Condemning the Government of Zimbabwe's "Operation Murambatsvina" under which homes, businesses, religious structures, and other buildings and facilities were demolished in an effort characterized by the Government of Zimbabwe as an operation to "restore order" to the country.

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.

Mr. Speaker, recent newspaper articles, television news reports, debates on the floor of the U.S. House and Senate, and even dinner time conversations this holiday season have been dominated by discussions about the war against terrorism in Iraq.

Two and a half years removed from the beginning of this war, the stakes for victory remain high. It is important for all Americans, whether they support the war or not, to understand the implications of why we went there; what we are there to achieve; and what the consequences would be if we agreed to an artificial timetable to withdraw our troops. Because we continue to face both great difficulties and great opportunities in Iraq, it is even more important that all Americans absolutely recognize what the future of Iraq means to our security here at home and the future of the Middle East!

My current reading of the Iraq debate is that some war critics, who originally supported the war, have lately been trying to revise or rewrite the history of how Iraq became the central front in the war on terrorism. Some of this is genuine, principled opposition to war. Some of it is personal animosity toward the President. Whatever the reason, we need to separate the two. As some have said, ``hate the war, love the warfighter.''

To understand why we are there we do not have to look much further than what some critics said before the war and what they are saying now.

In 1998, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said ``Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology.'' Seven years later, she says Saddam's weapons were ``not an imminent threat to the United States or a cause for war.''

In 2002, Senator Hillary Clinton said Saddam ``has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists.'' Now she claims there were ``false assurances, faulty evidence'' for war, but still hesitates to embrace calls for immediate withdrawal.

Even former President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that Saddam's ``ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat.'' Yet, now he says the war was ``a big mistake,'' but, like his spouse, warns of the danger of a premature withdrawal.

Unlike what Iraqis endured under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, Americans are afforded the right to voice their concerns and state their opinions just as these elected officials and other citizens have done. However, it is important we understand the facts before more judgments and accusations are made.

Saddam Hussein reigned through terror, sponsored terror, and massacred innocent Iraqis with chemical weapons. He invaded his Kuwaiti neighbors and violated more than a dozen U.N. resolutions. His armed forces shot at U.S. and British pilots for the ten years they patrolled the U.N.-imposed ``No Fly Zones'' as they protected the Iraqi people from his brutality. And in the words of weapons inspector Dr. David Kay: Saddam had the ``intent'' and ``capabilities'' to develop weapons of mass destruction.

I have never regretted voting to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam from power. While I agree with Senator John McCain that mistakes have been made and some pre-war intelligence was unintentionally flawed, we cannot overlook positive developments in Iraq. I am convinced, however, that the progress we have made could be lost if we prematurely withdraw our troops before the Iraqi people are fully capable of governing and securing their own country.

The War on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is the defining challenge of our generation, whether some ``war opponents'' like it or not. Osama Bin Laden's deputy Ayman Al-Zawahiri has declared Iraq to be ``the place for the greatest battle,'' where he hopes to ``expel the Americans'' and then spread ``the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' Such statements reaffirm why withdrawing our troops according to an artificial political timetable would be detrimental to the future of Iraq, our own national security, and could actually embolden those who hate our way of life.

Iraq continues to strengthen its security forces, but not all of their military battalions are ready to operate independent of coalition troops. Our troops, and those of our coalition allies, are still needed in Iraq and we need to stand firm in the face of the terrorists. If we

leave prematurely, jihadists and terrorists will interpret our withdrawal as total victory and use that opportunity to turn Iraq into a springboard for future attacks closer to our shores. We know what these terrorists are capable of. Here in New Jersey, we don't need to be reminded of 9/11, nor have we forgotten terrorist attacks in Bali, London, Madrid, Thailand, Bangladesh, Jordan, Israel, and the discovery of cells in Belgium and a host of countries around the world.

We also have a responsibility to 28 million Iraqis who, after decades of abuse and torture by Saddam, yearn to be free and deserve a chance for prosperity and stability. We pledged to guide the Iraqi people through the difficult steps of constituting a new government, strengthening the Iraqi Army, and laying the ground work for free elections. But it would be incredibly dangerous if we allowed threats from Bin Laden, Zawahiri, or any of the insurgency to influence our foreign policy and ``break our promise'' to the Iraqi people. Drawing down our forces in Iraq should be based strictly on the progress being made by the Iraqi government to fully secure their own country and the judgment of our military generals on the ground over there.

For our troops to come home safely, our strategy for victory depends significantly on more Iraqi Security Forces, ISF, being trained, equipped, and ready to ``lead the fight'' for securing their own country. American military leaders in Iraq estimate that 210,400 Iraqi forces are currently fighting to defend Iraq. More than 80 battalions are fighting alongside coalition troops while nearly 40 others, including four in Baghdad, are independently policing and controlling areas of Iraq. Despite that innocent Iraqis continue to be a target of suicide bombers, more than 50,000 Iraqi police have completed basic training courses and ISF recruitment remains high. With all due respect to media reports, most of the insurgency only exists in four of 18 provinces in Iraq, a country the size of California.

Despite continued terrorists attacks, car bombings, beheadings, and kidnappings, the terrorists have not achieved their goals. In fact, 2005 has been a watershed year for democracy in Iraq. In January, the world watched as Iraqis defied terrorist threats by going to the polls and casting their votes for self-determination. Eight million Iraqis went to the voting booth and took a stand against terror by voting for an interim National Assembly. In October, almost 10 million participated in an Iraqi referendum to approve a national constitution that--for the first time ever--guarantees them basic freedoms, rights and protections under law, regardless of their gender, religion, or ethnic origin. And on December 15 even more Iraqis cast their votes for a permanent, full-time government.

In addition to the political and security strategy in Iraq, we must also continue to focus on the economic and reconstruction effort. While at times slow, critical infrastructure in Iraq continues to be restored and rebuilt to meet the increasing demand and need of the country's growing economy. The Army Corps of Engineers and many of our soldiers and Marines, working alongside Iraqis, the USAID and other international agencies, are helping Iraq build schools, modernize water and sewage projects, and open new fire and police stations. Approximately 80,000 children are attending Iraq's 3,400 schools. After years of neglect, more than 15,000 Iraqi homes have been connected to the Baghdad water system. And more Iraqi women are receiving better health care thanks to the construction of a new 260-bed maternity hospital in Mosul.

These are strong signs of progress in Iraq--none of which would have been possible without the service, sacrifice, and strong morale of U.S. and coalition forces. Unfortunately, such stories are not always being told by the media. Iraqis want to be free, and thanks to the support of our service men and women, they are taking steps each and every day to reach their goal.

Mr. Speaker, victory will not be accomplished overnight. On the contrary, the Iraqis still need our help to meet their political and security objectives. Our work in Iraq remains dangerous and difficult but we must meet the challenges of this new kind of war. We must honor the service and sacrifice of our soldiers by doing whatever it takes to protect our nation and prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, for his leadership to make our country safer, our military stronger, and to bring stability to the region. While we may not always agree on the approach to take, Mr. Lantos strove very hard for a bipartisan resolution, and I want to just read from the resolution that he would put forth in the spirit of congratulating the people of Iraq.

He said: ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the people of Iraq on the three national elections conducted in Iraq in 2005.'' Imagine, in January, in October, and now in December, three times courageously they went to the polls, and his resolution spells that out.

His resolution would encourage ``all Americans to express support for the people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve a free, open, and democratic society,'' and again, throughout his resolution he makes that point.

And he expresses ``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.''

That is the spirit of the resolution that we should be voting on today, one that brings us together, that is clear to the Iraqi people that their courage is an example to the world.

But, sadly, this Congress is not an example of democracy to the world when instead of using an occasion to unify, once again, the Republican majority brings to the floor a resolution rejecting the good offers of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to come together in a bipartisan way and uses what should be a cause for celebration as instead a means to denounce those who disagree, not very democratic, and also to insist that if you want to congratulate the people of Iraq, you must support the status quo.

More of the same in Iraq is not making the American people safer. More of the same in Iraq is not making our military stronger. More of the same in Iraq is not bringing stability to the region.

So I think you will see Democrats united in congratulating the people of Iraq, commending our men and women in the armed services, and supporting

that in a democracy we will have different views and that we will respect them. I have said it before and I will say it again, Senator Taft, who would become the Republican leader of the Senate during World War II, he said disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing democracy, and this was during World War II. Why do the Republicans think that we cannot have disagreement in time of war?

So as we go into this holiday season, I know that we can come together and say to our men and women in harm's way that we honor them for their service; we are grateful to them for their patriotism, their courage and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country; and in this holiday season, we strive for peace on Earth and goodwill toward man, which would not be possible without our men and women in the armed services.

That should be the spirit in which we go forward, not in the divisive manner the Republicans have put forward. That is really quite sad, but I hope that in the vote that we have today that the Iraqi people will know that on both sides of the aisle we all see them as an example of democracy and hope that they will not be discouraged by this suppression of dissent in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this marks the second time in a month that House Republicans have gone to extreme lengths to avoid a fair and open debate on the war in Iraq. Last month, after being stung by a resolution introduced by Mr. Murtha calling for the redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, Republicans brought to the floor a measure that was an act of deception and an attempt to mischaracterize the Murtha legislation.

Today, under the guise of commending the people of Iraq for yesterday's election, the Republicans present a resolution that spends more time trying to justify the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq than congratulating the Iraqis.

If the majority wants to debate the President's Iraq policy then let us do that. A war that is now more than 1,000 days old, has cost the lives of more than 2,150 Americans, and has not made the American people safer or the Middle East more secure, certainly merits debate in this House. But let us do so in a way that does not insult the intelligence of the American people or trivialize an issue of the utmost importance.

We should debate the war in Iraq thoroughly, with full consideration of the points of view of all Members. Sadly, the Republican leadership did not permit that debate today.

Millions of Iraqis voted in Iraq's three national elections this year, and all Americans should salute that fact. They should salute as well the courage of the 160,000 American troops and the courage of the thousands of soldiers from other nations and from Iraq itself, who made the safe conduct of these elections possible. It should appropriately be acknowledged that the elections are hopeful steps toward a more stable Iraq.

Mr. Lantos brought a resolution to the Rules Committee, which would have done those things, but the majority refused to allow it to be considered. It can only be that the majority does not want to let commending the Iraqis get in the way of a tightly controlled tribute to the President's war policies. As we lecture the Iraqis about the need to accommodate differing points of view, let us hope that they do not devote too much attention to the example provided by this Republican House.

The Lantos resolution provides well-deserved recognition to all of the Iraqis who have taken part in their country's political development this year. It recognizes the heroism of the soldiers who strive each day to bring security to Iraq.

Commending them should be our focus today, but Mr. Lantos was not allowed to offer his resolution. It would be unfortunate if the message we sent to the Iraqi people and our troops was that scoring political points is more important in this House than acknowledging their achievements this year.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the House Republican leadership refuses to allow an honest debate over the future of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. The American people, and in particularly our men and women in uniform serving honorably in difficult circumstances in Iraq, deserve more than cheerleading and sloganeering by Congress and the President. Unfortunately, empty gestures are all this Congress provides with this resolution.

Like all of my colleagues in Congress, I was heartened when millions of Iraqis, even at risk of life and limb, voted in late January to establish an interim government and constitutional assembly and again in October in support of a new Constitution. And, the early reporting on yesterday's election for a new four-year parliament in Iraq has been positive. There has been progress in Iraq. I congratulate the Iraqis on the election, and I commend our troops for helping to provide security for the election.

Unfortunately, I cannot support the resolution on the floor today because it contains the blatantly false assertion that negotiating a time line for withdrawal of U.S. forces with the Iraqi government is somehow inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq. To the contrary, I believe that negotiating a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces is a prerequisite for stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home with honor beginning early next year.

Announcing the termination of the open-ended U.S. military commitment in Iraq and providing a concrete plan, including a timeline negotiated with the Iraqi government, for withdrawal could well undermine support for insurgents. The majority of insurgent fighters are Iraqi Sunnis who have stoked the wide variety of grievances of ordinary Iraqis arising from the U.S. military presence to generate popular support for their cause. Most importantly, establishing a withdrawal plan and timeline would remove one of the chief causes of instability in Iraq, the U.S. military presence itself, by separating nationalist Iraqi insurgents trying to end the U.S. military presence, both Sunni and Shia, from foreign elements in Iraq for their own reasons. As, the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General George Casey, testified to Congress earlier this year that ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.'' A specific withdrawal plan, with benchmarks for measuring success in stabilizing Iraq, could turn Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, against the foreign terrorists operating in Iraq. This could be a key turning point in stabilizing the country.

A time line and withdrawal plan negotiated with the Iraqi government would also boost the Iraqi government's legitimacy and claim to self- rule, and force the Iraqi government to take responsibility for itself and its citizens. Negotiating a withdrawal timeline and strategy with the Iraqi government could, more than possibly anything else, improve the standing of the Iraqi government in the eyes of its own people, a significant achievement in a region in which the standing of rulers and governments is generally low.

Similarly, establishing a firm timeline for withdrawal could accelerate the development of Iraqi security forces and deepen their commitment to defending their own country and their own government. It would eliminate the conflict they now feel by working with what many of them see as an occupying force. It would allow them to defend a sovereign Iraqi government, rather than fight alongside U.S. forces. As long as the U.S. military remains in Iraq, Iraqi politicians and security forces will use it as a crutch and will likely fail to take the necessary steps to settle their differences and establish an effective, inclusive and independent government.

Negotiating a timeline for withdrawal with the newly elected Iraqi government would show that democracy ended the U.S. occupation of Iraq, not terrorist or insurgent violence, and would allow our troops to come home with honor.

Just as importantly, a specific plan and timeline for withdrawal would provide much needed relief to over-burdened military personnel and their families and provide some certainty to U.S. taxpayers regarding the financial burden they'll be forced to bear.

Finally, a plan for withdrawal could also help the United States in our broader fight against Islamic extremists with global ambitions, most notably al-Qaeda, by taking away a recruiting tool and training ground. Porter Goss, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified to Congress that, ``Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists. These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism.'' He went on to say, ``The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists.''

The House should be debating this important issue and strategies for moving forward in Iraq instead of politically motivated misleading resolutions.