Expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 104) expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed Forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration pursuant to the following order:

Debate on the concurrent resolution shall be limited to 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by myself and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption, without intervening motion or demand for a division of the question.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman asking me if I am aware that the other body passed a resolution?

Yes.

That is true.

If the gentleman will yield further, yes, we would be open to including it.

Mr. Speaker, I would retract that and tell the gentleman that I would not be open to that. Would the gentleman yield further?

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise the gentleman that I read not only the resolution that was offered by the other body in 1991, but

also our resolution. We had a different resolution at that point, also.

I would just say to the gentleman that I think that the Members of this body have made a very fine statement, a very heartfelt statement commending our troops. I think it says the right thing. I applaud the gentleman for other things that he would like to see in a resolution. I think reasonable minds can differ.

I would hope that the gentleman would, in the spirit of bipartisan support for people that wear the uniform of the United States, not ask us to have precisely the same words as the other body, and simply spend a few minutes and go home. I would hope the gentleman would allow us to have our own resolution to express our own heartfelt support for those people, and let this body work its will.

No.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman that we have some excellent commendations in this particular resolution.

Let me finish my statement, if I might.

We commend the President as Commander in Chief. That is something we did in 1991. Under the Constitution, he leads this military force. We commend the Members of the United States Armed Forces. We commend the families. We give them our sincere gratitude and appreciation.

I would think that any Member reading this resolution, and I would ask all Members to read it since the gentleman has called it into question, would agree that this resolution is an excellent resolution, and that it does all the things that we want to do. It would lead us all to wonder why the gentleman somehow wants it to say something else or follow some other example. It does not make a lot of sense.

I will look forward to that.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman and to the gentleman who just spoke, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform putting themselves in very difficult positions for our freedom tonight. If they are watching this procedure, they are probably wondering, what in the heck are those guys doing? We have a commending vehicle.

I guess what I am saying is the answer is no to the gentleman from Ohio.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, first, that restates the President's letter.

Second, a second point I would make to the gentleman is that we have been working, Democrats and Republicans, to put this resolution together. My colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, has been working on it. The gentleman's leadership has been working on it. The product that we have before us is a product of both sides.

I would just say to the gentleman if he has a disagreement with it and he thinks that it does not state his position, I would urge the gentleman to take time in this debate in the next several hours and explain his position; but nonetheless, let the rest of us in this House work our will and give our commendation to the troops. Obviously, we would all write it differently.

I look forward to the gentleman's statement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I rise today, this country is embarked on a very noble endeavor. Last evening, military forces of the United States and our coalition allies commenced military operations to liberate the country of Iraq.

This is indeed a historic moment. Operation Iraqi Freedom marks the culmination of nearly 13 years of U.S. action in Iraq. Commencing with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, through Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, through the coalition enforcement of the northern and southern no-fly zones, to Operation Desert Fox and beyond, the United States and our allies have for over a decade been required to deal with the deceit, brutality and duplicity of Saddam Hussein, both diplomatically and militarily.

Today Saddam's moment of truth has arrived. The path to his downfall began

when the Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, making it the policy of this Nation to support efforts to remove Saddam's regime from power and to promote a democratic government in Iraq. It continued last fall when Congress passed and President Bush signed House Joint Resolution 114 authorizing the use of military force in Iraq should it become necessary.

Since the passage of that resolution, President Bush has undertaken herculean efforts to avoid a conflict. The President aggressively pursued the unanimous passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, calling for Iraq to disarm or face grave consequences. Subsequently, the President has exhausted every diplomatic means available to make the United Nations Security Council enforce 1441 to no avail.

Today, the time for diplomacy has passed.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today does three things. First, it expresses the support and appreciation of our Nation to the President for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of the military operations currently underway in Iraq. It is because of his wisdom and judgment that Iraq will soon be a free Nation, a Nation without weapons of mass destruction, a Nation that will become a full and peaceful participant in the international community.

Second, this resolution expresses the support and appreciation of a Nation to our men and women in uniform. A few short weeks ago, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I brought forward H.J. Res. 27 commending the members of our Armed Forces and their families for the dedication to duty and service to country that they demonstrate each and every day around the world. Today we bring forward this resolution to show our support, admiration and thanks for the nearly 230,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Because of their dedication and devotion to duty, Operation Iraqi Freedom will be a success.

Finally, this resolution expresses support for the families who wait at home for their loved ones who have undertaken this mission. Without the love and support of the families, our military personnel could not focus on the serious task at hand in Iraq, and I want to express a special thanks to the families of those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their sacrifice will not be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to show our support for our men and women in uniform by supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all the members of our Committee on Armed Services, Republican and Democrat, who work every day to support the people in uniform who are protecting American freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, this great instrument of freedom, our Armed Forces, have saved the world and liberated hundreds of millions of people in three major conflicts, World War I, World War II and, of course, the Cold War that involved several smaller wars, smaller battles, that I call Vietnam and Korea, and we have liberated hundreds of millions of people.

The real product of our Army and our Navy and our Marine Corps and our Air Force is freedom, and shortly we are going to be liberating 23 million more people, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in that great book about Korea, it was called the Bridges of Toko-Ri, by James Michener, if my colleagues have read that book, watched that movie, they may recall that the hero was a carrier pilot, flew out and hit a set of bridges in Toko-Ri that they had gone after day after day and lost a lot of people, and in the end that pilot did not come back. The commander of that carrier air group stood on the deck of the carrier when it was clear he would not return and neither would those people who were sent out to rescue him, and he asked, where does America get these people who will join the U.S. Armed Forces and put themselves in a very dangerous position, in this case go off on a mission, fly into enemy territory, hit a very heavily defended target and come back and try to find that little postage stamp called an American aircraft carrier? Then he answered his own question: They come from the cities and the towns and the villages of this country, and they always have, and as long as they continue to come, we are going to be a free Nation.

Mr. Speaker, one of those people comes from Shelbina, Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who was the top gun in Vietnam, nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a guy whose heart always travels with people that wear the uniform of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a guy who works every day on behalf of folks in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who was a fighter pilot in the Persian Gulf and in Vietnam.

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his great service to the Committee on Armed Services.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), another gentleman with great military expertise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), a gentleman with great experience in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his great work on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who was a distinguished Marine rifleman in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

(Mr. PEARCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), who has a son in the United States Navy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

(Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services, that I would hope that the gentleman would discourage Members like the Member who just spoke from using this time when we are supposed to be commending our troops from demeaning other Members of this House.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. I had hoped that this time, that this resolution which was brought forward this evening would bring us together as a House, and perhaps after having some partisan work and working on a policy, budget policy, which often divides us, we would come together and find some common ground in commending our troops and commending our President.

I think anybody who must be watching this from overseas must be wondering at this point, what is in this resolution that so many Members have come out from the Democrat side to condemn? I thought it might be good to go through the resolution, because this resolution is extremely similar to the resolution that we passed in 1991 after we took our first action in Iraq.

What did we do here? The whereas clauses talk about the fact that there was an Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 in which we stated it would be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. That vote passed, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly, Democrat and Republican. It also states that on October 16, 2002, the President signed into law House Joint Resolution 114 of the 107th Congress, the authorization, and I would say this clearly for my colleagues, many of whom probably voted against this, but nonetheless it was the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that vote passed 296-133. It passed overwhelmingly. It passed more overwhelmingly than the vote that we passed in 1991.

So what was so wrong with this resolution? This resolution followed the law, the steps that we took under the law, under United Nations resolution and under our own law that brought us to the culmination of this event in which it was necessary for the United States to interject force into the Iraq theater. We talked about Security Council Resolution 1441, now well known to most Members of this body that voted unanimously that Iraq will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations to disarm in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions.

It also said that Iraq remained in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions. That was clearly stated by the reports that were adopted by the United Nations. It was in material breach, and Saddam Hussein is in material breach of his obligations.

So just like the resolution in 1991, we followed the law. We followed this trail of steps, very patient steps that the United States took, including acts that were signed by a Democrat President, stating that it was our policy to bring about a free Iraq. That is what we state in this resolution that you think is so poorly worded.

What else did we do? When you get down to the meat of the resolution, and we talk about what it actually says, let us go to the resolved clause. First I want to go to the resolved clause that we passed in 1991 regarding the President and the troops and their families. We said in 1991 that we acclaim the President for his decisive leadership, unerring judgment and sound decisions. We say in this resolution, Mr. Speaker, that we express our support and appreciation to the President as Commander in Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing global war on terrorism.

Now, many of the faces that I see here who are condemning this resolution were thanking Mr. Rumsfeld a few hours ago for the clear judgment that is being shown by this administration in prosecuting this war. I had many Members come up to me from the Democrat side who said he was doing the right thing. They said we were lucky to have a person of that capability. We are lucky to have a team like this team that President George Bush has put together. So we commended our President because he is the Commander in Chief. We commended him in 1991. We commend him tonight.

What else did we do? In 1991 we expressed our highest commendation and sincerest appreciation to the members of the United States Armed Forces and other members of the international coalition who participated in Operation Desert Storm and have demonstrated exceptional bravery, dedication and professionalism.

Where is the trick language in this that you object to so much?

And what did we do in this resolution? We said that we express our appreciation ``to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom,'' the present operation, ``who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery.'' Where is the trick language there? Where is the double meaning?

Now we go to the families, and we say in this resolution ``to the families of the United States military personnel

serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in military operations in Iraq.'' We give the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation. That is what we do in this.

What did we do in 1991? We said almost the same thing, and we conveyed our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families and friends of the United States and coalition forces who had been injured or killed during that operation.

So, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is extremely similar to the resolution that we passed in 1991, I might add, with a Democrat Congress, those words that I read to you about the President exercising unerring judgment even though many of the Democratic leadership had voted against this operation in a much closer vote, incidentally, than the vote to allow force that we took this fall. So they talked about his judgment, and many of them have talked privately about his good judgment in the present operation when we are referring to the present President.

The President and his team have done an excellent job. So maybe what we are really talking about is the cause. The many Members who I think did not represent a majority of the Democrat Party who came out here could have worked this resolution if they wanted it to say we do not really believe in the cause, but I do not think a majority of the Democrat Party wanted to say that because I do not think they believe it. I think they do believe in the cause. Do the Members know something else, Mr. Speaker? I think the people we are commending that we have been talking about all night believe in this cause, and maybe that is the difference between those people, those people wearing the uniform of the United States, and the people who wanted to use this forum to continue to debate this policy.

The facts are this body believes in this cause. We have given permission to the President to use our most valuable asset, our most precious resource, our Armed Forces, to ensure that this just cause is carried out. And, Mr. Speaker, since we have all given our foreign policy statements here tonight, maybe we should listen to the foreign policy statement of a Marine leader just before he took his people across that line, and I want to read a statement that was issued to every member of the First Marine Division before they went into operation today. It comes from the commanding general, J.N. Mattis, and this is what he states. Even though I am sure some Members of the other side could take exception to his language, this is his position:

``For decades Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped, and murdered the Iraqi people, invaded neighboring countries without provocation, and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind.

``When I give you the word, together we will cross the line of departure close with those forces that choose to fight and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people nor is it with members of the Iraqi Army who choose to surrender. While we move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.

``Chemical attack, treachery, and the use of the innocent as human shields can be expected as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted. Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in the best interests of our Nation.

``You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and a strong spirit.

``For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles, who fought for life and never lost their nerve, carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world that there is `No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a United States Marine.''

Ladies and gentlemen, those people that wear the uniform do not have the disagreement with this resolution that so many Members from the other side had tonight. They know this is a good cause. They believe in this cause. They share this cause. They also believe that they have a great President leading them.

May God bless them. May God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, we gather here for a well-deserved tribute to our troops in the Middle East. Yet just before this, we were debating the President's budget which cruelly cut $25 billion of veterans benefits, including disabled veterans. Is this how Republicans would honor those who have made great sacrifices in defense of our country? Is that how they would boost the morale of our current troops? Every major veterans organization has denounced these cuts as unconscionable, but now the pending business before us is a little bit different.

So I rise to reject these efforts to piggyback support for President Bush's dangerous policies on to a simple, but deserved, resolution supporting our troops. I trust the American people to see through this attempt to coerce endorsement of his ``preventive war'' doctrine.

I fully support our troops and offer my prayers for their safe return. I am an Army veteran myself; I care deeply about their well- being. And precisely for that reason, I cannot in good conscience vote for tonight's resolution, a carefully crafted document to force endorsement of President Bush's doctrine of preventive war, allowing him to attack countries whenever or wherever he chooses. I will not provide support for such a dangerous doctrine.

For years to come, it will unnecessarily put current and future members of our Armed Forces in harm's way, even when our national security is not really threatened.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush is about to unleash the dogs of war. He has set the clock ticking toward an unprecedented barrage of destruction dropped on a city of 6 million human beings. The barrage is oddly named the days of ``shock and awe.'' All Americans who hold human life precious should watch the clock run down, not with ``awe'' but with fear and trembling. The sad truth is that we are lurching towards an unnecessary war that President Bush seems determined to launch.

Apparently, therefore, the brave young men and women of our Armed Forces are about to head into harm's way. We all offer them our support as they try to do their duty, and we send our prayers for their safe return. But we must also be faithful to our duty, a duty entrusted exclusively to the Congress by our Founding Fathers. That is the solemn duty to decide whether the United States should go to war.

The Constitution's framers emphatically entrusted that decision to the Congress alone. They were adamant that the Executive not play a role--although once war began the Executive is the Commander-in-Chief to implement that decision. The Framers were so intent on excluding the President that they rejected an offer to share the power to declare war between the Congress and the Executive.

I know that President Bush, and many of my colleagues believe that the Congress properly authorized war against Iraq last Fall, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I respectfully disagree. We have not performed our duty yet. Last fall Congress enacted a resolution that generally authorized the president to fight terrorism and to seek enforcement of previous U.N. Resolutions on Iraq. But in reality, that resolution bucked the duty constitutionally conferred on Congress to the President. It let the President decide to choose when and where and against whom to start a war. In short, it dodged the decision and sought to delegate an authority that may not be delegated.

The administration's supporters argue that legal precedents allow the Congress to provide an authorization of war that is functionally equivalent to the now rarely-used formal Declaration of War. That entirely misses the point. It is not the format which is at issue; it is ``who decides?''

It was clear, at that time, from the congressional debate, from Executive Branch statements, and from the resolution itself that the diplomatic route would be pursued first, by going through the U.N. Subsequently, in response to a broad national consensus, the U.S. spearheaded U.N. Security Council passage of Resolution 1441 that imposed a new inspection regime. In other words, it was clear last fall that the decision of whether to declare war was being put off for a later date.

In the months since then, it has become increasingly clear that the decision on going to war would turn on two crucial assessments. The first would be an assessment of the results of that inspection program.

The second assessment, and the ultimate judgment, would require weighing the implications of the inspection results and other information about what threat Iraq poses to the U.S. against the full costs--fiscal, diplomatic, casualties and increased terrorism--of going to war. Clearly these are not military judgments for a Commander-in- Chief. They are precisely the kind of complex national policy judgments that the Founding Fathers conferred on the Congress in matters of war and peace.

Yet in the present circumstances, the Congress has abdicated any role in that fateful decision. The entire world has been riveted on whether the American President would decide to declare war against Iraq. President Bush has brazenly told journalists and Members of Congress alike that it is his decision, and his decision alone. This is a perversion of the Constitution.

Even if one argues that Congress properly exercised its constitutional duties, and that the President thereby has all necessary authority to start a war the fundamental questions remain. ``Why war?'' ``Why now?'' And most importantly, ``Will waging war in Iraq make us more secure or less secure?''

Bush's war would have disastrous consequences for every American. War is about devastation, destruction and death. The American people are not bloodthirsty. We want war only if our country is in imminent danger. Otherwise, a war's human and economic costs are too great. The human devastation of death, injury and destruction is obvious. In addition, it will rob us of resources urgently needed by America's working families and less fortunate.

Even in terms of national security, an all-out war will rob Americans of hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the first line of defense in homeland security, on which we have made far too little progress since the tragedy of 9/11. As the President repeats his unverified mantra of ``threats to national security,'' cities across this land are laying off police, firemen, and emergency medical services teams--the so-call ``first responders'' to any new terrorist attack. They must do so because this Administration's ``first response'' to empty city treasuries across America has been one word: ``Tough.''

This is not merely a partisan spat, nor a Washington insiders' policy dispute. The citizens' crusade to stop an immoral war in Iraq has been nothing less than a noble struggle for our Nation's soul. Thus far, that struggle has not succeeded. But we will not give up. We must commit ourselves to stopping hostilities and re-weaving the torn fabric of international organizations with the same dedication and urgency with which we strove to stop segregation and the Vietnam war, and finally brought our Government to its senses.

President Bush repeatedly insists that for him ``war is a last resort.'' But his actions reveal that war was really his first choice, all along. His attempts to make it politically palatable by badgering, bullying and bribing countries into a counterfeit coalition have been a mere fig leaf transparent to the entire world.

President Bush has failed to present compelling evidence that Iraq currently is a threat to our national security. One rationale after another has been disproved. The President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense have presented a kaleidoscope of ever-changing rationale as they tried to stay one jump ahead of ``truth squads'' exposing their disinformation--at the U.N., among skeptical Members of Congress and the media, and even in their own intelligence agencies.

Americans have readily borne the burden of war when attacked or actually threatened. But America cannot, in good conscience, start a war so costly in blood and treasure simply on the basis of circumstantial evidence and speculation that, sometime in the unspecified future, Iraq may present an actual threat to the U.S.

Bush's war against Iraq is:

A war that will devastate a country of 26 million and cause damage that will take years to undo;

A war that will see many American casualties, and that could fracture our fragile economy;

A war that will destabilize the Middle East;

A war that will swell the ranks of terrorist recruits;

A war that will weaken our fight against terrorism, at home and abroad, and that will cost billions of dollars desperately needed for programs in Detroit and other cities;

A war that will set a terrible precedent, in a world of growing numbers of nuclear states, for any country to launch a preventive war against opponents deemed a possible future threat; and

A war not really wanted by the American people, our military commanders or our allies.

Worst of all, it is a war that, as the CIA admits, will only make it more likely that Saddam would unleash whatever unconventional weapons he does have against our troops, Israel and our other allies. There is no evidence Saddam seeks to commit suicide. We deterred him from using weapons of mass destruction during Desert Storm. If he faces destruction, however, Saddam may well seek to play Sampson and pull down the Temple for lethal revenge.

Last weekend, several of the Nation's leading newspapers seemed to suddenly discover all of these grave costs of war in Iraq. Article after article reported with an air of sudden discovery that:

The war would drastically increase the likelihood of Saddam's using weapons of mass destruction;

That it would almost certainly escalate dramatically terrorist attacks against Americans;

That many U.S. military commanders feared it would undermine the real war against terrorism;

That their could be extensive casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians; and

That, even following a quick ``military victory'' against Saddam, we could be mired in

an Iraqi quicksand of tribal feuds and guerrilla warfare for years.

I took cold comfort from the irony of the media's belated ``discoveries.'' It would have been far more useful to their readers if the media had discovered this costly side of the war ledger months earlier. Instead, like the Administration, most media coverage focused only on whether, absent other concerns, it was desirable to prevent Saddam's pursuit of armaments and remove his regime--as if there were no competing costs on the other side of the ledger to be carefully weighed in deciding whether war would be a net plus for America.

There is still time for President Bush to avoid starting the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. There is still time--but precious little time--for the American people to speak out against a war that few of them support. If the war commences, there is time for it to be brought to a rapid end and areversion to diplomatic efforts and enhanced inspections.

We should remember the warning of General Anthony Zinni. A distinguished Marine Commandant and head of U.S. Central Command, which guards the Middle East, Zinni reminded us that military commanders know the full horrors of war and hesitate to plunge ahead unless the national interest is clearly at stake. On the other hand, Zinni warned, those who have never worn a uniform or seen combat often are the quickest to beat the drums of war.

Those are harsh words. The administration will condemn whoever utters them as partisan and unpatriotic--just as the Johnson White House condemned King's questioning of Vietnam. The Bush team has already spread that slander, in order to stop erosion of support for the war as the public learns the truth. Are the military veterans and retired generals opposed to this war unpatriotic? Are families of those who were killed on 9/11 and who oppose this war partisan? That is outrageous.

I know many of my colleagues have in good faith been convinced that Iraq is a threat to us now. But they have been the target of a Niagara of propaganda, especially the Vice President's early insistence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that Saddam had nuclear weapons now-- both of which claims have long been disavowed by our intelligence community. Many other assertions and premises used by the administration to ``market their product,'' in the revealing phrase of the White House Chief of staff, have crumbled under close scrutiny.

I would ask my colleagues who support the war to reconsider their view in light of these facts:

Almost the entire world is strongly against this war; this includes the majority of the citizens of even those countries formally part of the ``coalition'';

Every major city in America has gone on record against this war;

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, almost every major Protestant denomination, the American Labor movement and the NAACP are against this war;

Leading retired U.S. military commanders such as General Zinni, and General Schwarzkopf--in his original unvarnished views--have voiced opposition to this war;

Numerous active duty generals have told reporters off the record of their concerns about a war against Iraq; and

General Scowcroft, who was also President George Herbert Walker Bush's National Security Advisory is against this war.

And all of this opposition has arisen even before the war has started--an unprecedented phenomenon in human history. In view of these facts, I ask whether it is just possible that there is something amiss with the President's premises with his logic, and with his rejection of further effort to resolve the issues peacefully.

I urge my colleague to reflect on these powerful facts and join me in pressing President Bush to find another way--to follow the path of peace. As the Bible teaches, ``Blessed are the Peacemakers.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a solemn moment for this body. We are here this evening representing Americans all across our land, and we are here to say on their behalf thank you to the young men and women who wear the uniform today, just as those veterans have done in yesteryear.

I appreciate the Speaker mentioning to this body that our colleague and friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has been called to Active Duty. We will remember him in our thoughts and prayers, just like we do every soldier, sailor, airman and marine who represents us in this struggle for freedom and the end of a regime that could cause great harm to the free world.

It is too bad that we have to have a resolution for our young men and women when they are in danger. Maybe we ought to pass one when there is a time for peace, when there is no conflict or a threat of conflict. It was the British poet Rudyard Kipling that put it so well in his poem ``Tommy'' when he said, It's Tommy this and Tommy that and throw them out the brute, but savior of his country when the guns begin to shoot.

I think we should show respect and thanks and appreciation to those who wear the uniform, who are trained daily, working daily, and, when they are called upon as they are now, be ready.

So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my good friend and chairman, for his efforts. We have worked so well, as we did on a previous resolution just a few days ago, and sadly, the process by which we find ourselves here tonight has not met with full understanding. Nevertheless, we are here to commend those troops for what they are about to do and what they are doing on the field of battle this evening.

We unite as Americans in support of our troops, who are the truest expression of what this country stands for: courage, strength, compassion. They are the finest sons, daughters we have to offer the world as defenders of freedom, both in the United States of America, for the Iraqi people, as well as for those who love freedom across this globe.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. We will have a number of speakers, and as a result thereof, I will cut my remarks short, and I thank the gentleman from California for his efforts in this behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the new Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), who is a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

(Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), an Army veteran and distinguished Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

May I inquire of the Chair how many minutes we have remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I mentioned earlier in the evening, this is a solemn moment. I wish I had the eloquence of diction to sway everyone within hearing distance to vote for this resolution. However, in my mind it is one that speaks loudly and clearly about the young men and young women who wear the uniform today, many of whom will be in harm's way very soon. They are all not Active Duty. We have 212,000 National Guard and reservists called up; 26,000 are in the Gulf area. Our hearts and thoughts are with them.

Earlier in the evening the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) quoted that famous poem that came out of the First World War, Flanders Fields. Part of that poem reads:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Every generation, it seems, has thrown the torch of freedom to hold it high. The generation today that stands guard for Americans wherever they may be, fighting terrorists or in the Gulf, are the ones that are holding that torch high today. We salute them and thank them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone in this body to support this resolution. I give a special thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman, a veteran of the Army, the Vietnam conflict, for his courtesy and help in putting this resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his eloquent statement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Some discussion has been held tonight regarding foreign policy. Let me say my foreign policy. I speak of the valor and the courage and the dedication of young men and young women who are protecting freedom and safety of our country and of the free world, whether they be on the outskirts of Iraq or in Afghanistan or wherever they may be in this world. I hope everyone will see themselves clear to support and vote for this resolution so we can say thanks to those brave souls of America. We have lost some, as was recently said this evening, whose families will grieve, but it is for us to carry on and say thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the great Roman orator once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues, and I hope tonight by this vote we can express our gratitude and exhibit that virtue by voting for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, has rightly reminded us tonight of the events of 9/11. I think all of us remember the time that we stood together singing ``God bless America'' on the steps of this Capitol, unified in recognizing that what is involved here is bigger than us as individuals or as political parties, and how we joined with near unanimity in supporting the President on the war on terrorism.

Thanks to the good efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we did this once again about 10 days ago, when he offered his resolution, H.J. Res. 27, ``commending the continuing dedication, selfless service, and commitment of members of the Armed Forces and their families during the Global War on Terrorism.'' At that time I rose, along with many colleagues, to support that resolution honoring our service members and to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for an effort that brought us together, rather than splitting us apart.

I doubt that we can offer too many resolutions for our servicemen and servicewomen, so I understand the gentleman's interest in offering a further resolution tonight. I would like nothing more than to see a similar unanimous vote in support of that resolution.

I would ask the gentleman under my reservation, since we have not yet even had this resolution printed for our review, if he is familiar with a resolution commending our troops that was authored by Senators Frist and Warner and Senators Daschle and Levin, and which was passed unanimously today in the United States Senate?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Yes.

Is it correct that the gentleman's resolution is not the same as resolution S. Con. Res. 26?

I believe the gentleman's resolution omits clause 5 of Senate resolution S. Con. Res. 26, which says that the Congress ``joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and those still missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher of the United States Navy''.

Would the gentleman be open to amending his resolution to include that language from clause 5 of the Senate Con. Res. 26?

The gentleman would be open to including that language?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to add clause 5 of the Senate version, S. Con. Res. 26.

Let me just ask, and then I will be very brief, because I know it is late and the gentleman wishes to proceed.

The Senate, I am sure, acted, and not every word did I agree with, but they did act unanimously. It was good enough for the majority leader, Senator Frist and Senator Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Could we not dispense with this debate and simply take up, with the gentleman's approval, the entire Senate resolution and adopt it, and have every one of us saying not only the same thing in this House chamber but saying the same thing throughout the Capitol, that with one voice, we, the House and Senate, approve and applaud and support our troops?

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman. Continuing under my reservation very briefly, it just seems to me we have heard so much about the need for us to speak with one voice that we could speak with one voice and do it promptly by taking verbatim what was good enough for Senators Frist and Warner.

But let me ask the gentleman one other question, since he talks about acting with unanimity. The gentleman has three enacting clauses in his resolution. Clause two commends the Members of the United States Armed Forces; Clause three commends their families. I think there is unanimous agreement for both of these.

Would the gentleman be open under his unanimous consent agreement to our proceeding now by unanimous consent to approve those two clauses, so that we could concentrate our debate in the only area that we have any difference, which are the words that the gentleman uses to approve the President's action with his first-strike policy in clause one?

Just one final question. The draft of this resolution, and I know there have been changes going on all night, but the draft that we Democrats were asked to approve late this afternoon was a little like the President's recent budget on Afghanistan, which he forgot to fund. The resolution draft we were offered as praising the troops largely forgot the troops.

I was wondering if the gentleman would have any objection to my putting into the Record the resolution draft that we were given this afternoon and asked to approve, which did not include in the ``whereas'' clauses much of anything about our servicemembers other than the first and last paragraphs. Most all of it seems to be about the President.

Added at our request, for the troops.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I will save the rest of my remarks for the debate.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, this type of unanimous consent request, which seeks only to place in the Record the draft of the resolution we Democrats were asked to concur in this afternoon, that it might be made part of the record so all could see it.

Mr. Speaker, it being apparent that the decision of 99 Members of the United States Senate is inadequate for some in this House, that they will not accept even placing in the Record at this point, at a very appropriate and proper point, the resolution they offered us, which treated the troops almost as an afterthought, since the goal was not to applaud the troops but the President; and recognizing their refusal to let us approve now unanimously what we all agreed to, that the Members of the Armed Forces and their families deserve commendation, even if we disagree with the civilian, political decision to institute a new first-strike policy, which will actually endanger our families, I recognize little ability to reach unanimity; and I will raise the rest of my concerns about the Administration's unfortunate new policy, which places so many in harm's way, in the course of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

For the sacrifices of our sons and daughters in uniform and that of their families, no mere resolution or series of resolutions suffices to express our gratitude.

Because the support for our troops is so very strong and the justification for the administration's reckless first-strike doctrine is so very weak, this resolution relies on the pride that all of us feel for our troops in order to carry this weak policy, this faulty and unworthy policy that is so faulty it cannot stand on its own merits, it has to be clumped with the sacrifices of the men and women who serve America tonight in the Persian Gulf.

Just as this administration has failed completely to provide the slightest

link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, this resolution mistakenly links the invasion of Iraq to the war on terrorism. I support that war. I recognize that containment and disarmament may not end all wars, but they are clearly superior to the new first-strike policy that risks wars without end.

This resolution could have been the one the Senate adopted today by 99 votes. It was good enough for Majority Leader Frist, it was good enough for John Warner, but it did not go to the extremes that our colleagues want.

We could have all accepted my request that we approve by unanimous consent support for our troops and families, but they did not have that in mind. They want this back-door approval. We will not be intimidated into silence. If we were to do that, we would be abandoning the very democracy we are pledged to serve and that they tonight defend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Even though the hour is late, Members are willing to stay here because it is so important for the House of Representatives to express our support for our men and women in uniform, our troops in harm's way now, and as the minority leader said, those troops anywhere in the world and at home. And also to support their families for the sacrifices that they are making. It is tough on the families, probably tougher on the families than any other people. We are also here to commend the President for his strong leadership in bringing us to where we are today.

Our men and women in uniform need to understand why they are fighting and why they are risking their lives, and understand that this House supports them in that because in order to risk their lives, they have to understand that they are doing it for the right reasons.

Last night began a challenging time for our country as our Armed Forces went on the march against tyranny. It also signaled the time for our country to come together with singleness of purpose and speak with a single voice.

Under our Constitution, America speaks through the United States Congress, and last year we spoke out boldly and strongly from both political parties. We let the world know that the defenders of freedom are not going to allow the world's leading purveyor and practitioner of terror continue to spread his grip of fear.

Today, Congress is set to speak again for the American people. We want to honor the men and women of our Armed Forces who are conducting their mission with the utmost honor and courage as they defend our democracy.

We salute every person taking risks to confront terrorism and tyranny to expand the frontiers of freedom, and we salute the President for showing the world the power of strong, moral leadership.

We know that Saddam Hussein is seeking the means to murder millions in just a single moment, and he is consumed with hatred for America. We know that the war on terrorism will be fought here at home unless we summon the will to confront evil before it attacks. Free democratic nations must be willing to stop his evil aspirations. He is not a man with whom we can confer, consult, or convince. He is not a man we can trust. He has violated 17 United Nations resolutions. He is in material breach of multiple U.N. resolutions, and he has ignored the final ultimatum by the President of the United States.

Saddam Hussein once agreed to end his missile program. He agreed to stop building chemical weapons. He agreed to stop developing biological weapons. He agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to stop brutalizing and oppressing his people. He agreed to do many, many other things; but every promise he made was a lie. Every agreement was a devious swindle. Every commitment was an expedient falsehood.

It was all a devilish strategy designed to escape accountability for past crimes and to buy the time to develop weapons for even greater crimes against humanity.

He turned the regime's resources to the awful purpose of developing terror weapons to spread the cruelty and oppression beyond his own borders. He welcomes terrorists to sanctuary and support within his own borders.

During the years that Saddam Hussein slow-walked the United Nations through his series of deceptions, his regime systematically brutalized the Iraqi people. He tortures children to punish their parents. He executes members of his government to enforce obedience. We can never know how many faceless victims have screamed out their last words to the uncaring ears of Saddam Hussein's torturers.

As a member of England's Labour Party recently laid out in chilling detail earlier this week, Saddam Hussein is a diabolical prodigy in the craft of evil. This member spoke of Iraqi citizens who witnessed men being forced into a machine intended to shred plastic. The men who went in head first were, in a tragic sense, the fortunate ones. The men who were sent to their death feet first, their final words were anguished screams for mercy. She told of women raped as Saddam Hussein's torturers made their husbands watch.

This is wickedness that by the grace of God the people of America will never know. We have not cornered the market on morality, but our policy of intervention to force an end to this evil is clearly a just cause, a worthy war and a principled stand.

Fortunately, President Bush is proceeding with courage and boldness. He is leading with moral clarity. He is fighting principled battles, and he is not backing down. We have to give President Bush our full support as he confronts this evil, and our men and women in uniform as they confront this evil.

This vote to support our Commander in Chief and our courageous troops in battle sends the right message that we are denying Saddam Hussein the power to take additional lives. We believe that in the teeth of terrorism, America must continue exporting the values, democratic institutions, and patterns of conduct that have built the strongest and fairest system of government and the most free society the world has ever seen.

We feel very deeply for all of the people trapped within autocratic regimes and born with repressive governments. And as defenders of freedom, we also owe the besieged people of Iraq the same hope we supplied to the people of Germany nearly 6 decades ago.

In the battle between freedom and terrorist tyranny, there is no middle ground. We look to the day, far off though it may be, when every person comes into this world with the full promise of their God-given rights upheld by the government of their birthplace. This is a bold vision and a noble goal, but the potential of the American people is not constrained by the timid boundaries of conventional thinking. We are called to far more than that. And due to the excellence and patriotism and bravery of our soldiers and their families, and the courage of the President with moral purpose, the liberation of Iraq has begun.

May God bless our President, may God bless our troops, may God bless our Nation.