Recognizing the 100th anniversary of Rotary International.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 3 years making the case against the war in Iraq, working with other Members leading a nationwide opposition to the war, developing an exit strategy once we got in, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on plans to withdraw from Iraq, to bring our troops home, but I will vote against this resolution because it is a fraud.

What more does anyone need to know but that the sponsor himself has called for defeat of his own proposition? If his real intention is to bring the troops home right now, why would he vote against his own resolution?

Wake up, America. The American people are fed up with politicians who say one thing and do another. Everyone of conscience and intelligence knows the magnitude of withdrawing 150,000 troops requires a plan.

The American people deserve a real debate on Iraq. Where are the WMDs? Where is Osama bin Laden? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

This Congress, which is a coequal branch of government, which has the war power, has the oversight responsibility and has a moral obligation to find out why almost everything of significance we were told about the war turned out to be false. Instead, those who raise questions have their military service or their honor impugned.

They took John Kerry on a swift boat. We are not going to let them take Jack Murtha on a swift boat, nor are the American people. We have to stand up and expose the fakery when we see it.

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq by Dennis J. Kucinich

The following is an analysis of the resolution which took

America to war in Iraq.

October 2, 2002. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war

of aggression against an illegal occupation of Kuwait, the

United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate

Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national

security of the United States and enforce United Nations

Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Key issue: In the Persian Gulf war there was an

international coalition. World support was for protecting

Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq

entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement

pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other

things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical

weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them,

and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors,

United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led

to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical

weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and

that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program

that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than

intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Key issue: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed

nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said

that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were

destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a

published report in the Washington Post, the Central

Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on

Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the

cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons

inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which

finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on

October 31, 1998;

Key issues: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors

always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United

States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the

United States then launched a cruise missile attack against

Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a

military strike, the U.S. continues to thwart (the

Administration's word) weapons inspections.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing

weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United

States interests and international peace and security,

declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of

its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to

take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution

and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into

compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law

105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national

security of the United States and international peace and

security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material

and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by,

among other things, continuing to possess and develop a

significant chemical and biological weapons capability,

actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting

and harboring terrorist organizations;

Key issues: There is no proof that Iraq represents an

imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A

``continuing'' threat does not constitute a sufficient cause

for war. The Administration has refused to provide the

Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is

a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to

possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear

weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence

connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the

United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in

brutal repression of its civilian population thereby

threatening international peace and security in the region,

by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi

citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American

serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully

seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Key issues: This language is so broad that it would allow

the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there

is no material threat to the United States. Since this

resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related

violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since

the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi

prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to

attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or

may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with

all requests to destroy any weapons of

mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and

Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all

claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war.

This use-of-force resolution enables the President to

commit U.S. troops to recover Kuwaiti property.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its

capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction

against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its

continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the

United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate

former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of

occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged

in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security

Council;

Key issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it

have the capability to attack the United States. The ``no

fly'' zone was not the result of a UN Security Council

directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States,

Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned

by any Security Council resolution.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing

responsibility for attacks on the United States, its

citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred

on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Key issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects

Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those

events by assisting Al Qaida.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other

international terrorist organizations, including

organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American

citizens;

Key issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist

groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great

resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the

Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to

launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,

2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the

acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international

terrorist organizations;

Key issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the

events of 9/11.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to

use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current

Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a

surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces

or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,

and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the

United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine

to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Key issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq

possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has

successfully concealed the production of such weapons since

1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the

capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In

the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of

biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the

willingness to use them against the United States Armed

Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible

information, which proves that Iraq has provided

international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United

Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent

relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain

activities that threaten international peace and security,

including the development of weapons of mass destruction and

refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections

in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution

687, repression of its civilian population in violation of

United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and

threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in

Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council

Resolution 949;

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,

including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN

resolutions.

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military

Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has

authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces

pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

(1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council

Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674,

and 677'';

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,

including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN

resolutions with military force.

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that

it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the

goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as

being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military

Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), `` that

Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United

Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a

continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of

the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the

use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United

Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Key issue: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology

of the international process, and contrasts the current march

to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution

asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries

authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition

to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking

Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN

Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN

resolutions.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)

expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy

of the United States to support efforts to remove from power

the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a

democratic government to replace that regime;

Key issue: This ``Sense of Congress'' resolution was not

binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic

means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse

the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it

endorse assassination as a policy.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the

United States to ``work with the United Nations Security

Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to

``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making

clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be

enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be

met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the

war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international

terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of

mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under

the 1991 ceasefire and other United Nations Security Council

resolutions make clear that it is in the national security

interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war

on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security

Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of

force if necessary;

Key issue: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the

United States the support of the world community, adversely

affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence

exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those

terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the

United States does not have the authority to unilaterally

order military action to enforce UN Security Council

resolutions.

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the

war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and

funding requested by the President to take the necessary

actions against international terrorists and terrorist

organizations, including those nations, organizations or

persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the

terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or

harbored such persons or organizations;

Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress

with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the

events of 9/11.

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to

continue to take all appropriate actions against

international terrorists and terrorist organizations,

including those nations, organizations or persons who

planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks

that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons

or organizations;

Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress

with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the

events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence

that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for

planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution

to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of

international terrorism against the United States, as

Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization

for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Key issue: This resolution was specific to 9/11. It was

limited to a response to 9/11.

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States

to restore international peace and security to the Persian

Gulf region;

Key issue: If by the ``national security interests'' of the

United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to

communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq

by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the

region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the

world.

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 572 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 572 provides for the consideration of House Resolution 571, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of the United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. Section 2 of the rule provides that upon adoption of the rule House Concurrent Resolution 308 is hereby adopted.

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, this House, the people's House, stands at a crossroads. In one direction lies the forced retreat and dishonor for our troops who have placed their lives on the line for the defense of this country; and in the other direction, Mr. Speaker, we can stand together as one Nation, as one Congress, in celebration of those who have made an unparalleled commitment to their country.

For this Member of Congress who represents the eleventh district of Georgia, I know which direction I will choose. I know which course I will take. I will stand here tonight with our servicemen and -women who spend their days and nights fighting in the desert of Iraq to secure the freedom of a new democracy. Their Nation called them to arms. Their Nation called upon them for help in time of war. And, Mr. Speaker, they answered that call. They departed their country. They left their homes, their families to fight a war on foreign soil against an enemy that despises everything they and everything their country stands for.

They went to fight a tyrant by the name of Saddam Hussein who had murdered his own people, sought to conquer the Middle East for his own empire, and would have sought the destruction of the West and the values that we hold so dear. This tyrant was and is an enemy of liberty, and he had to be stopped.

Mr. Speaker, nightly on the floor of this House, some Members imply that the President misled our Nation, and they demand an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, ceding victory to the enemy. And now we have to answer the call of those who would besmirch their mission, who would besmirch their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I stand prepared, along with my colleagues, to debate this rule and the underlying resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the distinguished vice chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), a proud veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from North Carolina that this resolution is not an attack on any Member of this body. This resolution is about an attack on those Islamic Fascist terrorists who would destroy the men and women who are defending this country.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is important to restate for the morale of our troops that this Congress and this country remain resolved in the war against terrorism. From the streets of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, America will leave no spider hole, no palace, no bunker overlooked as we help freedom-loving people fight the terrorist insurgencies of Islamofascists and protect democracy worldwide.

Our greatest loss would be to withdraw our troops, thereby ceding victory to cowardly terrorists who murder and hide under the cover of shadows.

Mr. Speaker, over 2,000 of our best and bravest have fought and sacrificed their lives in defense of democracy and in the face of these terrorists. These individuals deserve our thanks and their families need to know that they did not die in vain.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of words have been thrown about in this Chamber tonight, but talk is often cheap. And while cheap talk abounds, unfortunately, cheap talk is not bounded, it is not insulated by oceans or mountains, and certainly not by the media.

The words of this Congress and its Members echo out beyond this hallowed Chamber, beyond these hallowed Halls to every household and to every foreign shore.

Our troops are listening, Mr. Speaker. They hear those who denigrate their mission. They hear those who rely on the false pillar of semantics, seeking to divide the American people.

Well, Mr. Speaker, our troops are listening tonight, and while talk is cheap, our vote is sacrosanct. So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put their vote on the Record and put the rhetoric aside.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Let us have this debate for the sake of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the speed with which the majority has sought to challenge the frank and honest appraisal of the war in Iraq offered yesterday by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), proves that what he said resonated with the American people.

Over 60 percent of our Nation no longer believes that we are headed in the right direction in Iraq. When Mr. Murtha spoke yesterday, he spoke for the majority of our country. Concerns such as those voiced by Mr. Murtha are not a sign of weakness, nor are they the product of a failure of resolve or willingness to cower before adversity as many administration apologists have suggested.

Rather, they follow from a logical assessment of one of the most respected military affairs in international relations experts that we have in all of these United States, and that is exactly what has this congressional leadership and this White House so concerned.

That is why they have gone out of their way in the last 24 hours to attack the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). It amounts to nothing more than another swift boat attack on an American hero.

After all, attacking those who have the temerity to challenge this White House is what Republicans in Congress do best. But they have chosen a formidable target in Jack Murtha.

Unlike our President, our Vice President, our Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State or the vast, vast majority of the Members in this House, Jack Murtha knows combat. At the age of 34, he did not have to go and fight in Vietnam, but he did. He is a decorated veteran and an American hero at a time when many others were shirking any possibility of going to Vietnam.

He knows our troops and he cares for them deeply and he has regularly visited them in the hospitals. There he has seen their wounds. He has stood by them during their time of need and listened to their hopes and fears. He has been to Iraq and seen the state of the nation with his own eyes. He is a true patriot and wants only the success of the United States and the Iraqi people, and that is why he spoke with such passion yesterday.

Representative Murtha spoke for the American people when he said that the time has come for a change in direction, and everyone in this Chamber knows that because Jack Murtha is one of the most widely respected Members in this House. No matter the attack that this majority chooses to employ against those who would question them, the reality on the ground is obvious to all who wish to see it.

America's continued military occupation of that nation will not bring stability. Our forces are drawing fire, not suppressing it; and their presence on foreign soil is serving as a catalyst for all of those who wish to do us and Iraq harm. Insurgent attacks are on the rise, and more American and Iraqi lives are lost every single day. We can no longer continue on this failing path, unwavering with no end in sight.

We can no longer ask Americans and Iraqis to give up their lives for a goal which we are making less sustainable by the hour. We must chart a new course.

Mr. Murtha's redeployment plan comes from an experienced statesman and soldier who has and will continue to do whatever he thinks is best for this Nation.

I implore my colleagues across this aisle to realize that continued Republican attacks which seek to dismiss and to discredit the valuable critiques

of knowledgeable legislators, as well as the heartfelt will of the American people, will succeed in silencing neither. Nor will they change the reality on the ground in Iraq.

More Republican assaults will not hide the gross management and corruption which has plagued the administration's attempt to prosecute the war, and they will not mollify America's growing concerns over flawed intelligence, broken trust, subverted values, and shameful acts of torture, all forced by the hand of an administration that answers in half-truths and obfuscations.

These cynical and all-too-typical Republican attempts to silence dissension, stifle debate, and discredit those who would dare to hold them accountable will only serve to elevate the power of the message that Mr. Murtha is delivering to this government and to the American people and to our troops. The Republicans today by attacking him succeed only in betraying themselves.

The dramatic nature of their panicked response has clearly demonstrated how incredibly valued Mr. Murtha's judgement is to military experts at the Pentagon, to Members of Congress, and to the American intelligence community.

And the strangest thing that I shall ever see is the people who believed that they were rewriting Mr. Murtha's resolution. Mr. Murtha, with a reasoned withdrawal, had nothing even remotely like the resolution we are debating this evening, which is the Republican resolution written by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) which calls for the immediate withdrawal of the troops in Iraq.

I believe they have got some explaining to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

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

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

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the minority leader the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the 42 members of the Congressional Black Caucus. By doing so, we wish to make clear positions the Congressional Black Caucus has consistently taken from before the time the war in Iraq commenced and to put those positions in the Record. Our votes tonight will not be misinterpreted or mischaracterized.

As early as July 27, 2005, the top United States commander in Iraq stated that a transition of U.S. troops from Iraq could begin as early as this spring. Iraq's interim Prime Minister echoed General Casey's sentiments and added that ``the time has arrived to plan a coordinated transition from American to Iraqi military control throughout the country.''

The members of the Congressional Black Caucus reaffirm our Statement of Principles as to War against Iraq, issued in October 2002, which I would place in the Record at this point.

Congressional Black Caucus Statement of Principles as to War Against

Iraq, October 2002

We oppose a unilateral, first-strike action by the United

States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of

attack on the United States.

Only Congress has the authority to declare war.

Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted.

A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral

authority of the United States, destabilize the Middle East

region and undermine the ability of our Nation to address

unmet domestic priorities.

Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in

the region would be costly and require a long-term

commitment.

Mr. Speaker, we reaffirm our Further Statement of Principles as to President's Request for Appropriations for Efforts in Iraq issued in September 2003, which I ask to insert into the Record at this point.

Congressional Black Caucus Further Statement of Principles as to President's Request for Appropriations for Efforts in Iraq, September

2003

In October 2002, before the President made the decision to

proceed to war, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) issued a

``Statement of Principles as to the War Against Iraq.''

In light of the President's request for $87 billion to

pursue continuing operations in Iraq, the CBC believes that

it is desirable to issue these Further Principles that will

guide our evaluation of the President's request for

additional funding:

1. We reaffirm our Statement of Principles issued in

October 2002 (copy attached).

2. Despite the President's failure to follow our original

Statement of Principles in his decisions leading to the war,

we express our full resolve to support and protect our troops

and their families.

3. The Administration should provide an accounting of all

funds expended to date that were previously appropriated by

the Congress, including details about all contracts for work

in or related to Iraq.

4. The President should provide sufficient details about

how the proposed funding will be spent to enable Congress and

its Committees to evaluate separately funding proposed for

the protection and maintenance of our troops and funding

proposed for rebuilding Iraq. Congress should vote on these

funding proposals separately.

5. The President should provide full details about how the

efforts will be paid for, including a full accounting of

Iraqi resources (recovered and anticipated) and how the

President proposes to use those resources to reduce or

reimburse the U.S. obligation.

6. The President should provide full details about the

future obligations of the United States (personnel, funding

and decision making) and about how responsibility and

authority for these obligations will be shared with the

United Nations and/or other nations going forward.

7. The Administration should provide to Congress full

details of information relied on by the President in his

decision to go to war.

8. The President should provide details of the criteria he

will expect to be met before bringing U.S. troops home and of

his exit strategy.

The members of the Congressional Black Caucus further urge President Bush to end the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq expeditiously by submitting to Congress a detailed plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq and redeploy those forces at the earliest practicable date;

To accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces to prepare them to accept full responsibility for maintaining internal security in Iraq and transfer responsibility for internal security to the Iraqi Government;

To incorporate the United Nations and other international organizations in the transition and reconstruction process;

To pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomatic and economic means;

To assure that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq;

And to ensure full support of our military families and our veterans, particularly with respect to service benefits and health care.

Our vote tonight, our votes, 42 of us, will not be misinterpreted and not be mischaracterized. This is our position. We have submitted it for the Record. That is what we stand on, and that is what we say to this House and to the President of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I wish today to express my unqualified support for House Resolution 55, reprinted below and of which I am a proud cosponsor, recognizing the 100th anniversary of Rotary International, and in doing so to acknowledge the truly inspiring work of generations and millions of Rotarians over the last century.

Mr. Speaker, can there be a better example of selfless public service than that of Rotary International? From humble beginnings in Chicago in 1905, the world's first service club now claims 1.2 million Rotarians in some 31,000 Rotary clubs in 166 countries. And it has found a special home in my own great State of Hawaii, with 41 clubs operating in all four counties, from Hanalei Bay to Hilo Bay.

The secret of Rotary International's success is that it evokes our innermost desire to give back to our worldwide community, as captured in its motto: Service Above Self. Its now famous Four-Way Test--Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned?--is a lighthouse not only for its own efforts but for those of all of us.

One hundred years of individual, community, statewide and countrywide projects have solidified Rotary International's reputation and collectively earned it widespread recognition. But no project better exemplifies the spirit, success and potential of Rotary International than PolioPlus, its partnership with the World Health Organization, United Nations Children's Fund, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to eradicate the scourge of polio from the face of our earth.

Most of us of adult age in our country remember the polio scares and tragedies of decades past, but we do not regard polio as a credible threat to our own children due to widespread immunization and other advances. That is not true universally: polio still exists and strikes randomly, especially in South Asia and Africa.

In 1985, Rotary International undertook a truly breathtaking endeavor: to eliminate polio through universal immunization. And with its partners in the U.S. Agency for International Development's Polio Eradication Initiative--and funding from many governments including $260 million since 1996 of our own--it has brought polio to its knees: 1988's 350,000 cases internationally are today's couple hundred.

But we all know that the last few steps of any marathon are often the hardest, and so it is with polio. I certainly saw the challenges in my trip last year to Afghanistan--one of just six countries where polio is still endemic--where the challenges in simply reaching some of the most remote and isolated communities in our world are staggering.

Yet with the end so near Rotary International's efforts have been redoubled, and I want to tell you about just one inspiring contribution: that of Rotarian Bob ``Motorcycle Bob'' Mutchler and his wife, Patti. For the last seven years Bob, himself a victim of polio, and Patti have undertaken several marathon motorcycle rides across our country and world to highlight PolioPlus and raise funds for polio's endgame.

Bob and Patti recently kicked off their last PolioPlus Ride, the ``Centennial Ride'', in our Hawaii, aiming to cover all fifty states ending in Alaska this summer. On Tuesday, March 15th, they and local Rotarians and other well-wishers started their engines in my hometown of Hilo and set off on the first leg of their latest adventure, a trip around my Big Island, followed by rides around Maui and Kauai and capped by a journey around Oahu on Saturday, March 26th, which I was honored to start. They're now off riding the Mainland, taking our aloha with them; you can follow their journey at www.polioplusride.org. where Patti's keeping a journal.

Bob and Patti Mutchler exemplify the spirit of Rotary International, as did Mike Nelson, President of the Rotary Club of Volcano on the Island of Hawaii. Mike embraced the Mutchlers' efforts and chaired their Centennial Ride in Hawaii. Tragically, he lost his life in an auto accident on February 23rd; the ride was dedicated to him, and we remember him with the deepest appreciation and admiration as representing the true essence of Rotary.

Mr. Speaker, what an incredible century Rotary International has had, epitomizing the very best of our country, our world and our human race. We pause, in House Resolution 55, for a brief moment to recognize and honor Rotary's achievements, but I know that Rotarians everywhere, while appreciating our actions on behalf of all of our citizens, would have us move beyond as soon as possible to the remaining and urgent tasks at hand.

Mahalo, and aloha!