To redeploy U. S. Forces from Iraq.

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

Somebody walked by not long ago, and they said, I do not have to go to your funeral because I paid my dues today with all these people giving these accolades.

I have to tell you this story. When you start getting all these accolades, you think you are a big shot. I remember one time President Carter asked me to go to the seventh game of the World Series with him. Tip O'Neill and I went down, and there were only 4 of us and 15 Secret Service people in the plane.

We got in this helicopter and, of course, flew over all these other people going to the ballgame. Well, Carter was not the most pleasant guy to be with. He wanted to talk all business, and Tip O'Neill wanted to talk nothing but baseball.

So we get about halfway there, and it is not a very long trip to Baltimore. Tip finally got him warmed up. We land, and we only land a block away from the stadium, but we had to have an armored car drive us in. So the President said, you sit in the middle there, Murtha, and Tip sat on the left side, and the President sat on the right side. Some guy yelled out some obscenities. He said, My God, they must have recognized Murtha in the car.

Let me say, this resolution today is not what I envisioned, not what I introduced, and let me read what I introduced on November 17.

``Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic government';

``Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft.''

Now, let me say this. There were two of us who voted for a military draft, so I do not think that is an option. When you go to the high schools, they say, you are for a draft. I said, yes, but there is not too many of us, and I do not think you have to worry about it.

``Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

``Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

``Whereas U.S. forces become the target of the insurgency;

``Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

``Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent,'' this is a British poll, but the Defense Department support this British poll or confirm this British poll, ``of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified.''

Hear what I am saying. Forty-five percent of the Iraqi people feel it is justified to attack Americans.

``Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action.''

I did not say anything about intelligence. I did not say anything about the President. All these statements that have been made vilifying me today did not say anything like that.

``Therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

``Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

``The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.''

That is what I said. I have never had in the 32 years that I have been in Congress such an outpouring from this country, four to one in my office. You cannot even call my office if you tried, an outpouring of people crying. People are thirsting for some direction. They are thirsting for a solution to this problem. They want to support the President. I want to support the President. Everybody does.

We put into place in the Appropriations Committee a criteria for success because we were so unhappy. This was in May. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I put a criteria for success in the bill, it was a Moran amendment, because we were not happy with the results. Nobody was talking to us. Nobody would tell us what was going on, and we felt it was absolutely necessary that we put this into writing.

I went to Iraq about 2 months ago, and I talked to the commanders, and all of you know the commanders are very hesitant to say anything that is not in the policy of the White House, and I agree, that is the way it is run by the civilians. That is the way it should be, but I could tell how discouraged the commanders were.

The one Marine commander said, I do not have troops to put on the border, the Syrian border. Now, why did they not have enough troops? Because of the deployment, because of the small number of people that are serving in our Armed Forces today.

We told them, the Armed Services Committee, under Duncan Hunter's leadership, said you can take 30,000 more people. They cannot recruit to that. They have fallen 10,000 short; and not only have they fallen 10,000 short, they are now taking 20 percent category 4s, which they said in the voluntary Army would never happen.

The war's not going as advertised. The American public is way ahead of us. If you heard the World War II veterans, if you heard the Vietnam veterans, the wives and the widows on the phone crying to my staff and myself when I am talking to them, if you heard them reaching out and asking for a policy, a bipartisan policy. When I introduced this resolution, I did not introduce this as a partisan resolution.

I go by Arlington Cemetery every day, and the Vice President, he criticizes Democrats. Let me tell you, those gravestones do not say Democrat or Republican. They say American, and Dick Cheney's a good friend of mine. He was a good Secretary of Defense.

Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people and the Persian Gulf region. That is my opinion.

General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. Hear what I am saying. General Abizaid said on the same date, reducing the size of visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is part of our counterinsurgency strategy.

For 2\1/2\ years I have been concerned about our policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns to the administration and the Pentagon.

I have spoken out in public about my concerns in going to war.

A few days before the start of the war, I was in Kuwait. They drew a red line around Baghdad; and they said when the American forces cross the red line, they will attack us with weapons of mass destruction, meaning biological and chemical weapons. I believed that. They believed it. The military commanders believed it. And when they went in, though, they felt they had sufficient protective gear that they could overcome it. The heat would dissipate some of the gas and so forth, and it would be no problem for our forces, they felt. They even thought they had cell phones monitored so they could tell that it was there. It turned out not to be true.

Let me tell the Members this: Bill Young and I have been on the Defense

Subcommittee for 25 years. We spend more money on intelligence than all the countries in the world put together and more on intelligence than most countries' GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure.

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda, and only two people, I think, visit any more than I do, and that is Bill Young's wife and Bill Young. They go there as often as I do, and Beverly goes more often.

Now, let me tell the Members what demoralizes the troops. Going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace, the devastation caused by IEDs, being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes, being under second and third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to meet all these threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. A very small percentage of people in this country are serving this country at this stage in this war. Many say the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down. Defense budgets are being cut, $5 billion this year, $5 billion cut from the defense budget; and the chairman and I are concerned they are going to cut another percentage point, which is $4 billion more, from the defense budget.

Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. And choices have to be made. We cannot allow a promise that we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared.

The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls in our bases in the United States. I visited four bases, four Southern bases, premier bases. Every one of them was short, short radios, short mortars, short ammunition even. Our troops were C-4, which means the lowest state of readiness, because they did not have the equipment to train right before they are deployed to Iraq. And much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of serious overhaul.

I have said to all these CEOs that come to see me, Folks, do not think about procurement. We about bought, what, five or six ships this year, something like that. They said they are going to build 12 next year. Do not believe that. But I will tell the Members one thing we have to do is rehabilitate this equipment. A $50 billion bill, in my estimation, and I do not know where the money is going to come from.

George Washington said: ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.'' I do not know what the threat is, but I will tell you it takes 18 years to get a weapons system out there, and we had better well get those systems put together now. We had better start them right now because we do not have them. They have a system right now they are thinking of cutting back. The Europeans invested a lot of money in it. Billions of dollars have been invested in this weapon system, JSF. If they cut back the buy, the cost to increase, the Europeans will cut back on their buy, and it will skyrocket the price; and we will have to reduce the number of airplanes that we buy. We must rebuild our Army.

Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being ``terrified'' about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with 3 years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry, and without a draft. The burden of war has not been shared equally, and the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over 2\1/2\ years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. And you know the deaths and you know they estimate that not only do we have 15,500 that have been wounded, but we have 50,000 that we think may suffer from what I call battle fatigue.

I just recently visited Anbar Province, as I said, and I became convinced that we had to take some action. I became convinced that I needed to say something about what was going on. I needed to introduce a resolution which would bring this to a head so we could come to a bipartisan resolution to fight this war together, to show our troops how we support them, and that resolution calls for a redeployment of our troops. I said over a year ago now, the military and the administration agree, Iraq cannot be won militarily.

We can say it here in these air conditioned offices, but let me tell you something. It cannot be won militarily. It has got to be won politically, and we have to turn it over to the Iraqis and give them the incentive to take back their own country.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces. We have become the catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists, and the foreign jihadists. I believe with U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows 80 percent of the Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition troops. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe the Iraqi election scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people in the emerging government must be put on notice: the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for a good and free Iraq.

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

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

Normally the soldiers cannot speak for themselves. I do not believe we are making the progress that is articulated in many cases. Everything I see, oil production is below prewar level; electricity production is below prewar level; incidents have increased from 150 a week to 770 a week in Iraq.

But let me read a letter from a young soldier at Walter Reed. Everybody says when you go to Walter Reed, they all want to go right back, and they usually do not complain. Let me read this letter.

``I am sure you are extremely busy today with the announcement of your support for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We have been trying unsuccessfully to reach you by phone.

``My husband is an injured Iraq soldier who so highly commends you for speaking out about this disastrous war and its aftermath on U.S. troops. Though we are now living in Washington, D.C., on the Walter Reed campus, we are originally from your 12th District in Pennsylvania.

``Congressman Murtha actually pinned my husband's Purple Heart. We are so proud that he was the man to honor my husband for what he did in Iraq. It may serve Mr. Murtha more to remind him that my husband is the 24-year-old guardsman who lost part of a leg in a suicide car bomb attack in April of this year.

``We were shocked and overjoyed that Murtha spoke out against the Bush administration's handling of the war. Unlike what many say is a blow to troop morale by questioning the war, his frank call for attention to the subject brought nods and applause from the injured soldiers at Walter Reed's Mologne House. It is the first that my husband and I feel that a politician has truly stuck up for the soldiers most personally affected by the war in Iraq.''

We send the soldiers to the war. We are the ones that make that decision. We also have to speak out when we do not think the war is going in the right direction.

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

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

Let me read another letter.

``We are Gold Star parents. Our son was killed October 18, 2003, south of Kirkuk with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. You and I talked for about 90 minutes on the phone in early 2004. I

have spent the better part of 2 years lobbying for improved body armor.''

Do Members remember, we sent the troops to war without body armor? We found the body armor. We found the shortage and up-armored the Humvees. Congress found it, and we put the money in the bill.

``We believe the best way to support the troops is through a responsible and well-thought-out foreign policy.''

Not stay the course, but a thought out, and this is from a woman whose son was killed.

``We do not have that policy today in Iraq. By staying in Iraq, we have become occupiers instead of liberators.'' And 80 percent of the Iraqis think that.

``Today we are called un-American because we are obligated to disagree with the President. We want better for our son's comrades. It is our obligation to stand up and be counted to support the troops, to speak for those that are not free to speak for themselves, to use their bravery and sacrifice wisely. You, sir, are a man of our heart. God knows why the rest of the Democratic Party is not rallying around you, but we are. Even as we stand alone, it is the right thing to do. Our support is unequivocal for you on matter in this dangerous and lonely time.''

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Let me read another letter.

``In 2004, my youngest son graduated from college and was already enrolled in the Marines. He was ready to help our country and others in whatever was asked of him. It was with great distress that we have watched the administration mishandle this war. There was no plan.''

What the gentleman from Indiana said about World War II, there was a plan. There was a plan when we went into Normandy. We landed 150,000 people in 24 hours. There is the conception at home that there is no plan. I hear this over and over again. That is why there was such an outpouring when I offered a plan, when people called me and said they wanted a plan.

``It was with great distress that we have watched the administration mishandle this war. There was no plan, no push to go in and win the war in total. Mission Accomplished was a joke, and even we the uniformed knew then that it was a misnomer. Losing Colin Powell from the administration was a deep blow to us. We respected his honor and his professionalism. His soldier inside. Our son has had one deployment to Iraq. He came home safely this time, and awaits his second deployment in July. Congressman Murtha, we are a patriotic family, but I cannot abide by sending my son back into a war where there is no goal, no plan, and a war being planned by Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. We would feel differently if we felt our son was being used in the proper manner, and for a valiant effort. But we feel that they are clay pigeons in a carnival, just waiting for the next suicide bomber or IED. My husband and I did not feel this way 6 months ago. We thought the administration had realized their inadequacy and were making changes, and that we should stay the course. That has not happened. Things continue in disarray. This is not the best use of our military, nor respectful of the values and ideals of the servicemen and women within it. We support your views and we feel that there is a need for change.''

That is what I am saying. We need to change direction in Iraq.

Who has the right to close?

This is his resolution.

The first encounter with the casualties in this war, I had two young widows come to my office. They wanted to go to Walter Reed because they had lost their husband and they wanted to talk to the soldiers and tell them how lucky they were that they were still alive. One was 23 with two children. One was 19 without any children. I thought how proud I was of them. Another young man from my district was blinded and lost his foot. They did everything they could do for him in Walter Reed. And then he went home and his father was in jail. His mother had not seen him. There was no one at home and he was by himself. The VA has done everything they could to help him. They sent him to Johns Hopkins to see if there is a possibility for him to see and found out that he could not see. And then they started sending bills. Collection agencies sent him bills. Imagine. He is by himself in his own home and a collection agency from Johns Hopkins sends him a bill. Obviously we straightened it out, but that is the kind of thing that happens when you forget about the veteran.

I had a soldier that lost both legs and an arm. Bill has seen the young fellow from Micronesia. We visited a mental health ward. You know what they said to me? Fifty thousand of them are going to have some kind of battle fatigue. They said that we don't get Purple Hearts. We don't get any recognition at all. We get shunned aside as if we were cowards.

A young woman from Notre Dame lost her arm and she was worried about her husband losing weight. She was the one that lost her arm. It makes me so proud. A Seabee was lying in intensive care with his three children and his mother and his wife in tears because he was paralyzed from the neck down. This young Marine, his father had been a Marine. His father was there. His father was rubbing his hand. He says, please get my son's brother home. He wants to see his brother. I called the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps said, he doesn't want to come home. So I went back and told his father. He said, please get him home. So I told the Marine Corps and they got him home. I said, you get him out of that country blank-blank right now, and they did.

Another Marine lost both his hands, blinded. I went to the hospital. After I talked to him, I said how proud, as I do to all of them, how proud I was of them. Is there anything you can do for them, I said? He said, yeah, get him a Purple Heart. Why wouldn't he get a Purple Heart? Because he was demobilizing from the friendly bomblets that had been dropped and hadn't exploded, thousands of them. Finally one of them blew up, blew his hands off and killed the guy behind him and blinded him. The Marine Corps said, we have regulations about Purple Hearts. It was friendly fire so he can't get a Purple Heart.

I told the commandant, If you don't give him the Purple Heart, I'm going to give him one of mine. I was going to go out on Thursday, the commandant went out on Wednesday and he got his Purple Heart. Our troops have become the enemy.

Folks, it is easy to sit here in your air-conditioned offices and say, send them into battle. It is easy to sit here in the Capitol of the United States and say, stay the course. But when there is not a plan, when the families write to me and say there is not a plan, when they don't understand, when they believe that Captain Fishback came to see me, he says, You're complicit with the administration in torture, Congress is, because you're looking the other way. I said, We didn't know a thing about it.

And one of the things that turned the Iraqis against us was the tragedy that happened at Abu Ghraib. Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them and that is why I am speaking out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today as a 12-year member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a 5-year member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I do so indeed with a very heavy heart. I have had, until now, great confidence in America's intelligence activities. I have assured people time and time again that what happens at home has always been conducted in accordance with the law.

I played a role in the PATRIOT Act. I moved one of the critical amendments having to do with the wall and the FISA court. Today's allegations as written in the New York Times really question whether this is in fact true. I read it with a heavy heart, yet without knowing the full story.

Let me be clear. Domestic intelligence collection is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. This law sets out a careful set of checks and balances that are designed to ensure that domestic intelligence collection is conducted in accordance with the Constitution, under the supervision of judges and with accountability to the Congress of the United States.

Specifically, FISA allows the Government to wiretap phones or to open packages, but only with a showing to a special court--the FISA court-- and after meeting a legal standard that requires that the effort is based on probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power.

Let me cite two sources. The first is a 1978 report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In the report is a comment by the then-chairman of that committee, Senator Birch Bayh. He is talking about the FISA bill that had just come to the floor in 1978:

The bill requires a court order for electronic

surveillance, defined therein, conducted for foreign

intelligence purposes within the United States or targeted

against the international communications of particular United

States persons who are in the United States. The bill

establishes the exclusive means by which such surveillance

may be conducted.

That is the bill, FISA, which was passed in 1978.

Second, in late 2001 this subject came up again on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Senate Intelligence Committee discussed this subject and amended at that time in its authorization bill National Security Act section 502, which is the reporting of intelligence activities other than covert action.

Section 502 states:

To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection

from unauthorized disclosure of classified information

relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or

other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of

Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments,

agencies, and other entities of the United States Government

involved in intelligence activities shall:

(1) keep the congressional intelligence committees--

It doesn't say only the chairman and the vice chairman--

fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities

other than a covert action (as defined in section 503(e)),

which are not the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or

are carried out for or on behalf of any department, agency,

or entity of the United States Government, including any

significant anticipated intelligence activity and any

significant intelligence failure.

And (2) furnish the congressional intelligence committees

any information or material concerning intelligence

activities, other than covert actions, which is within their

custody or control, and which is requested by either of the

congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out

its authorized responsibilities.

At that time, we had this discussion about just the chairman and the vice chairman receiving certain information, and this act was amended, and section (b) was added to the National Security Act, called ``form and contents of certain reports.'' It was to clarify what the form and content of the reporting to the committee would be. And the wording is as follows:

Any report relating to a significant anticipated

intelligence activity or a significant intelligence failure

that is submitted to the congressional intelligence

committees for the purposes of subsection (a)(1) shall be in

writing and shall contain the following:

(1) a concise statement of any fact pertinent to such

report;

(2) an explanation of the significance of the intelligence

activity or intelligence failure covered by such report.

And then section (c) was added, ``standards and procedures for certain reports,'' that those standards and procedures would hereby be established.

What has happened is that it has become increasingly used just to notify a very few people. There are 535 Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States.

If the President of the United States is not going to follow the law and he simply alerts eight Members, that doesn't mean he doesn't violate a law. I repeat, that doesn't mean he doesn't violate a law. FISA is the exclusive law in this area, unless there is something I missed, and please, someone, if there is, bring it to my attention.

Section 105(f) of FISA allows for emergency applications where time is of the essence. But even in these cases, a judge makes the final decision as to whether someone inside the United States of America, a citizen or a noncitizen, is going to have their communications wiretapped or intercepted. The New York Times reports that in 2004, over 1,700 warrants for this kind of wiretapping activity were approved by the FISA Court. The fact of the matter is, FISA can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours and even minutes, if necessary.

In times of war, FISA section 111 states this:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the

Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance

without a court order under this title to acquire foreign

intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15

calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

I would argue the resolution authorizing use of force was not a declaration of war. I read it this morning carefully. It does not authorize the President of the United States to do anything other than use force. It doesn't say he can wiretap people in the United States of America. And apparently, perhaps with some change, but apparently this activity has been going on unbeknownst to most of us in this body and in the other body now since 2002.

The newspaper, the New York Times, states that the President unilaterally decided to ignore this law and ordered subordinates to monitor communications outside of this legal authority.

In the absence of authority under FISA, Americans up till this point have been confident--and we have assured them--that such surveillance was prohibited.

This is made explicit in chapter 119 of title 18 of the criminal code which makes it a crime for any person without authorization to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, I have been repeatedly assured by this administration that their efforts to combat terrorism were being conducted within the law, specifically within the parameters of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which, as I have just read, makes no exception other than 15 days following a declaration of war.

We have changed aspects of that law at the request of the administration in the USA PATRIOT Act to allow for a more aggressive but still lawful defense against terror. So there have been amendments. But if this article is accurate, it calls into question the integrity and credibility of our Nation's commitment to the rule of law.

I refreshed myself this morning on the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. Here is what it says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and

seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,

but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.

Clearly an intercept, a wiretap, is a search. It is a common interpretation. A wiretap is a search. You are looking for something. It is a search. It falls under the fourth amendment.

Again, the New York Times states that a small number of Senators, as I said, were informed of this decision by the President. That doesn't diminish the import of this issue, and that certainly doesn't mean that the action was within the law or legal.

What is concerning me, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, is if eight people, rather than 535 people, can know there is going to be an illegal act and they were told this under an intelligence umbrella-- and therefore, their lips are sealed--does that make the act any less culpable? I don't think so.

The resolution passed after September 11 gave the President specific authority to use force, including powers to prevent further terrorist acts in the form of force. I would like to read it. I read Public Law 107-40, 107th Congress:

Sec. 1. Short title.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization

for Use of Military Force''.

Sec. 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed

Forces.

(A) In General.--That the President is authorized to use

all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,

organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,

committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on

September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or

persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international

terrorism against the United States by such nations,

organizations, or persons.

Then it goes on to say:

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers

Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is

intended to constitute specific statutory authorization

within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers

Resolution.

This is use of force. It is not use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance of American citizens or those without citizenship within the confines of the United States. That is the jurisdiction of the FISA Court. There is a procedure, and it is timely.

As a matter of fact, we got into this rather seriously in the Judiciary Committee. At the time we wrote the PATRIOT Act, I offered an amendment to change what is called ``the wall'' between domestic intelligence-gathering agencies and foreign intelligence-gathering agencies from a ``primary purpose'' for the collection of foreign intelligence to a ``significant purpose.'' We had a major discussion in the committee, as is the American way. We were making public policy. We discussed what primary purpose meant. We discussed in legal terms what significant purpose meant.

So this was a conscious loosening of a standard in the FISA law to permit the communication of one element of Government with the other and transfer foreign intelligence information from one element of the Government to the other.

That is the way this is done, by law. We are a government of law. The Congress was never asked to give the President the kind of unilateral authority that appears to have been exercised.

I was heartened when Senator Specter also said that he believed that if the New York Times report is true--and the fact that they have withheld the story for a year leads me to believe it is true, and I have heard no denunciation of it by the administration-- then it is inappropriate, it is a violation of the law.

How can I go out, how can any Member of this body go out, and say that under the PATRIOT Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the President is not going to be bound by the law, which is the FISA court?

And there are no exceptions to the FISA court.

So Senator Specter, this morning, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, announced that he would hold hearings on this matter the first thing next year. I truly believe this is the most significant thing I have heard in my 12 years. I am so proud of this Government because we are governed by the rule of law, and so few countries can really claim that. I am so proud that nobody can be picked up in the middle of the night and thrown into jail without due process, and that they have due process. That is what makes us different. That is why our Government is so special, and that is why this Constitution is so special. That is why the fourth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights--to state clearly that searches and seizures must be carried out under the parameter of law, not on the direction of a President unilaterally.

So I believe the door has been opened to a very major investigation and set of circumstances. I think people who know me in this body know I am not led toward hyperbole, but I cannot stress what happened when I read this story. And everything I hold dear about this country, everything I pledge my allegiance to in that flag, is this kind of protection as provided by the Constitution of the United States and the laws we labor to discuss, argue, debate, enact, then pressure the other body to pass, and then urge the President to sign. That is our process.

If the President wanted this authority, he should have come to the Intelligence Committee for an amendment to FISA, and he did not. The fact that this has been going on since 2002--it is now the end of 2005. Maybe 8 people in these 2 bodies in some way, shape, or form may have known something about it, but the rest of us on the Intelligence Committees did not.

That is simply unacceptable.

I yield the floor.

Right.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his kindness and his courtesy in yielding to me. I want to say there is one thing I am sorry about with respect to the Senator from Minnesota. He made a bad decision some time ago. I wish he had not made it, and I begged him to retract on it and say he would not do it. He says he is not going to run again. I am sorry about that. He is one of the immortal 23 Senators who voted against that resolution that the Senator from California is talking about. I voted against it. I have been in the Senate for 47 years, and that is the vote of which I am most proud because in voting that way, I stood for this, the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution does not give any President the power to declare war. It says Congress shall have the power to declare war. I voted against that resolution, the best vote I have cast in 47 years in this Senate, and I am proud that the Senator from Minnesota can carry that tribute with him to the grave. I thank him and congratulate him. Again, I thank him for yielding to me.

Mr. President, I believe in America. Let me say that again. I believe in America. I believe in the dream of the Founders and Framers of our inspiring Constitution. I believe in the spirit that drove President Abraham Lincoln to risk all to preserve the Union. I believe in what President Kennedy challenged America to be--America, the great experiment of democracy.

Where the strong are also just and the weak can feel secure, the soul and promise of America stands as a beacon, praise God, of freedom and a protector of liberty which lights and energizes the people around the world. Today, sadly, that beacon is dimmed. This administration's America is becoming a place where the strong are arrogant and the weak are ignored. Fie on the administration.

Yes, we hear high-flung language from the White House about bringing democracy to a land where democracy has never been. We seem mesmerized with glorious rhetoric about justice and liberty, but does the rhetoric really match the reality of what our country has become?

Since the heinous attacks of September 11, I speak of the actions of our own Government, actions that have undermined the credibility of this great Nation around the world. These actions taken one at a time may seem justified, but taken as a whole they form an unsettling picture and tell a troubling story. Do we remember the abuses at Abu Ghraib? They were explained as an aberration. Do we remember the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? They were denied as an exaggeration. Now we read about this so-called policy of rendition--what a shame--a policy where the U.S. taxpayers are funding secret prisons in foreign lands. What a word, ``rendition.'' What a word, ``rendition.'' Shame. It sounds so vague, almost harmless. But the practice of rendition is abhorrent.

Let me say that again. It sounds so vague, almost harmless, but the practice of rendition is abhorrent--abhorrent.

The administration's practice of rendition is an affront, an affront to the principles of freedom, the very opposite of principles we claim we are trying to

transplant to Iraq and to other rogue nations.

The administration claims that rendition is a valuable weapon in the war on terror. But what is the value of having America's CIA sit as judge and jury while deciding just who might be a threat to our national security? Such determinations receive no review by a court of law--none. The CIA simply swings into action, abducts a person from some foreign country and flies them off to who knows where, with no judicial review of guilt or innocence. A person can be held in secret prisons in unnamed countries or even shipped off to yet another country to face torture at the hands of the secret police of brutal governments.

Is that what we want? Is this the America that our Founders conceived? Is this the America that Nathan Hale died for, when he said I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country? Is this the America that he died for? Is this the America that our Founders conceived? Is this the America of which millions of people dreamed? Is this, I ask the Senate, the beacon of freedom inspiring other nations to follow?

The United States should state clearly and without question that we will not torture prisoners and that we will abide by the treaties that we signed, because to fail to do so is to lose the very humanity, the morality that makes America different, that makes America the hope for individual liberty around the world.

The disgusting, degrading, and damaging practice of rendition should cease immediately. Is this what Patrick Henry was talking about--give me liberty or give me death? It is not about who they are. ``It's not about who they are. It's about who we are.'' Those are the words of my colleague Senator John McCain, bless his heart. Senator McCain is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is a former prisoner of war. He knows what it is all about. And he is exactly right. There is no moral high ground in torture. There is no moral high ground in the inhumane treatment of prisoners. Our misguided, thuggish practice of rendition has put a major blot on American foreign policy.

Now comes this similarly alarming effort to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, retaining provisions that devastate many of our own citizens' civil liberties here at home. What is happening? What is happening to our cherished America? Let us stop and look and listen and think. What is happening to our cherished America?

Any question raised about the wisdom of shredding constitutional protections of civil liberties with roots that trail back centuries is met with the disclaimer that the world has changed and that the 9/11 attacks are, in effect, a green light. Get that, a green light to trash this Constitution, to seize private library records. Hear that.

Suppose I want to get a book out of the library. Suppose I want to read ``Loves Labors Lost.'' The disclaimer that the world has changed and that the 9/11 attacks are in effect a green light to trash the Constitution, to seize private library records--suppose I want to read about ``A Tale of Two Cities.'' They are going to seize those library records? To search private property--how about that--without the knowledge of the owner? If you want to go in my house without my knowledge, without my wife's knowledge, to spy on ordinary citizens accused of no crime in a manner is a sick--a sick, s-i-c-k, perversion of our system of justice and it must not be allowed.

Paranoia must not be allowed to chip away at our civil liberties. Don't let it happen. The United States of America must not adopt the thuggish tactics of our enemies--no. We must not trash the fourth amendment because the Senate is being stampeded at the end of a congressional session. No.

Government fishing expeditions with search warrants written by FBI agents is not what the Framers had in mind. It is not what Benjamin Franklin had in mind. It is not what Morris had in mind. It is not what James Wilson had in mind. Spying on ordinary, unsuspecting citizens-- not with that in mind. Without their knowledge? No. That is not what the Framers had in mind. Handing the Government unilateral authority to keep all evidence secret from a target so that it may never be challenged in a court of law is not what the Framers had in mind.

Yesterday, I believe it was, we heard reports that the military has spied on Americans simply because they exercised their right to peaceably assemble and to speak their minds. What disgrace. What a shame. Today we hear, yes, we hear today that the military is tapping phone lines in our own country without the consent of a judge. Can you believe that? Here in this country, where liberty is supposed to prevail.

Go and ask that Statue of Liberty. Is that what it stands for?

No. Labeling civil disobedience and political dissent as domestic terrorism is not what the Framers had in mind.

Read history. What is the matter with us? Have we gone berserk? Read history. That is not what they had in mind.

Our Nation is the most powerful nation in the world. Why? Because our Nation was founded on a principle of liberty. Benjamin Franklin said ``those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'' Our Founding Fathers, intent on addressing the abuses they had suffered at the hands of an overzealous government, established--yes, it did--established a system of checks and balances, ensuring that there is a separation of powers--there is a separation of powers. Read it in the Constitution, article I, article II, article III--a separation of powers so that no one body may run amok with its agenda. These checks are what safeguards freedom for you, Mr. President, and for me and for all others in this land. These checks are what safeguard freedom, and the American people are looking to us--yes, they are looking through those lenses there, they are looking at us, yes. The people out on the broad prairies, out on the plains, out in the valleys, out on the great shores, the frozen wastes of the North Pole, and, yes, that liberty extends everywhere. That American liberty extends everywhere. And nobody may run amok with its agenda.

These checks are what safeguard freedom, and the American people are looking to us--you, and me, Senator, you, Senator, and you, Mr. President--looking to us now to restore and protect that freedom.

So many have died protecting those freedoms. And we owe it to those brave men and women to deliberate meaningfully and to ultimately protect those freedoms that Americans cherish so deeply. The American people deserve nothing less.

Earlier today, the Senate voted to stop a bill that would have allowed the abuses of American civil liberties to continue for another 4 years. Shame. The message of this vote is not just about the PATRIOT Act but the message that the Senate can stand up, the Senate can stand against an overreaching Executive of any party, any party, any party that has sacrificed our liberties and stained our standing before the world.

The PATRIOT Act has gone too far. It has gone too far. Secret renditions should be stopped. Torture must be outlawed. Our military should not spy on our own people.

The Senate has spoken. Let us secure our country but not by destroying our liberties.

Thank Almighty God for this Constitution and the Framers who wrote it, and the Founders of our Nation who risked their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor. Thank God for checks and balances. Thank God for the Senate, and may it always stand for the right.

I thank all Senators. I again thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I want to tell him that I wish he and his family and loved ones a merry Christmas, a merry Christmas. I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous

consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

(Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request 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 myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today could have been a day to rejoice and to celebrate in

unity. Yesterday, the people of Iraq asserted their newly won rights, won, it must be said, at a steep cost; and they inspired us all by flocking to the polls at great risk to their lives. This was a peaceful process, an affirmation of all that has been sacrificed in nearly 3 years of valiant struggle. We should be rejoicing, Mr. Speaker.

But it is a sad day, indeed, when the Iraqi people have to teach the United States Congress a lesson in democracy. The majority leadership in this body and in the Rules Committee that acts as its legislative gatekeeper have used authoritarian tactics to bring before us the resolution that we now debate. They have eliminated any real opportunity for nearly half the Members of the House of Representatives to effect the language of this measure, a measure deliberately calculated to be divisive.

Mr. Speaker, look around at this people's House. It was not designed to be an echo chamber. We are not here merely to recycle the administration's rhetoric on Iraq. It is clear that there is a spectrum of views on my side of the aisle on how to deal with the difficult situation in Iraq in the weeks and months ahead. Why should the majority try to force the issue, politicize the war effort and polarize this body further?

This resolution came to us yesterday afternoon. We tried negotiating in good faith and that went nowhere, so last night I introduced an alternative resolution and asked the Rules Committee to make it in order.

My resolution congratulates the Iraqi people on three democratic national elections this year; it encourages all Americans to support the Iraqi people; and commends and congratulates our troops and those of our allies and the Iraqi forces protecting their people at election time. The Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi, and the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, joined me in advocating this measure.

Mr. Speaker, that is the resolution which should have come before us today. It is a measure that would have won the unanimous support of this body, or nearly so, and would have sent a message of support to the Iraqi people, to our troops, and to the whole world.

But the leadership of this body has approached this entire important matter in a rigid, unbending, and authoritarian fashion. Theirs was a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, not a comma to be changed; and that approach is inappropriate in a democratic legislative body where some of us have been attempting so hard to operate in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. Speaker, along with several of my Democratic colleagues, I was hosted by the President at the White House 2 days ago. The President said he wanted to explore a bipartisan approach on Iraq. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not gotten that message. Instead, they have made a mockery of it.

The election in Iraq yesterday was truly inspiring. It fills me with hope that Iraq can indeed emerge as a stable, pluralistic, and democratic society. This resolution could have been considerably improved, had there been a process of bipartisan consultation. We could have sent a united and strong message to our troops, to the Iraqi people, and to the global audience.

But whatever my thoughts on the substance of the measure, I profoundly reject the arrogant and undemocratic process that produced it, and for this reason I shall vote ``present'' on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

I will use the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, to read the resolution which was disallowed by the Republican leadership, a resolution congratulating the people of Iraq on three national elections conducted in Iraq in 2005.

Whereas the people of Iraq have consistently and courageously demonstrated their commitment to democracy by participating in three elections in 2005;

Whereas on January 30, 2005, the people of Iraq participated in an election for a transitional national assembly;

Whereas Iraqi society participated in the approval of a new Iraqi constitution through a referendum held on October 15, 2005;

Whereas reports indicate that the people of Iraq voted in unprecedented and overwhelming numbers in the most recent election, held on December 15, 2005, yesterday, for a new national parliament that will serve in accordance with the Iraqi constitution for a 4-year term and that represents the first fully sovereign elected democratic assembly in the history of Iraq;

Whereas this remarkable level of participation by the people of Iraq in the face of dire threats to their very lives has won the admiration of the world;

Whereas the Iraqi elections could not have been conducted without the courage and dedication of the members of the United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces of Iraq;

Whereas the December 15, 2005, election in Iraq inspires confidence that a robust pluralistic democracy that will bring stability to Iraqi society is emerging:

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives congratulates the people of Iraq on three national elections conducted in Iraq in 2005; encourages all Americans to express support for the people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve a free, open, and democratic society; and expresses its thanks and admiration to the members of the United States Armed Forces and the armed forces of other nations in Iraq, including the members of the security forces of Iraq, whose heroism permitted the Iraqi people to vote safely.

This is the resolution that would have received unanimous approval by this body. Instead, we had an ugly, divisive, and unnecessary debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 612.

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

This resolution before us clearly and explicitly states that this body is committed to achieving victory in Iraq. The United States should not go back on its commitments to confront tyranny and to ``make the world safe for democracy.'' Failure is not a part of the American nature nor of our moral fiber. It is certainly not a concept that is acceptable to our men and women in the Armed Forces.

When we talk about progress in Iraq and concrete benchmarks for measuring success, we need only look back at yesterday's landmark nationwide elections in Iraq. Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission reported that at least 97.5 percent of planned voting centers were opened, monitored by up

to 120,000 observers, including 800 accredited by international observer groups.

The U.N. envoy to Iraq said that the initial signs are very positive, adding that ``anecdotal evidence shows that there has been good turnout, that it was inclusive, and that security was well maintained.''

Are we not in agreement that yesterday's vivid example of democracy taking root in Iraq was a profound victory for the Iraqi people, for our sons and daughters who continue to place themselves in harm's way, and a resounding defeat to the brutal Islamic jihadists? Are we not in agreement that this election empowers the people of the region who have toiled under brutal dictatorships for far too long and that the success of democracy yesterday in Iraq aided our efforts in the global war against terror? Are we not in agreement that these elections could not have been possible without the presence of our men and women in the Armed Forces?

If we are in agreement that these most recent Iraqi elections were a success and were met with very little violence and widespread participation due to the presence of U.S. forces in support of Iraqi security, then we should be in agreement with the totality of the text of the resolution before us. We should not leave the Iraqi people at this most critical juncture. We should not leave before they are fully capable of protecting their own nation, their people, and their incipient democracy from those who seek to destroy what they have been creating because they wish to turn Iraq into a safe haven for Islamic militants and extremist elements like Iran and Syria.

This is not in our nature, Mr. Speaker. This is not what our troops want, and it is not what the Iraqi people want.

References have been made to calls for U.S. withdrawal, but let us review some of those. Iraqi officials have not made such requests to the U.S. Government. The Arab League, for example, their statement says that it was the result of undue political pressure by rogue regimes, particularly Syria and Iran, whose foreign minister was involved in the drafting of the final communique.

We are fully aware that these pariah states have a vested interest in seeing Iraq fail and assisting the foreign fighters who are launching attacks against Iraqis and our U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. We have achieved significant progress thus far in Iraq. The political and the psychological transformation that has taken place in Iraq will have long-term positive impact on our efforts to curtail the spread of Islamic extremists and jihadist activities.

Saddam Hussein would not be on trial today for his crimes against humanity, and most of the villainous heirs to his legacy would not be neutralized were it not for the critical role played by our U.S. Armed Forces personnel. Without the presence of our forces, the people of Iraq would not have had the opportunity to participate in the January 30, 2005, nationwide elections. They would not have returned to the polls on October 15, again to approve their Constitution and would not have been celebrating their new found democratic freedoms by participating in yesterday's yet another historic election.

Our mission, however, Mr. Speaker, remains only partially accomplished. Iraqi security forces are taking up more of the military burden, and the new coalition for strategy for ``clear, hold, and build'' is denying the insurgents many of their former sanctuaries.

The Iraqi Army and the police forces are growing larger, better trained, more effective. These forces are also becoming increasingly professional. Today, Iraqi security forces are now strong enough to garrison and control cleared areas, as recently illustrated by the resoundingly successful joint U.S. and Iraqi offensive in Tel Afar.

The Iraqi security forces are improving, but they cannot yet stand on their own. To abandon them now would be to leave them at the mercy of the brutal Islamic jihadists and would destroy the progress that we have achieved thus far.

Again, this is not in our nature. As clause 5 of this resolution states: Our presence in Iraq ``will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down and no longer than is required for that purpose.''

Are we not in agreement on this critical point? Is it the contention of those who oppose this resolution that we abandon the Iraqi people after they have displayed immeasurable courage in the face of attacks from Islamic jihadists and their state sponsors? We should not base our strategy on artificial timelines. The criteria governing our eventual withdrawal from Iraq must be performance based, not chronologically based. Victory defined is: ``Final and complete defeat of an enemy in a military encounter. Success in a struggle against . . . an opponent, or an obstacle.''

Who is the enemy, the common enemy of Iraq and coalition forces, the enemy of the American and Iraqi people, of those who want freedom and democracy to flourish in Iraq? They are the Islamic jihadists and the militants who are seeking to destroy what we have helped the Iraqi people accomplish.

And what is our strategy for victory? One developed by our military and policy planners in coordination with our coalition partners and our Iraqi partners. Our military and policy planners track numerous indicators to map our progress and adjust our tactics as necessary to meet our strategic goals.

I would further add, Mr. Speaker, that despite some of the references made to the alleged lack of a clear path to victory, the President has, in fact, articulated our approach in the recent National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. Many of these reports with metrics on our efforts, our strategies, our goals, our accomplishments are readily available not just to us in this Chamber but to the American people. We are not just winning in Iraq, but we stand on the precipice of something far more profound: a decisive shift away from the world of brutal dictatorships which ruin their own societies through a combination of state-sponsored murder and incitement, and toward the emergence of a modern, democratic Middle East that takes its rightful place among free nations.

However, if we leave prematurely, Mr. Speaker, before the Iraqi people are able to stand on their own, we risk endangering all that we have worked so hard for and that some of our brave men and women in our Armed Forces have also sacrificed for. Let us not diminish their sacrifice by leaving their mission incomplete. Let us stand behind them as they seek to bring home a definite victory for us in this war on terror.

In closing, I would ask that we all recall the words of former President Ronald Reagan, who said: ``It is up to us . . . to work together for progress and humanity so that our grandchildren, when they look back at us, can truly say that we not only preserved the flame of freedom but cast its warmth and light further than those who came before us.''

We have prevailed in the struggle against tyranny and fascism after 40 years in a global conflict. We prevailed in the battle of ideas against communism. We will again prevail in defeating Islamic fascism if we fulfill our mission in Iraq and do not heed the nay-saying of defeatists. With freedom on our side, we cannot fail, Mr. Speaker.

I am proud of the service of my stepson, Doug Lehtinen, and his fiancee, Lindsay Nelson, who are marine officers serving in Iraq flying F-18s. They will tell us that setting an artificial deadline for withdrawal would put them in harm's way. They are fully trained military officers who understand that war is difficult; but they believe in their mission, a mission for victory in Iraq, a mission without a surrender statement.

As Joseph Lieberman, the Senator, said just a few days ago a withdrawal, a withdrawal on an artificial timeline would discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people.

I agree with Senator Lieberman, and I hope my colleagues do as well today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my fellow Floridian (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Defense appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for the purpose of closing the debate on the resolution before us.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.