that time, on a daily 
basis, we had gone forward, we had seized terrain, we had lived the 
misery of the Iraqi people. We had become their neighbors and, in so 
doing, we had slung steel and harsh language with this enemy on a daily 
basis, and they did not like that. They did not like the fact that 
these Marines were forward--living and earning the respect of the Iraqi 
people. But we were able to convince the Iraqi government that as a 
result of the efforts of Marines like Andy, the Iraqi people would come 
out and vote. We couldn't guarantee them that it wouldn't be violent, 
but we guaranteed them they would come out and vote.
  Now I ask you to picture, in two weeks, having to put together eight 
polling places. That meant that we had to tactically go out 48 hours 
prior and we had to seize the locations. We had to set up all the force 
protection that would allow the Marines to protect the Iraqis from what 
we knew would be constant and sure attacks on election day. And then 
most importantly, we had to transport 500 workers from the city of 
Baghdad to down to our Battalion FOB, house them for two days, and then 
move them safely to those eight polling sites. You can rest assured 
that was one big, juicy target that the terrorist wanted to hit. We 
were able to accomplish all that, but the most telling time in all of 
that is where we housed these 500 election workers was in our battalion 
chow hall. My battalion major . . . had a section of our chow hall that 
was dedicated to our fallen Marines. At that time, there were 12 of 
them. He had their pictures, and we had an American and a Marine Corps 
flag. Now for those of you who've never been to Iraq, who've never 
spent time with the Iraqi people, when you get two of them together, 
the noise level, the amount of smoking and the amount of drinking that 
goes on is pretty mind-numbing. When you put 500 of them in a facility, 
it borders on chaos. Now we accepted that that was going to have to be 
the cost--that our chow hall was probably going to get pretty torn up. 
And it did, except for one spot.
  Any time any of those Iraqi election workers got anywhere near the 
Sgt. Major's memorial, absolute, utter respectful, solemn silence. They 
respected the Marines and what they were doing for them, and that was a 
sight that I will take with me to my grave, and that makes me challenge 
those who say we're creating jihadists. I argue we are doing just the 
opposite. On that very election day, the mortars flew, the mortars flew 
intently. All eight of our sites started getting mortared and rocketed 
about 30 minutes before the polls were supposed to open. I was sitting 
in my COC thinking, ``Well, there's the end of my career. I just 
convinced the whole world that we could have an election and they're 
blowing us up before they've even started.'' But an amazing thing 
happened. In spite of all the mortars, in spite of all those rockets, 
in spite of the Marines providing security, telling the Iraqi people to 
seek cover, they refused, and in broken English constantly reminded the 
Marines, ``You will protect us. You have brought us democracy. And we 
will vote.''
  To conclude, one story from south of our zone where one young man 
pushed his 70-year-old father four miles under enemy fire in a shopping 
cart. When asked by the Marines, ``What on God's green earth did he 
think he was doing?'' He said: ``My father has but one wish before he 
dies, to show you the respect of voting as a free man.''
  One hundred years. That's the enemy's plan. He is prepared. Are we? 
As long as we have warriors, gentle warriors like Andy, the 
unbelievable support of parents like Dennis and Sheila who do things 
like this despite having sacrificed what they have sacrificed, and the 
support of Americans like you, we cannot lose. Sheila asked me to be 
positive. I don't know how I can be anything but. If it weren't for 
warriors like Andy and the other ones you see in this room here 
tonight, we would not be able to gather tonight to laugh, to cry and to 
celebrate.
  Sheila asked me to be positive, I don't know how to be anything else. 
I know now something I didn't know a few years ago: Being positive does 
not make the world the way you wish it would be, it's accepting the 
world the way it is and going out and doing what you can do to change 
it. I used to tell my young daughters when they'd see something on TV 
or read a fairy tale, I used to tell them there's no such thing as 
dragons. I don't tell them that anymore. There are dragons. There are 
fire-breathing, evil dragons that inhabit this world. But I tell them 
don't be afraid, because for every dragon that is out there, there are 
10 knights in shining armor that will go forth and suffer great 
hardship to protect you. And I've seen them, and I've worked with them 
and they're called United States Marines. So be positive. I will be 
positive, Sheila, and I will be thankful and humbled that you asked me 
to speak tonight. And I will forever thank God Almighty for Andy and 
all the warriors like Andy, and your amazing family, and this blessed 
land.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Iraq, a failure 
built on the lies of this Administration.
  I am opposed to H. Res. 861, because contrary to what it states in 
this resolution, I believe that it is in the best interest of the 
United States to bring our troops home now.
  I voted against our involvement in Iraq, and I have opposed funding 
the conflict. For years, I have been calling for the return of our 
soldiers. This war has been a mistake, and our continued participation 
will not change this basic fact.
  I have the utmost respect for our former Secretary of State Colin 
Powell. He was a truly outstanding Secretary of State: However, I will 
never forget how this great American was sent to the United Nations to 
sell a fabrication and to convince the world that this was a just 
endeavor with what we all now know was deliberately falsified evidence. 
This was just one part of a continuous effort to deceive the American 
public into believing that a conflict, that even many in our military 
had misgivings about, was the right thing for our nation to do.
  The image of our President standing on the aircraft carrier and 
proclaiming ``mission accomplished'' is one that I continue to 
associate with this failed effort. Since that fabricated public 
relations moment, both our nation and the nation of Iraq have suffered 
great personal loss.

[[Page 11509]]

  The American public no longer supports our involvement in Iraq, and 
we as their representatives, must respect their wishes and bring our 
troops home.
  I am saddened and heartbroken when I think about how many brave young 
men and women have died in this conflict that was never in our nation's 
interest. Many of these courageous young soldiers who have lost'' their 
lives came from the Bronx, from my own community, and so it is partly 
on their behalf that I believe I am now speaking. Too many American 
soldiers have died, too many innocent Iraqi civilians have suffered and 
lost their lives, and too many reporters have been killed--all as a 
result of this failed policy.
  As I thought about what I wanted to say on the floor today, I went 
back to the remarks that I spoke on this floor on October 9, 2002, when 
this House was voting on the authorization for the use of military 
force against Iraq. At that time I certainly couldn't anticipate what 
the conditions would be now in June of 2006. However, I said at the 
time, ``When we engage as a nation in a unilateral military action 
against an Arab Nation, an action that our allies are cautioning 
against, how will the United States be viewed in the Arab world? 
Perhaps the result will be an increase in Al Qaeda 's membership and a 
renewed hatred toward Americans.'' I think that this has come true and 
that our image as a nation has certainly been tarnished as a result of 
this conflict. I regret that--because I know that we live in a nation 
that does not want to be seen as an enemy by those who live in Arab 
nations.
  What has also come true is that Al Qaeda continues to flourish and to 
find new recruits as a direct result of our nation's actions in Iraq. 
Although Al Qaeda had at most a negligible presence in Iraq before this 
conflict, it is now a well established force there. For every terrorist 
that our nation works so hard to capture, another one is motivated to 
join out of hate for our nation's involvement in Iraq.
  This conflict has resulted in worldwide images that I doubt our 
nation can ever overcome. The pictures associated with the Abu Ghraib 
prison scandal are firmly etched on the minds of our next generation of 
youth around the world. Although soldiers of low rank were prosecuted 
for these atrocities, our leaders at the top never took responsibility.
  Now an investigation is being conducted into our activities at 
Haditha, where it seems as though innocent civilians died. These 
actions are all a direct result of a failed policy and have come at 
great cost to our image in the world. No longer do nations look at us 
as the ultimate protector of human rights.
  As everyone here knows, I am a part of the city that was a target on 
September 11th. When this Congress was debating the resolution on the 
use of force against Iraq, I did not believe at the time that in 
attacking Iraq our country was taking the right course, and I didn't 
know what words to use that would change the step towards war that our 
nation seemed so determined to take. I was filled with emotion and I 
ended my speech that night by saying, ``I cannot agree with the course 
that our great nation is embarking on, one that brings the threat of 
war closer and the goal of peace further away.''
  So now once again we in Congress are debating this war. However, now 
we have the perspective of time and we can look at all that happened in 
Iraq, the suffering and the failures, as an unfortunate part of our 
nation's history. As I once again struggle to find the words that can 
bring this conflict to an end--I am again filled with emotion. Let us 
bring our brave American soldiers home now and let us once again 
embrace the goal of peace.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, we are fighting a war on terror, a war we did 
not start or choose. But to use that war as either justification for a 
war in Iraq, or a reason for staying, is wrong.
  A lesson I've learned in life is you finish what you start. This 
Administration took us off-track from the war on terror and chose the 
war in Iraq. The torch of the war on terror should, and shall be, 
passed to future generations, but the war in Iraq was started by this 
Administration and should be finished by this Administration.
  This Administration decided to launch the Iraq war based on, at best, 
shaky intelligence. Until that time, this country had historically set 
a high threshold in its decisions to go to war. We have done so because 
outcomes are sometimes uncertain, and the cost in human lives is 
frequently high.
  We who question this Administration's decisions have faced the charge 
that to be candid about this war would upset military morale or even be 
unpatriotic. Now is the time for this President to be honest and 
forthright with the American people about its ill-conceived war. In 
candor, the Administration should say to the American people that no 
matter what course we choose now, the future in Iraq will be bloody and 
costly.
  That is why democracies enter war as a last resort, with solid 
evidence and a united nation.
  I have listened to our generals about their view of the future. 
General Casey has personally said to me that he needs until the summer 
of 2007 to fully train Iraqi forces. I am willing to allow General 
Casey the time to complete this task, but we should begin an immediate 
redeployment of troops.
  General Casey's projection might place Iraq on a course to embrace a 
self-governing democracy. However, the single most important action the 
newly elected Iraqi government can take to give that government 
legitimacy, is to ask Americans to leave and have Iraqis fight for 
Iraqis rather than have Americans fight for Iraqis.
  Seldom mentioned these days is our original mission in Afghanistan, 
the frontline of the real war on terror. We still have time for a 
complete success, but unfortunately we now do not have adequate 
resources in Afghanistan. In order to win, the immediate redeployment 
of troops from Iraq must include sending some troops to Afghanistan as 
well as bringing some directly home from Iraq. It is time to return our 
attention and resources to hunting down Osama Bin Laden and ensuring 
Afghanistan does not again become a breeding ground for terrorism.
  A little over sixty years ago, we fought a great war after Pearl 
Harbor. By this Thanksgiving, the Iraq war will have lasted longer than 
World War II. 4 long years ago many in this Chamber voted to go to war 
in Iraq. How many would do so today, knowing they are committing us to 
a war longer than World War II?
  Let us commit to a final push for an end to the bloodshed and 
violence in Iraq. Let us return to our original mission to fight the 
global war on terror that this Administration sidelined in Iraq.
  I support our troops in Iraq. I support them all the way home--soon.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, while the war in Iraq has been grossly 
mismanaged, the United States has a moral obligation to the 2,500 
American military men and women who have given their lives in the fight 
for freedom to allow the newly established government to develop, 
stabilize, and to provide for that nation's people.
  Perhaps the current Administration does not want to openly discuss 
Iraq policy because they feel it is a black and white issue, either we 
stay the course or we withdraw our troops. I disagree; I believe that 
the war in Iraq is anything but black and white. Immediate troop 
withdrawal would result in an Iraq so destabilized that our homeland 
security would be more threatened than before the war even began. 
Staying the course would be equally senseless, as the course we are 
currently on has done nothing to stabilize Iraq, nor has it quelled the 
raging insurgency.
  We recently passed the third anniversary of the date when President 
Bush declared ``mission accomplished'' regarding Iraq. What we have 
really accomplished in Iraq is yet to be seen, what is clear is that we 
need to change our course. We must set a new path towards a unified 
Iraq with a realistic exit strategy for our troops. We must disarm 
militias. We must help the new government provide electric power and 
economic and social services. We must convey to the Iraqis how 
important it is to the United States that they come together 
politically and make necessary amendments to their Constitution to 
achieve functional unity, we must make them see that whether or not a 
peaceful, democratic Iraq can succeed is ultimately in their hands. If 
we allow the Iraqis to think that we will be in Iraq indefinitely, 
there is no incentive for them to make the compromises necessary to 
unite their country under one stable government.
  The outcome in Iraq will have a major impact both in the region and 
on our security here at home for decades to come. We cannot move 
forward in Iraq without a full debate about the war here at home, 
without an end to the level of secrecy that the administration and the 
Department of Defense have built up regarding the war, without an end 
to the corruption in contracting and profiteering, and without a real 
plan from the President that sets specific goals, achieves them, and 
then provides our troops a way out, an exit strategy.
  I intend to support the resolution on the House floor today because I 
agree that we cannot simply pull out and leave Iraq; to do so would 
make that region less stable, less peaceful, and more of a threat to 
U.S. security. We must prevail in the War on Terror; but let me be 
clear, I do not support staying the course in Iraq.
  I will continue to push the Administration and the military to 
develop a clear plan for Iraq, based on the creation of a national 
unity

[[Page 11510]]

government, that will require the new government to live up to its 
commitments, transfer responsibility for Iraq to Iraqis, and that will 
bring our troops home as soon as possible.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the brave men and 
women of our Armed Forces for their service and dedication to winning 
the Global War on Terror.
  On September 11, 2001 a group of 19 hijackers commandeered 4 
commercial aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New 
York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., with the intent on 
destroying our economy and way of life. Over 3,052 innocent men, women, 
and children lost their lives in this unprecedented attack. Sadly, the 
events that transpired on September 11th were the result of years of 
training and preparation by an enemy that does not value human life, 
liberty, equality, or religious freedom.
  Our great Nation lost 473 American lives both civilian and military 
to the hands of terrorist from 1983 to 2001 for a total of 3,525 
victims. With each passing decade our enemies have become more 
sophisticated and desperate to accomplish their aims of a global jihad. 
Individuals such as, Osama bin Laden, the founder of al Qaeda, have 
declared war on the Untied States and created worldwide networks of 
hate to accomplish their aims.
  On several occasions, bin Laden has explained, that it should be 
every jihadists mission to obtain nuclear weapons and use them against 
the United States and its allies. The last 26 years have taught us that 
we must remain diligent and take every opportunity possible to find and 
destroy these ruthless killers wherever they reside. In order to 
accomplish this mission, the brave men and women of America's Armed 
Forces have answered the call with honor and an intense dedication to 
the mission of preserving our way of life.
  One of our most important responsibilities as members of Congress is 
to make sure our troops have every resource they need while advancing 
democracy overseas. By visiting these heroes where they serve, we're 
able to get a much better understanding of what we can do to make their 
jobs as safe as possible. With this in mind, I decided to lead a 
Congressional delegation to the Middle East that traveled to Kuwait, 
Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Germany.
  The leaders of these nations understood the importance of ensuring 
that we remain vigilant in fighting the Global War on Terror and 
expressed confidence in the abilities of the coalition forces. In Iraq, 
Kuwait, and Germany I had the special privilege of visiting with 
members of our Armed Forces and I found their moral to be high and 
their dedication to the cause unyielding. Soldiers like Sgt. Mark 
Gregory, Thomas W. Rigaey, 1st Lt. Marathana Loddy, Lt. Mike Schilling 
and Staff Sgt. Leonard Campbell, all from my home state of Nevada 
expressed their determination to see the mission through and understood 
that it will take time to achieve.
  Since toppling Saddam Hussein's ruthless government, the people of 
Iraq have created a 275 member parliament, confirmed the selection of 
the top seven posts for a national unity government, and laid a 
foundation for democracy. Now more than ever we must stay the course 
and support our Iraqi friends as they continue to strengthen the 
infrastructure of their government.
  Last week on June 7, 2006 Coalition forces killed Abu Musab al-
Zarqawi and his top lieutenant and spiritual advisor Sheik Abd aI-
Rahman. Zarqawi was the operational commander of the terrorist movement 
in Iraq and was personally responsible for the deaths of many American 
forces and thousands of innocent Iraqis. The killing of Zarqawi is a 
testament to the notion that we must stay the course and remain 
committed to the mission and the Iraqi people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and heartfelt gratitude that I 
salute the men and women of our Armed Forces and thank them for their 
service and dedication to our great Nation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the out of Iraq Caucus I rise 
in opposition to this resolution. We would not even be debating this 
bill if the American people were not disillusioned by this war and did 
not want to bring our troops home.
  I was among those who opposed the tragic decision to launch this war. 
I warned that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would plunge us into 
a bloody quagmire of violence that would only intensify the instability 
in the Middle East and leave this nation less secure and less able to 
protect our own national interests.
  The sad truth is that all the grimmest predictions have now come true 
and today--
  The Taliban are mounting a major comeback in Afghanistan;
  Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon;
  Somalia is dominated by an al Queda-inspired militia;
  And, here at home, our Nation is at risk. The fundamental 
recommendations of the 911 Commission are still waiting.
  Those who still support the Iraq war often claim it has made this 
Nation a safer place. That it has kept away the terrorists and stopped 
another 911 tragedy. Unfortunately, such wishful thinking is only a way 
to justify the horrendous human suffering that we have caused by our 
misguided mission, an effort to justify a war that was never properly 
planned and executed and that has wounded thousands and cost the lives 
of two thousand five hundred American soldiers.
  The toll of this war is still climbing and throughout the world 
terrorism is on the rise.
  The administration talks a lot about National security but those in 
Congress knows the war in Iraq has not made America a safer nation.
  We are appropriating millions and millions of dollars, at a time of 
skyrocketing Federal deficits, to fortify security in the U.S. Capitol 
Complex and at all other Federal facilities across this Nation. If 
Members of Congress believed this Nation is safer than it was before we 
captured Saddam Hussein, then why would we allow a single lost airplane 
to trigger the evacuation of the U.S. Capitol? Why does a single 
suspicious noise cause the lock down of the house office buildings? And 
just yesterday, why did the leadership of Congress upgrade our supplies 
of escape hoods?
  No one in the leadership of Congress is behaving like we have 
diminished the terrorist threat. We know the war has made U.S. more 
vulnerable to terrorism.
  Our National security is still in danger. Democracy is not 
flourishing in the Middle East. It is time to bring our troops home and 
to devote our resources to our own national security.
  I commend my courageous colleague, Mr. Murtha who has displayed 
tremendous patriotism on the battlefield, and in this chamber. I 
support his call to implement a strategic redeployment from Iraq and 
implore the Members of this body to have the good sense to listen to 
the people of this Nation and to support the call to redeploy our U.S. 
troops in Iraq.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my concerns over the 
Bush administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq.
  First and foremost, I am disappointed that the President still 
refuses to put forward a strategy for a successful transition in Iraq 
and a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.
  Almost 2,500 of America's military personnel have lost their lives in 
this conflict, and thousands more of our troops have been injured and 
disabled. Among the most recent casualties was a young man from my 
district and hometown of Rialto, California. U.S. Army Spc. Luis Daniel 
Santos was just 20 years old and due to come home to his loving 
family--his parents Irma and Carlos and siblings Carlos Jr., Amy and 
Eric--next week. Luis was engaged to his sweetheart from Fontana High 
School and was looking forward to a family barbeque his mother was 
preparing for him. Tragically, he was killed one week ago in a roadside 
bombing while maneuvering his Humvee in combat.
  I offer my condolences to the Santos family and join in mourning the 
death of this patriotic young man.
  Military families especially, and Americans generally, understand the 
sacrifice that service entails and the dangers involved. And we are 
united in supporting our troops and honoring their sacrifice.
  However, the American public has lost confidence in President Bush's 
leadership. The President has chosen to risk the lives of our Armed 
Forces without providing a coherent exit strategy, a realistic 
timetable, or the equipment required to complete the mission.
  The American people want--and our military forces deserve--a clear 
plan for completing the Iraq transition and bringing our troops home!
  As if the loss of life weren't overwhelming enough, the war in Iraq 
has cost American taxpayers more than 300 billion dollars. Americans 
have other needs and priorities, and 300 billion dollars could help 
solve some of the challenges we have here at home. That same money 
could have paid for 5 million additional teachers in our schools, or 14 
million four-year college scholarships, or 2.5 million new affordable 
housing units across the country. Think about how much money that is 
and how much of a difference it could have made for working families 
like those I represent in San Bernardino County, California.
  So I reiterate my call for the Bush administration to plan for an 
orderly withdrawal of American forces in Iraq. We must begin to 
transfer security responsibilities to the Iraqi people and allow the 
international community to step in and help.
  Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces have sacrificed enough. 
They have

[[Page 11511]]

completed their mission and accomplished what was needed. Their 
families have waited for them long enough. Now it is time to bring our 
troops home.
  Mr. Speaker, American forces are at great risk as they remain in Iraq 
without a clear objective. Their mission was to be a liberating force, 
not an occupation force. We cannot allow our troops to become targets 
of resentment and terrorism while the administration tries to figure 
out a plan.
  American forces in Iraq have gone above and beyond the call of duty. 
Their heroism and compassion in the most trying of circumstances 
require us to act in their best interest. Despite inadequate equipment, 
despite shifting priorities, despite sweltering heat, our military has 
delivered time and again. The recent success in removing the threat 
posed by terrorist al-Zarqawi is a testament to their tenacity and grit 
in the field.
  But the President must not take their commitment for granted and 
cannot expect them to serve indefinitely. Military forces in Iraq 
already are serving longer and longer deployments and a high percentage 
of returning troops are falling prey to mental health disorders and 
financial difficulty. We need a real solution, Mr. Speaker.
  I stand with my Democratic colleagues in asking the President to 
provide a real solution for peace and security in Iraq and ask my 
colleagues in Congress to recommit themselves to providing adequate 
funding for our Armed Forces, both at home and abroad, and our 
veterans.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 
861. Today's debate is about more than just the nations of Iraq and 
Afghanistan, this debate is about freedom and democracy worldwide and 
the fight against terror and injustice. Our great nation is doing what 
we have always done--fighting for the values we hold dear and helping 
to spread those values to other nations. We also have a choice to make; 
do we want to fight the terrorists in the streets of America or in Iraq 
and Afghanistan where al-Qaida has claimed as its battle ground to kill 
Americans?
  The Global War on Terror hits home for me because I have the distinct 
privilege of representing the brave men and women stationed at Fort 
Campbell, Kentucky. These courageous Americans have been leading the 
way in the Global War on Terror since September 11, 2001. In 
Afghanistan, these soldiers liberated the country from the oppressive 
Taliban regime. They helped stabilize the country and their efforts as 
well as those of other units laid the foundation for the democratic 
elections of Afghanistan's president, parliament, and provincial 
councils.
  In Iraq, the 101st was deployed before the war began in 2003 and were 
instrumental in the success of dismantling the regime of the criminal 
dictator Saddam Hussein. They were also responsible for the location 
and death of Saddam's two sons. They liberated and rebuilt the town of 
Mosel, including the reconstruction of the city's infrastructure. The 
101st is now on its second deployment to Iraq and is involved in the 
securing of the city of Ramadi where some of the most violent fighting 
in Iraq still exists. I have personally met with many of the soldiers 
that have been involved in this fight and they have my utmost 
admiration and respect. After meeting with the soldiers of Fort 
Campbell, I am convinced that they understand what they are fighting 
for in Iraq and are committed to the very end in order to preserve the 
democracy we have helped create and to ensure the safety of the Iraqi 
people.
  One of the largest newspapers in my state, the Louisville Courier-
Journal recently published an article entitled ``Wounded soldiers 
refuse to leave Iraq.'' I'd like to share a couple of stories from that 
article about soldiers from Fort Campbell who are completely committed 
to their mission in the Global War on Terror:

                 [From the Louisville Courier-Journal]

       Specialist Steven Clark from Fitzgerald, Georgia is a 
     soldier in the 502nd Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne. 
     He is a 25 year old young man with more courage than people 
     twice his age. In his time in Iraq, he has been shot three 
     times and has been wounded by shrapnel from a grenade that 
     tore into his legs and back. He has been awarded three Purple 
     Hearts, with another on the way, as well as a Bronze Star 
     with Valor. His Army buddies have nicknamed him ``Bullet 
     Magnet.'' You may ask why he is still in Iraq and the answer 
     is because he wants to be. He says that his wounds are not as 
     important as the mission and he insists on staying.
       Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Kunk is a commander in the 502nd 
     Infantry Regiment. One of his duties as an officer is to 
     decide which of his wounded soldiers can return to duty and 
     which soldiers get to go home. He says this task is tougher 
     than it should be because his soldiers research Army 
     Regulations and argue endlessly in an effort to stay. Colonel 
     Kunk's story doesn't end there, he was caught in the effects 
     of a roadside bomb that damaged the nerves and muscles in his 
     legs causing his legs to swell and throb from pain by the end 
     of every day. But Colonel Kunk wouldn't think of leaving, he 
     says he's a father and a grandfather and he wants to do right 
     by them. So Colonel Kunk stays and he fights because he knows 
     it's the right thing to do.

  Specialist Clark and Lieutenant Colonel Kunk's commitment is without 
compromise and their dedication to duty should be commended. Their 
stories are unique, but their actions are not.
  There are many soldiers that refuse to leave when they have incurred 
wounds that would allow them to come home. These service members 
understand what they are fighting for and they stay to see the mission 
through to the end.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress should follow the example of our men and 
women in uniform and stay committed to completing our mission and 
winning the Global War on Terror. If our soldiers, like Specialist 
Clark and Lieutenant Colonel Kunk, can make the commitment to stay then 
we owe it to them to provide our support to stay and get the mission 
done, to do otherwise would undermine our soldiers' efforts.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this simple-
minded resolution. President Bush and Republicans in Congress would 
have you believe that the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are one and 
the same. But terrorism is not exclusive to a geographic or political 
entity.
  Terrorism is the result of an accidental or intentional trauma 
inflicted on humanity. Numerous examples exist within our own borders.
  My son is terrorized by the threat of destruction posed by the 
ignorance, of President Bush in his steadfast opposition to addressing 
the very real threat of global warming.
  Parents are terrorized by the lack of treatment for children born 
with diabetes, leukemia, and multiple sclerosis. Yet right-wing 
evangelical Pharisees dictate prohibitions on stem cell research that 
could cure these and other diseases, saving lives.
  Middle-class Americans are terrorized by the outsourcing of jobs. 
elimination of pensions and health benefits, and expansion of predatory 
lending. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce promotes these terrifying 
practices, driving working families to fear for their financial future.
  All Americans are terrorized by more than 30,000 handgun deaths each 
year. This trauma is condoned and promoted by the National Rifle 
Association, a bipartisan terrorist organization.
  Our brave servicemen and women in uniform are terrorized by the Iraqi 
insurgency and civil war. Though 2,500 American soldiers and countless 
Iraqi citizens have died, the right wing noise machine encourages 
additional deaths by coloring as pro-terrorist those of us who dare to 
acknowledge the futility of the President's War in Iraq.
  Terrorism is a very real threat, but it comes in many forms other 
than those found in Iraq and, as I've outlined here today, we are doing 
precious little to combat it in America.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and to join me in a 
call to redirect our attention, our federal dollars, and our lives to 
our needs here at home.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor today debating a most 
serious issue. However, rather than truly addressing solutions, the 
resolution before us is filled with platitudes which seek to vindicate 
the ill advised policies of the President's war on Iraq. Rather than 
allowing a meaningful and constructive debate on Iraq, the Republican 
Leadership decided not to allow any amendments to their resolution. It 
is a travesty that the elected representatives of the American people 
are prevented today from offering policy alternatives that might 
actually affect the shape of U.S. policy in Iraq.
  This debate had the potential to mark a turning point to the current 
vacuum of congressional oversight over the Bush Administration as it 
pursues its misguided and incompetently planned war in Iraq. Rather 
than offering real solutions, the Republican Majority in Congress has 
decided to rubber stamp the President's campaign in Iraq.
  The American people know what has happened, and demand more than just 
a rubber stamp from their representatives in Congress. Just as in the 
case of Vietnam, they see a White House which misled our country into 
war. Using shoddy evidence and insinuations about the connections 
between Iraq and al Qaeda, the Bush Administration took our country to 
war to face the ``imminent threat'' of an Iraq with nuclear weapons.
  Despite claims by the Republicans and the Bush Administration, there 
was no significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Iraq had no 
weapons of mass destruction, a fact which Hans Blix, the head of the UN 
weapons

[[Page 11512]]

inspection team, recently stated would have become clear had President 
Bush not ignored our allies' requests that we give the inspectors a few 
more months before invading. After its claims about the weapons of mass 
destruction were proven to be incorrect, the Administration has 
continually shifted its rationale for the invasion.
  As though it were not bad enough that we went into a war in an 
incompetent and deceptive manner, it is unforgivable that our troops 
were sent into this war without adequate planning and equipment. Our 
troops are out there putting their lives on the line, yet the President 
decided to follow the advice of misguided ideologues in overruling the 
plans developed by experts before the war. One former commander of U.S. 
Central command, General Anthony Zinni, said that ``ten years worth of 
planning were thrown away; troop levels dismissed out of hand . . . 
these were not tactical mistakes, these were strategic mistakes, 
mistakes of policy made back here.''
  There are better ways to support our troops than to send more of them 
to their death in a poorly planned war. It's time to shift our approach 
from the ineffectual policies of a President who only listens to 
advisors with pre-determined hawkish mindsets. As a member of the Out 
of Iraq Caucus, I stand with my colleagues in urging Congress to 
urgently re-evaluate the failed policies of the President. 
Representative Jack Murtha has drafted a resolution that encourages the 
Iraqi people to take charge of their own security and lays the 
groundwork for bringing our troops home.
  These are the sort of options we should be debating today if we truly 
want to demonstrate our support for our troops. Instead, the Republican 
Leadership has put forth this political ploy. Congress should fulfill 
their Constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight instead of 
continuing to place blind faith in the President as he pursues the war 
in Iraq.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not support this shameful attempt to 
provide an illusion of oversight.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, America and its allies are engaged in a 
war against a terrorist movement that spans all comers of the globe. It 
is sparked by radical ideologues that breed hatred, oppression, and 
violence against all of their declared enemies. Since September 11, 
2001, the powerful coalition of nations, led by the United States, has 
seen many successes against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It is 
imperative that we remain united and steadfast in the quest to defeat 
terrorism around the world.
  Last year I traveled to the Middle East to visit with troops in 
Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I came away with several observations:
  First, morale of the troops is HIGH. They are confident of the 
progress they have made in the mission to spread freedom and democracy 
in the Middle East. Not ONE serviceman or woman I encountered had any 
doubts about the purpose and importance of his or her presence there. 
The troops are positive and appreciative of all of the support they 
received from back home.
  Their confidence in their mission is well-justified. Since my visit, 
the Iraqis have ratified a new constitution and installed a new, strong 
Prime Minister, Nuri AI-Maliki. And now the latest milestone: Abu Musab 
al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, was killed in an air raid last 
week.
  Mr. Speaker, as I sat in a tent in Kuwait eating dinner with troops 
from Texas, I was struck by how young most of them were. Those soldiers 
with me were 18-20 years old. Their experiences and their stories 
humbled me. Never in my life have I felt such emotion and love for our 
service men and women than when I sat and looked at these brave young 
soldiers. Barely out of high school, yet each day these heroes awaken 
knowing of the perils that lie ahead. Danger awaits them, but they 
continue to make a great sacrifice each day so that you and I can be 
free.
  I sometimes feel that we Americans take our freedoms and our lives 
for granted. We forget the images of 9/11. Yet while on my trip to the 
Middle East, the London bombings occurred. This was yet another stark 
reminder that if we don't fight terrorists abroad, they just get closer 
to our home.
  Mr. Speaker, the War on Terror is a global effort; it reaches beyond 
a small concentration of countries in the Middle East. I'd like to 
share the story of Marine Staff Sergeant Nathan Fletcher. Sergeant 
Fletcher's wife, Mindy, lived in Dallas and also worked for another war 
hero, my fellow Texas Congressman Sam Johnson, on Capitol Hill. He is 
currently experiencing his third extended separation from Mindy since 
they married a few years ago and the start of the war on terrorism.
  Sergeant Fletcher is serving in a very remote region in the Horn of 
Africa. He is part of a Combined Joint Task Force focused on defeating 
transnational terrorist groups operating in the region. Sergeant 
Fletcher and his fellow troops in Africa lack amenities like running 
water, reliable power, and air conditioning. There is no internet, 
television, or even paved roads. Because they are so far away from the 
main camp they eat off the local economy. There are no fruits or 
vegetables where he is based, and so far he has eaten camel, goat, 
lamb, beef, and a couple things he could not identify. They cook their 
meals over an open fire and sleep outside every night.
  Sergeant Fletcher's wife writes, ``His team is doing well and I know 
they are working very long hours. I can't imagine going 40 days without 
running water in temperatures over 100 degrees without air 
conditioning, but I know Nathan and other servicemen and women do it 
every day.'' She continues, ``Iraq and Afghanistan get most of the 
focus, but our troops are fighting the global war on terror throughout 
the world. I am really proud that he is part of making sure al-Qaeda 
and other terrorists aren't able to expand into another part of the 
world.''
  Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Fletcher and the millions of other troops 
fighting the War on Terror around the world believe in what they're 
doing. They don't want to stop. They know their mission is right. We 
owe it to them to see this campaign for democracy through until we are 
completely victorious.
  Mindy no doubt wishes that Nathan was at home with her. Nathan no 
doubt wishes he was at home sitting in the air conditioning and eating 
a t-bone steak rather than camel steak. Yet they both know the reasons 
and the importance of the mission.
  Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Fletcher is enduring these harsh conditions for 
our freedom. Make no mistake--this mission is not only justified, it is 
essential. Let us never forget the Pearl Harbors, the attacks of 9/11. 
Let us never forget the freedom we have. Let us never forget the 
Sergeant Fletchers and the sacrifices they make for us.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not lay down our arms now. We must press on, for 
freedom, for peace.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I salute Congressman Murtha and I salute the 
servicemen and women in the field, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 
and those waiting to serve.
  I rise today to oppose the resolution before us today because it does 
nothing to ensure a more stable and secure Iraq nor does it do anything 
to bring our troops home from Iraq.
  My constituents have asked me when Congress will get serious and have 
an open discussion about our future plans and polices in Iraq. Today, 
we begin to answer their calls. But we cannot stop today. We should 
debate the war in Iraq everyday on the House floor.
  Yet rather than seriously and substantially debating the issues at 
hand, the Majority has presented self-congratulatory resolutions that 
intentionally seek to divide the House. Today is no exception.
  Earlier today, I meet with a group of 7th and 8th graders from my 
Central New Jersey district. I asked them what I should say to put the 
Iraq War in perspective. The students offered a number of observations. 
One said that too many lives have been lost already. Another said that 
the reasons for going to war were wrong, maybe even deceptive. A third 
said that the Iraqi people are worse-off today.
  They are right. Ther longer U.S. troops remain in Iraq the worse the 
conditions on the ground get for the Iraqi people.
  I spoke with Senator Byrd (D-WV) the other day, who was here for the 
deceptive Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. He says that is one vote he would 
like to take back. I am not saying that Iraq is another Vietnam, 
because the two are different. But we should ask ourselves how will 
posterity regard Congress for giving President Bush everything he asked 
for without any oversight or accountability.
  The shifting rationales for the war in Iraq have led to the lack of a 
clear understanding of why we are there, or how we achieve victory. Our 
mission cannot be accomplished because there is no clear mission. There 
have been a number of rotating rationales offered for the war. One was 
Weapons of Mass Destruction and the threat of a terrorist attack on one 
of our cities. Then it was Saddam's human rights abuses. Another was 
the argument that the United Nation's disarmament and containment 
efforts were not working and that UN resolutions were being violated. 
Then it was to stand up a democracy to be emulated across the Middle 
East. Another was to protect America's strategic oil interest in the 
region. And as we have heard over and over today, it was to fight 
terrorism and a response to the terrible attacks on September 11th.
  No it is not about Khobar Towers, or the USS Cole or even the 
terrible attacks on the World Trade Center. Today's debate is about 
Iraq, and this is a resolution that says ``stay the course.''

[[Page 11513]]

  This is all classic misdirection. We need to remember that there were 
no terrorists in Iraq involved in the September 11th attacks. In fact, 
there were no terrorists threatening us from Iraq before we invaded. 
The War in Iraq is not about terrorism, except to the extent that Iraq 
has become a haven and a training ground for terrorists.
  We must also recognize that our country was propelled into the 
conflict under false pretenses. That has implications not only for how 
we got into Iraq, but for why we need to get out, and how we should 
view future claims of threats to America based on questionable 
intelligence and even more questionable assumptions.
  The war in Iraq has warped American priorities, and cost us dearly in 
terms of lives, money, and lost opportunities for progress at home and 
abroad. It has hurt our international standing and our ability to 
counter terrorism abroad. Numerous powder kegs around the world, have 
been ignored. Here at home, Hurricane Katrina crystallized for the 
American people the fact that the President and this Congress were 
willing to place our attention and resources in Iraq, at great cost to 
our ability to help our own citizens here at home. This includes the 
short-changing of homeland security measures for our ports, railroads, 
and chemical plants. Repeatedly, Democrats have tried to get the 
Congress to invest in these areas, and repeatedly we've been told there 
is not enough money. And yet, we pay for the war in Iraq--to the tune 
of $11 million per hour.
  History will remember this war in Iraq as a colossal blunder. When we 
leave Iraq--as I hope we will, starting immediately--no one will wish 
that we'd stayed a little longer. No one will look back and think the 
current course could have ever been successful.
  To their credit, our troops have done everything we have asked them. 
They are heroes. But we have placed them in the middle of a budding 
civil war. The President's failed strategy has made their jobs 
impossible, and his refusal to change course has continued to make them 
targets on the ground.
  It is time for a more sensible course of action in Iraq. Only a 
negotiated settlement with broad international help will prevent civil 
war between the Sunnis and Shiites. We need to ensure that we work 
together with the community of nations and the United Nations to have 
any hope for peace, security, and prosperity in Iraq. We have tried to 
do this almost single handedly for too long and it is time to work with 
the international community to reconstruct Iraq.
  I have said for almost a year now that the United States must 
redeploy our troops from Iraq. I am a cosponsor of Congressman Murtha's 
legislation, H.J Res. 73, which would redeploy the current forces in 
Iraq at the earliest practicable date. That is because the presence of 
our troops, who are serving valiantly and ably, is improving neither 
our security nor that of the Iraqis. In fact, our presence itself is 
unifying Saddam Hussein loyalists, al Qaeda sympathizers, and many 
civilians against us. Our presence is fueling the insurgency.
  Redeploying our forces does not mean walking away from Iraq. Iraq's 
security forces and government will need our continued moral, 
political, intelligence and in some cases, financial support. But the 
hard work of securing the country and building a new society is one 
that only the Iraqis can do. Reducing and refining our military and 
political presence in Iraq is the necessary first step in that process.
  If we are to defend America and our allies from the global jihadist 
threat, our continued presence in Iraq defeats that purpose. It has 
been and remains a deadly and unnecessary misadventure that has 
compromised our ability to advance our interests around the world and 
at home to defeat the larger threat we face. To get back on course in 
the global war against al Qaeda, we must change course in Iraq, and 
now.
  This war is simply not making us or the Iraqi people safer. The 
generals understand that. A majority of Iraqis understand that. The 
majority of the American people understand that. Seventh graders from 
New Jersey understand it, as well. Let's begin our redeployment 
immediately so that we can refocus our efforts where they belong: on 
rallying the world to the cause of defeating Osama bin Laden and those 
who follow him.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Resolution.
  The Resolution before this House today engages in a rhetorical 
fiction. The Republican Leadership has grafted into this Resolution 
language which confuses the War in Iraq with the War Against Terror. 
Iraq did not have anything to do with the September 11th attacks. We 
did not invade Iraq because of 9/11. We invaded Iraq because the Bush 
Administration convinced Congress and the American people that Saddam 
Hussein had acquired nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass 
destruction and might use them.
  The terrorism now taking place in Iraq is the direct result of the 
war, not its cause. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts.
  The fact is, this war was a very bad mistake. The Administration 
launched an invasion into Iraq in March of 2003 even though the 
Administration knew from the reports it was getting back from the IAEA 
and the UN inspectors that there where no nuclear or other WMDs at the 
sites identified by the CIA, by British Intelligence, and by other 
sources.
  Now we are bogged down in a quagmire with no end in sight.
  In February of this year, the President was asked when we could 
expect all American troops to be out of Iraq, and he replied that this 
was a decision for a future President and a future Iraqi government to 
make. In other words, if we continue to pursue the Bush 
Administration's policies, we will likely have troops deployed in Iraq 
until at least January of 2009--that's nearly three years from now!
  What has been the cost of this war in terms of blood?
  2,500 U.S. troops killed.
  More than 18,400 American troops wounded.
  An estimated 38,000 Iraqi civilians killed.
  What has been the cost of this war in terms of treasure?
  Nearly $320 billion so far . . .
  Just think of all the good we could have done in this world or in 
this country if we had devoted $320 billion for health care, for 
education, for fighting poverty or creating jobs.
  What has been the cost in terms of America's influence around the 
world?
  It has been severely compromised.
  We ``cried wolf' over non-existent Iraqi WMDs, over alleged 
connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda;
  We failed to deploy enough troops to suppress the insurgency;
  We put inadequately trained troops in charge of Abu Ghraib prison;
  It's time to pursue a new direction.
  The Iraqis are standing up, but we are standing still, staying the 
course. It is time to redeploy an increasing percentage of our forces 
to an over-the-horizon presence, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha) has suggested in the legislation he introduced last year.
  We should not be planning on maintaining any military bases in Iraq 
or any long-term troop presence in that country.
  It is time for us to bring this war to an end, and to bring our 
troops home.
  Vote NO on this resolution because it is as much a fraud as the 
reasons the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq in the first 
place.
  I urge defeat of the Resolution.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, despite the crafty language in this 
resolution, there is no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. The 
Global War on Terror and the War in Iraq are not synonymous.
  The President has admitted this, yet the Republican Party in this 
House continues to support his failed policies in Iraq under the guise 
of fighting terror--consistently providing billions of off-budget 
funding, allowing waste, fraud and abuse to go unchecked and failing to 
exercise even the semblance of oversight. So, instead of debating 
solutions for Iraq today, we are discussing a non-binding resolution 
that is equally as short-sighted and devoid of direction as President 
Bush's Iraq policy.
  We all have unwavering pride for our troops. The quagmire that Iraq 
has become is not the fault of the troops who have performed superbly--
it is the failure of the President to plan for a transition to peace.
  That is why I support the Murtha resolution. It would provide a plan 
for peace, redeploy our troops and allow us to bring them home as soon 
as practicable.
  Let's stop the carnage. Our presence in Iraq makes stability 
impossible. By remaining in Iraq, we make both Iraqi and American soil 
less secure. Let's bring our troops home.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today, there is no way to 
argue that this war in Iraq was not badly undermined by bad planning 
based on bad intelligence and an abject failure to organize the 
international community in a meaningful way.
  In short, the American people and Congress would clearly answer this 
question in the same way. If we knew then what we know today would we 
have done everything the same? Certainly not.
  This is a common sense message despite the fact that the 
Administration is reluctant to see it. I would suggest that there is 
another thing that we all agree upon: the extraordinary work of the men 
and women who are over there fighting on our behalf, and the remarkable 
heroism they've shown in the face of a

[[Page 11514]]

mission that seems to constantly change and the hostility of many 
Iraqis.
  Yesterday, we mourned the 2,500th fatality. There have been 18,000 
injuries and those of us in New York have lost 118 of our neighbors.
  I believe the military mission in Iraq has been completed and our 
troops should be redeployed in a way to preserve the accomplishments 
that they've achieved and to further our objectives of defeating 
terrorism and stabilizing the region.
  At the outset of the war the President articulated and many of us 
agreed that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. Our military achieved 
that. And there have been elections in Iraq that our military helped 
make happen.
  Standing up of the infrastructure has been painfully slow. A 
Brookings Institution study that came out today showed that we still 
have not reached pre-war levels of oil production or available electric 
power.
  Yet to the extent that roads and bridges and infrastructure have been 
created or restored in Iraq, it was through the good work of the men 
and women of the United States Armed Forces. There have been reports of 
over 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, clean water is scarce, and 
unemployment hovers above 50 percent.
  The question we have today as inartfully and politically posited as 
my friends on the other side articulate it, is how do we honor the work 
that has been done so far and how do we adapt to the situation that 
we've found?
  This notion of barreling ahead while our troops become the target of 
so many attacks is misguided. The number of daily attacks by insurgents 
in May of 2003 was 5; in May of 2006 it was 90. The total number of 
insurgents has increased from 3,000 to 20,000 during the same time 
period. And Iraq has become a training ground for jihadists, with an 
increase in the number of foreign fighters from 100 in May 2003 to 
1,500 in May 2006.
  I support the position of Congressman Jack Murtha and General Anthony 
Zinni, and agree with General George Casey, who said in September 2005 
that, ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a driving force behind 
the insurgency.'' Now the burden lies with the Iraqi people, and our 
troops standing in the middle of this battlefield have become targets 
rather than a force for stability and peace.
  As Mr. Murtha has observed, 100,000 Shi'as fighting 20,000 Sunnis 
amounts to civil war, even if we choose to call it ``sectarian 
violence.'' Incidents between warring Iraqi factions are up from 20 in 
May of last year to 250 in May of this year.
  We should redeploy our troops to the horizon of the battle, out of 
harm's way, but close enough to ensure that in the future the 
insurgents and terrorists do not take hold in Iraq.
  It is time for our military presence in the Middle East to be 
converted to a powerful quick-reaction force outside of Iraq. 80 
percent of Iraqis want us out of their country and 47 percent say 
killing Americans is justified.
  Then, we should reallocate the funds being spent in Iraq, which 
dwarfs the combined budgets of all other programs in place to fight 
terrorism, and re-engage with the countries around the world that 
rallied behind us in the wake of 9/11 but were alienated by our conduct 
in Iraq.
  Some have suggested that taking the target off the backs of our 
troops by removing them from the center of this conflict would lead to 
chaos. Implicit in that critique is the suggestion that we don't have 
chaos today. Our troops' presence there, I believe, is allowing Iraq's 
citizens a convenient excuse for failing to take responsibility for 
their destiny.
  The Iraqi people clearly would like us to leave and permit them to 
govern. Our troops have expressed the same sentiment. And it is clear 
that if we are to reclaim our place on the world stage as a unifying 
force for democratic values and the ideals of our country, the way to 
start is to redeploy so we can be ready for future challenges.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution 
because the process under which it is being considered is deeply flawed 
and unfair to those with legitimate opposing points of view. There are 
Members in this chamber who want to offer specific plans on Iraq and 
they have the right to have these proposals debated and voted on.
  This entire debate is a sham, Mr. Speaker. This resolution was 
brought to the floor to help Republicans win in November, not to help 
our country win the war in Iraq. Make no mistake about it; it is very 
important for this House to formally acknowledge our support for our 
troops, especially when they are in harm's way, fighting a difficult 
and protracted war. But this resolution is not a show of support. It is 
a political tool with little substance. In fact, the only provision of 
substance is the third Resolved clause which ``declares that it is not 
in the national security interest of the United States to set an 
arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States 
Armed Forces from Iraq.'' I happen to agree that we should not set a 
public deadline for withdrawal. I don't think it makes sense 
strategically and, even worse, I think it puts our commanders on the 
ground at a disadvantage because it provides the resistance with a 
clear target of how long they need to hold out. If we withdraw our 
troops prematurely, we run the risk of the young Iraqi government 
folding and the vacuum being filled by a government friendly to 
terrorists.
  This debate should have been about alternatives. That is a primary 
function of Congress. To debate our country's most important issues. I 
can think of no issue more important than whether we succeed or fail in 
Iraq. Rather than add to the vast amount of rhetoric being tossed 
around by both sides, I would like to present what I think needs to be 
done for us to succeed in Iraq, First, we must dramatically improve our 
intelligence operations. To be sure, the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi 
is a great accomplishment by our brave military in Iraq. But successes 
such as this one are too rare because most Iraqi civilians still do not 
feel secure enough to turn over valuable intelligence to American or 
Iraqi government officials. We desperately need an intelligence 
alliance in order to provide troops with the information they need to 
get the job done in Iraq.
  The second thing we must do to succeed in Iraq is step up the 
training and readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces. Congress continues 
to fail in its oversight of Iraqi Security Force readiness. Because it 
is so difficult to get a straight and consistent answer out of the 
Administration regarding the readiness of Iraqi Security Forces, it is 
virtually impossible to determine when we will be able to begin 
bringing American troops home. As of this week, the Administration 
tells us. there are 264,600 ``trained and equipped'' Iraqi Security 
Forces. Unfortunately the definition of ``trained and equipped'' has 
been elusive or not clear enough to replace American troops with Iraqi 
or international troops. I believe that for every fully trained Iraqi 
soldier, one American soldier should come home. Clearly, this isn't 
happening.
  The third thing we must do to succeed in Iraq is to continue our 
support of the democratically elected Iraqi government. A strong Iraqi 
government will be able to provide incentives to its people to help 
quell the violence. This support cannot be merely military support. It 
must be comprehensive and include the full range of services of a 
functioning government. Iraq's leaders face a monumental task. Quelling 
the violence will not be enough to send them on the path to success. 
Make no mistake about it; their success is closely linked to whether 
our mission in Iraq will be considered a success.
  In closing, I would like to comment on the Whereas clause in this 
resolution that states that it is ``the steadfast resolve of the United 
States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the 
government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction.'' 
Libya made the right decision to abandon its WMD programs. Our resolve 
in the Global War on Terror convinced Libya that the cost was too high 
to continue to pursue WMD. However, before this decision Libya was a 
primary state sponsor of terror. It now must honor its commitments to 
the victims of that terror, including the families. of the victims of 
Pan Am 103. In taking responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103--an 
attack which took the lives of 189 Americans--Libya agreed to pay 
compensation to the families of those who died. While 80 percent of 
that agreement has been fulfilled, the remaining 20 percent was held 
back by Libya as long as it remained on the U.S. list of state sponsors 
of terrorism. They have now been removed from that list, and must now 
follow through on their agreements.
  Libya has renounced its weapons of mass destruction and declared its 
intention to be a responsible member of the community of nations. It 
should now make good on the remainder of its promises to the families 
of victims of its terrorism. With these steps, Libya will be an example 
of a country that has not only changed its course but has recognized 
its responsibility for past acts. Until it completes this journey fully 
and completely, doubts will remain about the nature of this regime. 
These doubts will be impediments to its progress as a full actor in 
diplomatic exchanges with the world. The United States will watch 
Libya's actions as well as its words. This vigilance will ensure that 
we will prevail in the Global War on Terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote no on this resolution. I hope that the next 
time we have a debate on Iraq, it will be substantive and offer 
solutions. As a coequal branch of government responsible for the 
welfare of our courageous

[[Page 11515]]

men and women in uniform, we should settle for no less.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, although the recent death 
of Zarqawi did not end terrorism in Iraq, it delivered a devastating 
blow to the al Qaeda network. Since June 4th coalition and Iraqi forces 
have killed 11 other leaders of the organization.
  As progress continues in Iraq, a critical debate continues throughout 
the halls of Congress. We cannot afford to abandon our mission simply 
because certain politicians believe that waving a white flag of 
surrender will magically deliver peace. While a timeline for withdrawal 
might be politically popular, it is not a strategy for victory.
  As Senate Democrats attempt to gain support for their latest proposal 
of retreat and defeat in Iraq, U.S. troops and Iraqi Security Forces 
remain committed to fighting terrorists who threaten the lives of 
American and Iraqi citizens.
  Republicans will continue to support policies that enable these brave 
troops to complete their mission protecting American families.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops and we will never forget 
September 11th.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we face a critical 
challenge in Iraq with no certain outcome. While those in the White 
House and the Majority may want to use this debate as an opportunity to 
gloss over the situation and cast aspersions at their opponents, now is 
the time for a serious and sustained conversation within our government 
and among the American people about how we can end the occupation and 
do so in a way that maximizes Iraq's chances to govern and defend 
itself.
  A brief survey of the status of our operations confirms the gravity 
of our position.
  First, consider our strategic interests in the conflict. The 
Administration's entire case for invading Iraq has proven false. The 
President's claims about nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological 
weapons, links to terrorism, an imminent threat--they were all wrong. 
CIA weapons inspectors followed every plausible lead to find weapons of 
mass destruction in Iraq, and came up empty. We might have known the 
outcome of this search had we showed more patience with international 
weapons inspections before the President launched the invasion. We have 
also confirmed what many of us suspected at the time, that the alleged 
links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists were fabricated 
and false. In fact, with the CIA now calling Iraq the world's number 
one terrorist training ground, we have ironically created a problem 
that did not exist when we set out to solve it. And we diverted 
attention and assets from Afghanistan, which truly was ground zero in 
the anti-terrorist offensive.
  Indeed, we have engaged in a war of choice that has actually made our 
nation less safe. Congress has poured over $400 billion into Iraq that 
was entrusted to us by American taxpayers, dealing a serious blow both 
to our economy and to the many critical domestic programs that have 
been cut, essentially to help pay for the war effort. We have 
overextended our military, damaging recruiting and retention efforts 
and leaving our military units undermanned, underequipped, and 
exhausted from repeated deployments. We have created a terrorist 
breeding ground in Iraq that may threaten our security for years to 
come. And, by fueling tensions both between sectarian groups inside 
Iraq and between Iraq and its neighbors, like Iran, Syria, and Turkey, 
this war has stirred up a dangerous hornet's nest that could lead to 
significant regional conflict. In short, our national security is at 
far greater risk now than three years ago when the war began.
  Despite these shortcomings, the new ``unity government'' led by Prime 
Minister Nuri al-Maliki represents some progress in our political 
efforts, produced by the successful conduct of a handful of elections, 
a constitutional referendum, and sustained negotiations between major 
Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish political parties. These successes are the 
most positive story we have to tell in Iraq. If Iraq's leaders choose 
to work together to unite their nation and prevent sectarian agendas 
from tearing the Iraqi people apart, there will be hope for achieving 
stability and democracy in that country.
  Unfortunately, Iraqi leaders have not yet made clear what their 
choice will be. They have not yet shown the unity of purpose and 
political courage that will be necessary to hold their country together 
after the U.S. departs. They have not yet proven that they can set 
aside their sectarian agendas. Most importantly, they still must prove 
that they have the power to reach out beyond the green zone to 
influence Iraqi citizens and lead them toward unity and peace. Here, 
especially, the jury is still out on the extent of progress.
  U.S. taxpayers have spent $20 billion on reconstruction projects, but 
have only limited concrete results to show for their investment. Tens 
of millions of dollars were irresponsibly squandered through poor 
management and questionable contracts with companies like Halliburton. 
The Coalition Provisional Authority was unable to account for the use 
of nearly $9 billion in U.S. and Iraqi reconstruction funds. According 
to conservative estimates, up to a quarter of reconstruction funding 
has been diverted away from reconstruction activities to pay for 
associated security costs. Furthermore, much of the reconstruction work 
that has been carried out has been ineffective. In an October 2005 
audit of over $250 million in water and sanitation projects, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that over one-quarter of 
the projects were ``inoperable or were operating at lower than normal 
capacity.''
  The results of this mismanagement are striking. Over half of all 
Iraqi households still lack access to clean water, and 85 percent lack 
reliable electricity. Oil production remains well below pre-invasion 
levels. A quarter of Iraqi children suffer from chronic malnutrition. 
More than a quarter of Iraqis--possibly up to forty percent--remain 
unemployed. By any standard, the reconstruction effort has fallen 
disastrously short.
  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration appears to have learned the 
wrong lesson from these reconstruction failures, proposing no 
additional funding to rebuild Iraq and support the civilian population. 
Without additional funding, our reconstruction efforts will come to an 
end even though we remain far short of our goals. The Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has reported that more than 
two-thirds of planned health care centers, over 60 percent of planned 
water sector projects, and a third of planned electricity projects will 
not be completed due to lack of funds. The answer is not to give up on 
Iraq reconstruction altogether, but to find effective ways to make 
reconstruction projects work.
  On the security front, some limited progress has been made. According 
to the State Department's most recent weekly update, approximately 
265,000 Iraqi troops have enlisted to secure and defend their homeland. 
In addition, American forces recently scored an important victory by 
killing the number one terrorist leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
  As Iraqi troops have stood up, however, American troops have not been 
able to stand down, despite promises to the contrary. The sheer number 
of Iraqi enlistees has neither translated into capability for 
independent operations nor improved the security situation. In fact, 
Iraq is more violent, more dangerous, and more divided than at any time 
since the war began.
  The security situation is increasingly complex. Instead of fighting 
one battle, we are fighting at least three: against largely Sunni 
insurgents who are fighting to recapture the power they enjoyed under 
Saddam Hussein; against growing sectarian violence; and against 
terrorists, some foreign-born, united under a banner of Islamic 
fundamentalism. Above all, we are fighting to prevent full-fledged 
civil war, and the outcome remains uncertain. The death of Zarqawi will 
help in our battle against the fundamentalist terrorists, but it will 
not markedly change the larger challenge we face in pacifying Sunni and 
Shiite extremists.
  This picture is not pretty, and it is not a picture the 
Administration has been willing to discuss frankly. But it is the 
reality. Crafting an effective Iraq strategy means facing this reality 
head-on. Unfortunately, the Administration has adamantly refused to do 
so. In fact, Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies called the Administration's most 
recent report on progress in Iraq, ``both dishonest and incompetent.'' 
Cordesman noted, ``the American people and the US Congress need an 
honest portrayal of what is happening, not lies by omission and 
``spin.''
  Most Americans now understand that this Administration has relied on 
spin and misinformation to carry out its Iraq policy from Day One. It 
led our nation into war based on false claims and insinuations. It 
misled the American public about the likely costs and duration of our 
operations. It has attempted to discredit critics of its post- invasion 
operation, including former military officials. And it has consistently 
refused to level with the American people about the significant 
obstacles we continue to face.
  The real question before us--the question most Americans are asking--
is how long must our troops stay in Iraq?
  The President has told us that, as Iraqi troops stand up, American 
troops can stand down. But that formula is backwards. Iraqi troops will 
not truly stand up until American troops begin standing down. Iraqi 
leaders will not make the necessary comprises and take

[[Page 11516]]

charge of their own destiny until they know their dependence on 
American forces is coming to an end. As we stand down, they will have 
no choice but to stand up.
  While our military's valiant efforts have clearly facilitated 
important steps forward, including the formation of a democratically 
elected government, the troubling reality is that our continued 
presence makes success more elusive. It serves as a disincentive for 
Iraqi military and political leaders to take courageous risks to 
stabilize their country and assume responsibility for their government. 
Equally importantly, our presence is a magnet for international 
terrorists and an incitement for the insurgency. While the 
Administration argues that we must stay the course to help Iraqis 
accomplish key objectives, our very presence is actually detracting 
from progress toward those objectives. In order to jump-start progress, 
our troops must begin to come home.
  How we leave does matter. We must leave in a way that maximizes 
Iraq's chances to govern and defend itself. At the same time, we cannot 
become hostages to the failures of Administration policy, prolonging 
our stay in a situation where our very presence is a continuing 
provocation. That is why I joined with Rep. Brad Miller last fall in 
introducing H.J. Res. 70, which would require the President to deliver 
the exit strategy that the troops and the American people deserve. 
Today, I am renewing that call.
  Let me explain in clear terms what a responsible exit strategy means:
  We need to hear that that the President has a plan for reducing our 
presence in Iraq within a reasonable timeframe. ``As they stand up, we 
will stand down'' isn't a strategy; it is a slogan. A responsible exit 
strategy would set out, in clear and realistic terms, a plan to guide 
our troops through their departure from Iraq and a strategy for 
reducing our military commitment. We must be willing to adapt to 
changing conditions, but a responsible exit strategy must not hold our 
troops hostage to the Iraqi people's ability to resolve their own 
differences.
  We need to hear that such a plan would begin with an initial, near-
term drawdown of U.S. forces. The Administration has repeatedly hinted 
that a significant drawdown may be imminent, but has quietly backed 
away from such predictions over and over again. A near-term, initial 
drawdown of forces would send a message to Iraqis that we have no 
permanent designs on their country, that our presence is coming to an 
end, and that they need to step forward to take the reins of 
responsibility.
  We also need to hear a pledge from the President that we will not 
establish long-term bases on Iraqi soil. When I questioned General John 
Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, in a recent subcommittee 
hearing, he refused to make a commitment not to establish permanent 
bases. In the wake of that exchange, the House has voted twice to force 
such a commitment. A House-passed amendment to the fiscal year 2006 
supplemental appropriations bill to prohibit permanent U.S. bases in 
Iraq was removed from the final version of the bill by the Republican 
congressional leadership. The House recently passed a similar provision 
as part of the fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations bill, but it is 
unclear if it will survive in the final version of the bill. The 
President must heed Congress's message and send a clear signal that the 
U.S. has no long-term military designs in Iraq.
  In addition, we need to hear that there is a plan to continue to 
support Iraq when our troops depart. Such a plan would mean ongoing 
U.S. assistance for the Iraqi government as it crafts policies to 
facilitate unity, security, and prosperity. This support will be 
particularly critical as Iraq revisits its constitution later this 
year. It also means support for the development of Iraqi institutions 
like its parliament, its judiciary, and its security forces.
  Such a plan would also involve increased and assertive engagement by 
the international community to increase its involvement. The 
international community has pledged billions of dollars in resources 
for Iraq that it has not yet delivered. Just as importantly, however, 
we need the international community to have a presence in Iraq, working 
with the Iraqi government, mediating disputes between sectarian 
parties, establishing greater ties with Iraq's economy, and supporting 
the development of civil society.
  Finally, this plan would require engaging Iraq's neighbors to play a 
constructive role in giving Iraq a chance to succeed. This means 
pledging not to interfere in Iraq's affairs. It also means securing 
borders, training Iraqi security forces, and welcoming Iraq into 
regional institutions. I was encouraged that the Administration 
tentatively agreed to conduct a dialogue with Iran on its involvement 
in Iraq. I hope that this effort will move forward and that similar 
efforts will engage other Gulf States.
  These are the elements of a responsible exit strategy. This is the 
type of leadership that the President owes our troops and the American 
people. After more than three years, the loss of more than 2,500 
American troops' lives, and $400 billion, this is the type of 
leadership that is long overdue.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Resolution 861.
  While I reaffirm my commitment to do everything possible to support 
the men and women serving our country in Iraq, I will not dishonor them 
by supporting this sham resolution.
  This resolution is no more than a deceitful effort by the Republican 
leadership to justify an ill conceived war--a war based on faulty and 
manipulated intelligence and years of reckless and costly decisions.
  These decisions have increased threats to our national security and 
drained our treasury of valuable resources needed for critical programs 
such as education, healthcare, research and job training.
  The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the President has lost support for 
this war as America has become increasingly aware of the 
Administration's deception and lack of a clear plan for success. A plan 
such as the one outlined in Congressman Murtha's resolution would 
protect our troops and bring them home as safely and as quickly 
possible.
  The resolution before this House is nothing more than a ploy to 
regain support and political advantage by once again blurring the lines 
between the devastating 9/11 attacks and the ongoing war in Iraq. This 
connection has repeatedly been discredited.
  In the aftermath of 9/11, the United States justifiably invaded 
Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama Bin Laden, who is the man we know was 
responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
  U.S. intelligence sources tell us we were close to capturing him, but 
then the President redirected our troops and resources to invade Iraq.
  As a consequence of the President's decision, the terrorist 
responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans is still free, 
Iraq has in fact become a breeding ground for terrorists, and the 
invasion has inflamed hatred towards our country and has jeopardized 
our ability to quickly form a strong international coalition to fight 
terrorism abroad and protect us at home.
  If the Republican leadership were sincere about honoring our troops, 
they would have provided them with the full equipment they are still 
lacking, and they would not for example, have passed a budget with a $6 
billion cut to Veterans Healthcare, or rejected Democratic amendments 
to increase badly needed funding in the Military Quality of Life 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, sending our troops into Iraq ill equipped, with no plan 
for success, and no exit strategy was a shameful mistake.
  For the Republican leadership to play politics with this resolution 
and mask true support for our troops with mere words and rhetoric is 
disgraceful.
  I, like every American, support our troops and honor their 
patriotism.
  Their heroism and resolve to fight for our country, despite the 
deplorable circumstance under which they were sent to Iraq, heightens 
my pride in their service and strengthens my resolve to bring them home 
quickly and safely.
  I will not dishonor them by supporting this Republican charade.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, 
in support of our troops, and in support of our Nation's efforts in the 
Global War on Terror.
  In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we find ourselves locked in a struggle 
with an enemy that despises liberty and embraces an ideology of hate.
  Terrorists did not declare war on us the morning of September 11, 
2001. It started long before that. Consider the following:
  In November of 1979, radical Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy in 
Tehran, holding 53 American hostages for 444 days.
  Less than four years later, 63 people died when the U.S. Embassy in 
Beirut is bombed.
  Scant months later, 242 Americans and 58 French are killed by 
simultaneous suicide bombers in the American and French compounds in 
Beirut.
  March 1984, Islamic terrorists kidnapped and murdered Political 
Officer William Buckley.
  One year later, terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner the 
Achille Lauro and killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old American who 
was confined to a wheelchair.
  In June of 1985, Lebanese Hizballah terrorists hijacked a TWA flight 
forcing the plane to fly to Beirut. Eight crew members and 145 
passengers are held hostage for 17 days, during which time a U.S. 
sailor is murdered.
  April 1986, two U.S. soldiers are killed and 79 are injured when 
Libyan nationals detonated bombs in a West Berlin discotheque.
  Two years later, Libyans again take American lives when Pan Am Flight 
103 exploded

[[Page 11517]]

over Lockerbie, Scotland. All of the 259 people on board are killed.
  On February 26, 1993, for the first time, Islamic terrorists strike 
on American soil when a car bomb explodes in the garage of the World 
Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,000.
  On April 14, 1993, Iraqi intelligence operatives attempted to 
assassinate former President Bush.
  In 1995, a car bomb exploded at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh, 
Saudi Arabia, one U.S. citizen is killed.
  Seven months later a truck bomb detonated outside the Khobar Towers 
in Dhahram, Saudi Arabia. Nineteen Airmen are killed and 515 people are 
wounded.
  In August of 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania fall 
victim to coordinated attacks. Over 300 are killed.
  Two years latter, a small watercraft laden with explosives rammed 
into the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
  Finally, September 11, 2001, two hijacked airliners hit the World 
Trade Center towers, another plane crashed into the Pentagon and a 
fourth plane, headed for either the White House or U.S. Capitol 
Building in Washington, D.C., crashed in a Pennsylvania cornfield. All 
told, 3,025 perish.
  But until we took action in Afghanistan, our response to terror was 
often non-existent, sporadic, or inconsistent.
  In the wake of September 11, the American people rightfully demanded 
that their elected officials make a commitment to aggressively combat 
terrorism. We went into Afghanistan to proactively stop further attacks 
on innocent Americans. Afghanistan was a haven for al-Qaeda, and the 
terror attacks on our own soil showed us that we can no longer rely on 
oceans and geography to protect our homeland :from attack. Thus, we 
must drain the swamps where terrorism breeds and take the fight to 
those who have, through their own words and deeds, declared war on us.
  In addition to the real-life need to protect our citizens, there is a 
larger meaning in our efforts in the Global War on Terror. Those we 
fight abhor freedom and liberty. They shun religious tolerance and view 
with disdain our deeply held belief that every person is endowed with 
basic human rights. And make no doubt about it--our enemy in the Global 
War on Terror is determined to impose their dangerous ideology on 
innocent people around the globe. The carnage of September 11 showed us 
that we can no longer turn a blind-eye as hate-filled terrorists plot 
against our Nation and its citizens.
  Then there is the question of Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, and we now 
know that Iraq did not possess significant stockpiles of weapons of 
mass destruction. But let us look at the evidence from the time--the 
evidence upon which the Congress, the Administration, and our allies 
around the world had to judge the threat posed by Iraq.
  Saddam Hussein had a long history of pursuing weapons of mass 
destruction. Like the terrorist acts against this country, Saddam's 
determination to pursue weapons of mass destruction and desire to 
intimidate his neighbors in the region began long ago.
  In the 1970's, Iraq started constructing a nuclear reactor in Osirak. 
The international community did nothing in response to this gathering 
threat. Israel, not content to watch Saddam Hussein move forward with a 
nuclear program, destroyed the reactor in 1981.
  In the 1980s and the early part of the 1990s, Saddam Hussein's regime 
proved time and again that they were a threat to peace and stability in 
the region. Saddam repeatedly, almost continually, used chemical and 
biological weapons on his own citizens and Iranian troops. For example:
  In August 1983, Saddam used mustard gas on almost 100 Iranians and 
Kurds in Haji Uman.
  From October through November of that same year, he used mustard gas 
on 3,000 Iranians and Kurds in Panjwin.
  One year later on Manjoon Island, Saddam again used mustard gas on 
2,500 Iranians.
  Simultaneously, he used the nerve agent tabun on 50 to 100 Iranians 
in Al Basrah.
  A year later, in March of 1985, mustard and tabun were used in 
Hawizah Marsh on 3,000 Iranians.
  February of 1986 in Al-Faw, mustard and tabun were used against 8,000 
to 10,000 Iranians.
  Later in 1986 in Urn ar-Rasas, mustard gas was used against thousands 
of Iranians.
  Then in April of 1987 at Al-Basrah, mustard and tabun were used on 
3,000 Iranians.
  Later that year, mustard and a nerve agent were used in Sumar/Mehran 
on 5,000 Iranians.
  In March of 1988, mustard and a nerve agent were used on thousands of 
Iranians and Kurds in Halabjah and Kurdish areas respectively.
  One month later, Al-Faw again sees destruction when mustard and a 
nerve agent were used on thousands of Iranians.
  One month after that, Fish Lake sees hundreds or thousands of 
Iranians succumb to mustard or a nerve agent.
  In June of 1988, Manjoon Island was attacked with mustard and nerve 
agent, this time hundreds or thousands were affected.
  July of that year, the chemical agents were again used along the 
South-central border with the same effect.
  One month later in Haij Urnran, mustard gas was used on less than 100 
Kurds.
  And finally, in March of 1991 in the An-Najaf-Karbala area, nerve 
agent was yet again used by Hussein's regime.
  These attacks demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt Saddam Hussein's 
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against not only his 
foreign enemies, but even his own citizens.
  Now, let us remember that the intelligence community around the world 
continued to assert that Iraq under Saddam Hussein continued to pursue 
the means to produce and deploy weapons of mass destruction. It would 
have been irresponsible--in light of Saddam's record of using these 
weapons--to ignore these intelligence warnings. And I might also add 
that in the wake of these intelligence shortcomings and in response to 
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the House has taken 
concrete steps to improve our intelligence gathering and analytical 
capabilities.
  Three years ago when I addressed this House on the resolution 
authorizing the use of force against Iraq, I said, ``while I do not 
find sufficient evidence to establish a concrete link between Iraq and 
the al-Qaeda terrorist that committed the terrorist acts of September 
11th, the fact remains that Iraq continues to sponsor terrorists with 
global reach.''
  I think this analysis holds true today. To use the words of British 
Prime Minister Tony Blair, ``September 11 was not an isolated event but 
a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be 
set upon this stage before it's over.''
  Let us remember--Iraq had been labeled a State Sponsor of Terrorism 
by both the current Bush Administration as well as the Clinton 
Administration. Removing this breeding ground of terrorism was and is 
in this country's best interest.
  Furthermore, Saddam demonstrated a complete disregard for his 
international obligations. Over the course of more than a decade, he 
willfully violated or simply ignored 17 U.N. Security Council 
Resolutions. He attempted to assassinate our former President, and he 
continually violated the peace treaty that he signed to end the first 
Gulf War. And let us not forget that Saddam also invaded two of his 
sovereign neighbors.
  Saddam Hussein's blatant disregard for basic human rights was well-
documented. He used fear arid intimidation to retain his grip on power, 
and his henchmen employed torture, rape, murder and a host of other 
unspeakable crimes to keep the Iraqi populace under his tyrannical 
control. I think it is again worth reminding my colleagues that these 
evil individuals no longer control Iraq, and Saddam finds himself on 
trial before his fellow Iraqis for crimes against his own people.
  I believe that history will excuse the errors in our intelligence 
about weapons of mass destruction and reach a common-sense conclusion--
military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power was justified, and 
the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein in a jail cell.
  The storm clouds were gathering in Iraq. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
said in his 1941 State of the Union Address, ``when the dictators . . . 
are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on 
our part . . . they--not we--will choose the time and the place and the 
method of their attack.'' The wisdom of President Franklin Roosevelt 
still rings true today. It would have been a grave mistake to dismiss 
or ignore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
  Our actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan were in response to the global 
threat we faced from state sponsors of terror that harbored and 
assisted our enemies. And whether you supported or opposed military 
action in Afghanistan and the use of force in Iraq, the fact of the 
matter is that we now have troops in the field working diligently to 
help fledgling democracies take hold in the Middle East. The world is 
watching, and we must remain committed to our principles and our 
mission. And we have a duty to stand behind our troops.
  It is in our national security interests for the seeds of democracy 
take hold in Iraq. And we must continue to train and assist Iraqis to 
provide for their own security. A significant step towards the goal of 
a free, peaceful and independent Iraq will be the development of 
security forces, composed of and led by Iraqis, that

[[Page 11518]]

is firmly under the direction and control of the freely elected 
government.
  Ultimately, success will be achieved when Iraq is a stable country 
that is no longer a threat to the region or global security, a 
peaceable country that respects the rights of its citizens and its 
neighbors.
  This is a difficult but worthwhile endeavor. And we are making 
tangible progress.
  Iraqi security forces are growing in number and taking more 
responsibility for internal security. We have now trained more than 
240,000 security forces, and these men and even some women are now 
beginning to take the lead in the fight against terrorist insurgents. 
Indigenous personnel and intelligence assets played a key role in the 
successful mission that led to the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, 
al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq.
  Democracy is taking root in Iraq. The Iraqi people have approved what 
is arguably the most progressive constitution in the Arab world, and 
last December, 75 percent of voting age Iraqis freely elected their new 
government. Iraq now has a new Prime Minister, Jawad al-Maliki, and the 
Prime Minister has filled all of the positions in his cabinet. The new 
government is a representative cross-section of Iraq's diverse 
religious and ethnic populations.
  Things are moving forward on the economic front. In 2005, the Iraqi 
economy grew by an estimated 2.6 percent in real terms and the 
International Monetary Fund has estimated that it will grow by more 
than 10 percent this year. Foreign and domestic banks are opening new 
offices in Iraq and a stock market has been established. Vital 
infrastructure--schools, hospitals, fire stations and the like--
continues to come online.
  Progress in Iraq has been slow, but it is happening, and slowly but 
surely, things are moving in the right direction.
  It has been suggested by some in this Chamber that we should either 
immediately remove our troops from Iraq or set artificial timelines for 
withdrawal. Like all Americans, I want our troops to return as soon as 
is possible. But I think it would be short-sighted to withdraw our 
military until stability has been established in Iraq. A premature 
withdrawal would waste the sacrifice of those who have worked so hard 
to promote freedom in the heart of the Middle East.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for 2006 stated that ``2006 
should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty 
with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free 
and sovereign Iraq.'' I agree with this language.
  However, the job now is not finished. Iraqi security forces are not 
ready to counter all of the threats that are facing Iraq and cannot 
secure their country on their own. If we made the ill-fated decision to 
turn our backs on the Iraqi people, we would doom their brief 
experience with democracy and risk creating a lawless safe-haven for 
terrorists.
  Our enemies know what is at stake in Iraq. Al-Qaeda views Iraq as the 
frontline in their efforts to combat the spread of democracy in the 
Middle East. They realize that our success in Iraq is a direct threat 
to their ideology of fear and hate. To walk away now from our mission 
in Iraq would be portrayed in the Arab World as a significant victory 
for al-Qaeda. It would draw into question or commitment to our allies 
in the region and our commitment to the very principles upon which our 
Nation is based.
  Like all Americans, I want our troops home as soon as possible. And 
we as Congress have a constitutional obligation to weigh-in on this 
effort and ensure that our Nation's policy is consistent with a goal of 
achieving victory in Iraq. And as appealing as an immediate withdrawal 
may be to certain segments of our society, I think it would be 
irresponsible for Congress to turn our back on our obligations and call 
for the removal of troops from Iraq before the mission has been 
accomplished. And as a matter of fairness, the embrace of a ``cut and 
run'' approach to Iraq would waste the sacrifice of thousands of 
American troops who have served in Iraq.
  Since September 11, 2001, we have not had a major terrorist attack on 
American soil, despite the clear desire of our enemy to again strike us 
here at home. We have terminated or captured dangerous terrorists 
around the globe, disrupted their financing, and denied them safe-
haven. We should be proud of these accomplishments, but remain vigilant 
in recognizing that more work remains.
  God willing, we will prevail in this struggle. May God bless the 
United States, and God bless the soldiers that defend it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 868, further 
proceedings on the resolution will be postponed.

                          ____________________