Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke with courage and conviction about the war in Iraq, and there is no one in this body who knows more about our national defense and has devoted more of his life to our troops and our security than Jack Murtha. But evidently his speech has prompted this stunt that the Republicans are pulling here to force a vote on a resolution never considered by any committee.

Well, I must tell the Members that like the intelligence that led to war, the resolution before this body is a fake. Republicans are describing this resolution as a Murtha resolution, but it is not his language and differs in key ways from his proposal.

One of the points Mr. Murtha raised yesterday was the misuse of intelligence on Iraq. He called the war a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. Like Mr. Murtha, I voted for that war. And like him, I have profound concerns about the intelligence, that it was warped and twisted to justify an invasion.

My concerns are deeply personal. I voted for the war resolution because the President said Iraq would soon brandish nuclear bombs; and like millions of Americans, I was misled.

I raised concerns about the nuclear intelligence in a letter to the President on March 17, 2003, before any bullets were fired and before the war started, and I am going to attach this letter to my statement, but I want to read a part of it.

I wrote: ``Dear, Mr. President, in the last 10 days, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and others in the administration have cited regarding Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country. For several months this evidence has been a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. Even more troubling, the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable.

``The implications of this fact are profound. It means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts do not believe is credible. It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious explanations, knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence, both have immediate and serious implications.''

I made that request 2\1/2\ years ago, and I am still waiting for an answer. The President has never explained how forged evidence could become a cornerstone in the case for the war on Iraq.

Yesterday, the gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke with courage and conviction about the war in Iraq. There is no one in this body who knows more about our national defense--and who has devoted more of his life--to our troops and our security than Jack Murtha.

His speech has prompted this stunt by the Republicans to force a vote on a resolution never considered by any committee. Like the intelligence that led the Nation to war, the resolution before this body is a fake. Republicans are describing this resolution as the Murtha resolution. But it is not his language and differs in key ways from his proposal.

One of the points Mr. Murtha raised yesterday was the misuse of the intelligence on Iraq. He called the war ``a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.''

Like Mr. Murtha, I voted for the war. And like him, I have profound concerns about how the intelligence was warped and twisted to justify an invasion.

My concerns are deeply personal. I voted for the war resolution because the President said Iraq would soon brandish nuclear bombs. And like millions of Americans, I was misled.

I raised concerns about the nuclear intelligence in a letter to the President on March 17, 2003--before any bullets were fired and before the war started. I ask unanimous consent to introduce this letter into the Record.

I wrote:

Dear Mr. President: . . . In the last ten days, it has

become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence

you and other Administration officials have cited regarding

Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. . . .

The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates

that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African

country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a

central part of the -U.S. case against Iraq. . . . [I]n your

State of the Union address, you stated: ``The British

government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought

significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''

It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery.

. . . Even more troubling, . . . the CIA, which has been

aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the

evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are

profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been

building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence

experts . . . do not believe is credible.

It is hard to imagine how this situation could have

developed. The two most obvious explanations--knowing

deception or unfathomable incompetence--both have immediate

and serious implications.

I made that request 2\1/2\ years ago. And I am still waiting for an answer. The President has never explained how forged evidence could become a cornerstone of the case for war in Iraq.

And this body has been part of the cover-up. We've averted our eyes and shut down our oversight committees. The Washington Republicans who run this body are afraid to ask questions and embarrass the President. They have abrogated their solemn constitutional obligations to hold the executive branch accountable for its abuses.

As the ranking Democrat on the House Committee in charge of oversight and investigations, I have requested hearings to review:

(1) The way intelligence was manipulated by people in this administration. On my website--www.reform.democrats.house.gov_there is a report of 237 misleading and inaccurate statements made by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Defense and the National Security Adviser, based on what they knew at the time and not what we learned later.

(2) An investigation of prison treatment by the U.S. after Abu Graib.

(3) An investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame for political purposes, even though it jeopardized our national security.

(4) An investigation of the secret meetings Vice President Cheney had with energy executives regarding our energy policy.

The Republicans should do the work required under our Constitution-- do the oversight to provide the checks and balances to avoid a concentration of power in an imperial and out of touch administration.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, March 17, 2003.

The President,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: I am writing regarding a matter of

grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon

initiate the first preemptive war in our nation's history.

The most persuasive justification for this war is that we

must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.

In the last ten days, however, it has become

incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and

other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq's

efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What's more, the

Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the

evidence at the same time you and other Administration

officials were citing it in public statements. This is a

breach of the highest order, and the American people are

entitled to know how it happened.

As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution

condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite

serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I

believed congressional approval would significantly improve

the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I

believed that you had access to reliable intelligence

information that merited deference.

Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by

your views about Iraq's nuclear intentions. Although chemical

and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument

for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of

Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is

why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many

have looked to you for honest and credible information on

Iraq's nuclear capability.

The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates

that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African

country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a

central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19,

the State Department filed a response to Iraq's disarmament

declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State

Department response stated: ``The Declaration ignores efforts

to procure uranium from Niger.'' A month later, in your State

of the Union address, you stated: ``The British government

has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant

quantities of uranium from Africa.'' Defense Secretary

Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing

reporters.

It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery.

On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic

Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence

that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was ``not

authentic.'' As subsequent media accounts indicated, the

evidence contained ``crude errors,'' such as a ``childlike

signature'' and the use of stationary from a military

government in Niger that has been out of power for over a

decade.

Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware

of this information since 2001, has never regarded the

evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are

profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been

building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence

experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is

credible.

It is hard to imagine how this situation could have

developed. The two most obvious explanations--knowing

deception or unfathomable incompetence--both have immediate

and serious implications. It is thus imperative that you

address this matter without delay and provide an alternative

explanation, if there is one.

The rest of this letter will explain my concerns in detail.

Use of the Evidence by U.S. Officials

The evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from an

African country was first revealed by the British government

on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair

released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons

of mass destruction. As the New York Times reported in a

front-page article, one of the two ``chief new elements'' in

the report was the claim that Iraq had ``sought to acquire

uranium in Africa that could be used to make nuclear

weapons.''

This evidence subsequently became a significant part of the

U.S. case against Iraq. On December 7, Iraq filed its weapons

declaration with the United Nations Security Council. The

U.S. response relied heavily on the evidence that Iraq had

sought to obtain uranium from Africa.

For example, this is how the New York Times began its

front-page article on December 13 describing the U.S.

response:

``American intelligence agencies have reached a preliminary

conclusion that Iraq's 12,000 page declaration of its weapons

program fails to account for chemical and biological agents

missing when inspectors left Iraq four years ago, American

officials and United Nations diplomats said today.

``In addition, Iraq's declaration on its nuclear program,

they say, leaves open a host of questions. Among them is why

Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa in recent years.''

The official U.S. response was provided on December 19,

when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the

Security Council. As the Los Angeles Times reported, ``A one-

page State Department fact sheet . . . lists what Washington

considers the key omissions and deceptions in Baghdad's Dec.

7 weapons declaration.'' One of the eight ``key omissions and

deceptions'' was the failure to explain Iraq's attempts to

purchase uranium from an African country.

Specifically, the State Department fact sheet contains the

following points under the heading ``Nuclear Weapons'': ``The

Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.

Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?'' A

copy of this fact sheet is enclosed with this letter.

The Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa were deemed

significant enough to be included in your State of the Union

address to Congress. You stated: ``The British government has

learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant

quantities of uranium from Africa.'' As the Washington Post

reported the next day, ``the president seemed quite specific

as he ticked off the allegations last night, including the

news that Iraq had secured uranium from Africa for the

purpose of making nuclear bombs.''

A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told

reporters at a news briefing that Iraq ``recently was

discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from

Africa.''

Knowledge of the Unreliability of the Evidence

The world first learned that the evidence linking Iraq to

attempts to purchase uranium from Africa was forged from the

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency

(IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. On March 7, Director ElBaradei

reported to the U.N. Security Council: ``Based on thorough

analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of

outside experts, that these documents--which formed the basis

for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and

Niger--are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded

that these specific allegations are unfounded.''

Recent accounts in the news media have provided additional

details. According to the Washington Post, the faked evidence

included ``a series of letters between Iraqi agents and

officials in the central African nation of Niger.'' The

article stated that the forgers ``made relatively crude

errors that eventually gave them away--including names and

titles that did not match up with the individuals who held

office at the time the letters were purportedly written.''

CNN reported: ``one of the documents purports to be a letter

signed by Tandjia Mamadou, the president of Niger, talking

about the uranium deal with Iraq. On it [is] a childlike

signature that is clearly not his. Another, written on paper

from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of

October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had

not been foreign minister of Niger for 14 years.''

U.S. intelligence officials had doubts about the veracity

of the evidence long before Director ElBaradei's report. The

Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that ``the CIA first

heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in

late 2001'' when ``the existence of the documents was

reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand.'' The Los

Angeles Times quotes one CIA official as saying: ``We

included that in some of our reporting, although it was all

caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that

information.'' The Washington Post reported on March 13:

``The CIA . . . had questions about `whether they were

accurate,' said one intelligence official, and it decided not

to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure

weapons of mass destruction.''

There have been suggestions by some Administration

officials that there may be other evidence besides the forged

documents that shows Iraq tried to obtain uranium from an

African country. For instance, CIA officials recently stated

that ``U.S. concerns regarding a possible uranium agreement

between Niger and Iraq were not based solely on the documents

which are now known to be fraudulent.'' The CIA provided this

other information to the IAEA along with the forged

documents. After reviewing this complete body of evidence,

the IAEA stated: ``we have found to date no evidence or

plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons

programme in Iraq.'' Ultimately, the IAEA concluded that

``these specific allegations are unfounded.''

questions

These facts raise troubling questions. It appears that at

the same time that you, Secretary Rumsfeld, and State

Department officials were citing Iraq's efforts to obtain

uranium from Africa as a crucial part of the case against

Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials regarded this very same

evidence as unreliable. If true, this is deeply disturbing:

it would mean that your Administration asked the U.N.

Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to

rely on information that your own experts knew was not

credible.

Your statement to Congress during the State of the Union,

in particular, raises a host of questions. The statement is

worded in a way that suggests it was carefully crafted to be

both literally true and deliberately misleading at the same

time. The statement itself--``The British government has

learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant

quantities of uranium from Africa''--may be technically

accurate, since this appears to be the British position. But

given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you

intended--that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought

uranium from Africa--was simply false.

To date, the White House has avoided explaining why the

Administration relied on this forged evidence in building its

case against Iraq. The first Administration response, which

was provided to the Washington Post, was ``we fell for it.''

But this is no longer credible in light of the information

from the CIA. Your spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked about

this issue at a White House news briefing on March 14, but

as the following transcript reveals, he claimed ignorance and

avoided the question:

Q: Ari, as the president said in his State of the Union

address, the British government has learned that Saddam

Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium

from Africa. And since then, the IAEA said that those were

forged documents----

Mr. Fleischer: I'm sorry, whose statement was that?

Q: The President, in his State of the Union address. Since

then, the IAEA has said those were forged documents. Was the

administration aware of any doubts about these documents, the

authenticity of the documents, from any government agency or

department before it was submitted to the IAEA?

Mr. Fleisher: These are matters that are always reviewed

with an eye toward the various information that comes in and

is analyzed by a variety of different people. The President's

concerns about Iraq come from multiple places, involving

multiple threats that Iraq can possess, and these are matters

that remain discussed.

``Thank you [end of briefing].

Plainly, more explanation is needed. I urge you to provide

to me and to the relevant committees of Congress a full

accounting of what you knew about the reliability of the

evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew

this, and why you and senior officials in the Administration

presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the

Congress, and the American people without disclosing the

doubts of the CIA. In particular, I urge you to address:

(1) Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about

the credibility of the forged evidence to other

Administration officials, including officials in the

Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National

Security Council, and the White House;

(2) Whether the CIA had any input into the ``Fact Sheet''

distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and

(3) Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of

the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium

from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the

statement.

Given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate an

expeditious response to these questions.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman,

Ranking Minority Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I thank my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me, before I begin, let me ask my friend from Georgia, does his leadership plan to amend this martial law rule in any way to add any other issues besides the ones that have been listed?

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Could the gentleman just tell me generally what the topic is going to be?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day in the House. This House, I think, is about to embark on a process that should dismay every single Member of this House. The only way keeping us from going down this road is I think to vote down this martial law rule.

While I have many strong objections, and many of us on this side have strong objections, to martial rules in general, we have been accommodating in the past when they come to matters like important conference reports or emergency pieces of legislation that we need to get done before the recess. But this matter on Iraq does not qualify in that category. In fact, we just received a copy of the resolution just a couple of minutes ago about what they plan to bring up here.

This is not about a debate on Iraq. This is about politics, clear and simple. I will go further to say that I believe this is a deliberate effort to attack a Member of this House and his views because the majority is afraid of this man and afraid of his views and afraid of his words, so they believe that somehow he has to be attacked, that we need to take some quick action here on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, we should have a debate on Iraq. We should have had a debate on Iraq a long time ago. But what we are about to have is not a debate on Iraq. This will not be able to be amended, there be a limited amount of time for Members to be able to express their views, and, quite frankly, it is demeaning to this institution, it is demeaning to our soldiers, and it is demeaning to those who have raised questions about the war in Iraq. It is demeaning to the American public who now overwhelmingly have questions about this war in Iraq. They want us to take this issue seriously and not just play politics with it.

The fact of the matter is that from the very beginning, the efforts of this leadership have been geared toward covering up all of the facts about the war in Iraq. We were presented faulty intelligence. When we found out there were no weapons of mass destruction, we wanted a full investigation to figure out what actually went wrong, whether any of that intelligence had been manipulated. We were told we cannot have that investigation, we cannot have that discussion.

The fact of the matter is that we have had no formal investigations and no formal oversight of this war in Iraq. We sent a bunch of our soldiers off to war without proper equipment, without the proper body armor and Humvee protection, and this in spite of the fact that a few months before we went to war, we passed a defense authorization bill which essentially ordered the Pentagon to provide our soldiers with all the necessary equipment that they would need if they should ever go into war. Why did not that materialize? Where was the oversight into that?

Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been lost in this war in Iraq. We do not even know where it has gone, and nobody can give us an answer, and there is no investigation, there is no oversight, there is no debate.

The fact of the matter is this Congress has been complicit with the White House in covering up the facts. The situation at Abu Ghraib prison, I would argue that that instance probably more than anything else has been responsible for poisoning the hearts and minds of so many people in Iraq and the region. And rather than getting to the bottom of it, rather than making sure it never happens again, what has this Congress done? Covered up. Sweep it under the rug. Make believe it never happened.

You want a debate on Iraq? We should have a debate on Iraq, but not this bit of political theatrics. There are Members who believe that we should end this war immediately. I am one of those. There are Members who believe we should add more troops to the ones we already have in Iraq over there. All of us should have the opportunity to be able to debate this in a serious way.

Do you want to respect our troops? That is how you do it. You make sure we are doing our job. We have not been doing our job, and there is no objective person in this House, even those of you who staunchly support this war and advocate continuing staying the course, who can tell me things are going the way they were planned.

There are none of us in this Chamber who are going to fight in this that war, none of us are going to put our lives on the line, and, with very few exceptions, none of our kids are going to be fighting in that war. So it takes absolutely no courage for anybody in this chamber to wave the American flag and to say, ``Stay the course.''

This is not about a debate on Iraq, this is about political cover for you. This is about finding a way to not answer the tough questions. This is about a way to cover the administration's backside at a time when we should be demanding questions.

Congress should be doing its job, and this process, this process is a disgrace. We owe the people of this country, we owe the troops who are fighting bravely at our request over in Iraq, we owe them much more.

So, Mr. Speaker, this martial law rule needs to be defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, anybody who believes that what we are doing today is not in response to the comments by one single Member of this Congress, a Member who is highly respected by both sides of the aisle, a Member who is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, a Member who is an expert on military and defense issues, anybody who believes we are not doing this in response to that, quite frankly, defies credibility. This is a personal attack on one of the best Members, one of the most respected Members of this House, and it is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentlewoman who just spoke,

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentlewoman, if she wants to honor our troops, then give us a real debate. Do not bring this piece of garbage to the floor with an hour left at the end of the day. This is not honoring our troops. We are doing them a disservice. You are politicizing this war, and it is wrong.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if people do not like this resolution, they can vote against the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The gentleman from Georgia just referred to this as a Democratic resolution. I would like to inquire of the Chair if he knows who introduced this legislation.

Congressman Hunter, a Republican?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

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

The gentlewoman who just spoke keeps on talking about how the Democrats want to call for immediate withdrawal without providing for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops and the protection of our troops. Only Mr. Hunter, the Republican from California, has called for that in his resolution. None of us have called for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Can I inquire of the gentleman from California how he intends to vote on the resolution that he has introduced that does not provide for the protection of our troops?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

You are going to vote against the Hunter amendment.

Thank you for voting against your own amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know a single Democrat who supports the Hunter resolution that would basically provide for the immediate withdrawal without the protection for our troops. This is a counterfeit. This is an insult to this institution. And to not allow us to have a real debate, to not allow us to bring up different proposals, I think, undercuts the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

For 24 hours you maligned a great Member of this House, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia how many more speakers he has on his side.

Mr. Speaker, let me close for our side here.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, this Republican resolution is consistent with the dishonest political way the Republican leadership has acted over the past 3\1/2\ years. This Congress has not served as a check. It has not served as a coequal branch of government. This Republican Congress is only interested in covering up for this administration. We have lost over 2,000 American men and women in Iraq. Thousands more are wounded. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in this war effort, our credibility around the world is at an all-time low, and this is the best that you can do for our soldiers, this resolution? This is it? This is our debate on Iraq? This is what the American people get for all of what they have gone through, all the sacrifices they have made?

As for this legislation by the gentleman from California, which hasn't had a hearing and hasn't had a markup, if it comes up, I am going to vote against it. I think all of us are going to vote against it because it does not provide for the safe and the orderly withdrawal of our forces. Nobody on this side has said anything other than that.

Let me close with this: to my Republican friends, Jack Murtha isn't afraid of you. He has faced down a lot worse than some of the pathetic smears that we have heard from the other side today. And let me be clear to all of you. If you truly oppose this resolution, if you want to honor our soldiers, if you want to do your job and hold this administration accountable, which we are supposed to do, then you should oppose this rule.

If you oppose the rule, we are not going to have to deal with this lousy bill. We will come back and do it right. To vote for this rule is to politicize a war and that is a mistake. All of us whether we are for this war or against this war, whether Republican or Democrat or liberal or conservative, we should not want to politicize this war. To do so is tragic.

Mr. Speaker, by moving ahead with this resolution, we demean the service of our soldiers. We demean the families who have lost loved ones in this war. We demean this institution. We need to do our job. This is not about a game of political gotcha. This is about doing the right thing, making sure we are on the right course, that we can disagree about that, but we can respect each other's opinion without trying to smear one another.

And so I would urge all my colleagues for the sake of collegiality, for the sake of civility in this House, for

the sake of doing the right thing for the people of this country and especially for our troops overseas vote down this rule. Vote down this rule. Let's end this right now, and let's come back and let's do it right and let's get the American people what they deserve: a real, thorough, honest debate and discussion on the war in Iraq.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I think a number of people on this side of the aisle and maybe on the other side of the aisle did not hear what the amendment is. Could it be repeated, please?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 563 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII that requires a two-thirds vote to consider a

rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee against certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee; applies a waiver to any special rule reported on the legislative day of November 18, 2005 providing for consideration or disposition of any of the following measures:

First, a bill or a joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon; second, a conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 3199, to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism and for other purposes; third, a bill or a joint resolution relating to flood insurance; and finally, fourth, a bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 563 that the Rules Committee reported in order to ensure that we are able to complete the work of the American people in a timely and a proper manner before the Congress adjourns for Thanksgiving. In the following week, Members from both sides of the aisle will return to their districts to spend Thanksgiving with their families and with their constituents. However, before doing so, there remains important work to be done; and, Mr. Speaker, this rule will ensure that it gets done.

From making appropriations that keep this government running to ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to keep this country safe, to insuring Americans against floods, to finally strengthening the economy while cutting the budget, this rule gives the House an opportunity to move forward on an important legislative agenda, though difficult choices have and will continue to have to be made for the sake of the American people, and for the sake of an agenda of which all Americans can be proud. Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying legislation for which it provides.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Massachusetts, yes, we will have an amendment to the rule, which I will present at the end of the debate.

The amendment would basically say, ``A resolution relating to United States forces in Iraq.''

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not attack any Member of this body. This amendment follows the rules of decorum of this body.

The gentleman from the other side just listed a litany of complaints in regard to Iraq. Members on his side of

the aisle even have what is known as the ``Out of Iraq Caucus.'' I do not know if the gentleman from Massachusetts is a part of that membership or not, but we have, this side of the aisle, have heard repeatedly from Members on their side of the aisle, and not just one high-profile ranking member with strong defense credentials. Oh, no. No. We have heard every night of the first session of the 109th Congress from the 30-something Group, several Members on their side of the aisle, pounding this President, coming within an inch or less, Mr. Speaker, of accusing the President of lying, of out and out lying, repeatedly accusing the President of misleading the public about Iraq, demanding the immediate pullout of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, they are going to have the opportunity today on the floor of this House to vote yes or no, do they want us to immediately pull our troops out of Iraq, and that is all this amendment is about.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that this amendment to the resolution basically says, ``Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.'' It does not reference any Member whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

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

The gentleman on the other side complained about not having enough time to discuss this resolution. We will have a minimum, Mr. Speaker, of 3 hours. We are debating right now the same-day rule. Then we will debate the rule on House Resolution 571 and then have the debate on the resolution itself. So there will be plenty of time for Members on both sides of the aisle to express their opinions on this hugely important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), our newest Member.

I have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I close this debate by thanking the various Members of this body from the chairmen who have shepherded these legislative initiatives to the conferees whose hard work has given this House the opportunity to move our legislative agenda forward. While this process may not be perfect, Mr. Speaker, it is at the end of the day a process in which Members can work together through compromise and long hours to complete the work of the American people.

This is good governance; and, Mr. Speaker, good governance is never easy, but it never should be. This is serious work and the American people deserve every ounce of our attention and every ounce of our labor to see their agenda realized. Again, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Let us make it clear that this is not a stunt. It is not an attack on an individual. It is a very legitimate question. Jack Murtha is a distinguished veteran. He is a good friend. We have joined together on many more defense issues than we have been apart on, and he has got an excellent background in defense, and he has every right to take the position that he has taken. We are all masters of our own opinion and our own position, and he studied this issue, and that is his position.

The reason I think it is important for this House to speak now before we break for a couple of weeks is because the impression has gone out around the world, carried on international news agencies, U.S. news agencies to friends and foes alike. The impression has gone out that Congress is withdrawing its support of the mission in Iraq. And if we look at the Washington Post and look at the front page, that is precisely what we see. If we looked at the headline on CNN and many other of the electronic news media, that is what we see.

But more importantly, it is not just important as to what our allies think or what our adversaries think. The most important people on this stage are the people wearing the uniform of the United States. And people who are reading the media, watching the media, those 140,000 personnel presently stationed in Iraq are obviously getting an impression about the United States Congress and its position with respect to all of the publicity that has emanated not just from this body and statements that have gone out from this body but also from the other body that happened just a couple of days ago and the headline stories that emanated from that.

Now, all of us, and I can just say as the chairman of my committee, we have held lots of hearings, lots of briefings. We held full House briefings for every Member of the House, Democrat and Republican, where they could ask our intelligence officers, with no handlers from the White House present, every single question that they wanted to have answered. We have had full briefings on armor, on troop deployments, on operations. Everybody here is competent to answer this question: Should we terminate our deployment in Iraq?

Now, of all the issues that we have studied over the last year or so that we have been working on, this is certainly one that we all have a background in now. Nobody can complain now that they have been duped and therefore this is not a real question or a solid question or an important question to answer. So we are going to let every Member answer that, and I hope that the message that goes back to our troops in Iraq, and I know that the message that will go back to our troops in Iraq, is that we do not support a precipitous pullout from Iraq, and that will do more to restore their morale than anything else this Congress could do.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against a precipitous termination of our deployment in Iraq.

But I am going to allow you to vote ``yes.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

And let me make this point: that the resolution is written in precisely the way that I think describes the essence of the publicity that has emanated from Washington, D.C. This is a message that has been sent to our troops; and if you look at the e-mails coming in, I think the question is well described, and I think that it manifests what a lot of people now think, especially uniformed people in the Iraq theater, and it is precisely the question before the House that the gentleman will have an absolute right to vote on; and I would hope that this is not Mr. Murtha's position. He will have a chance to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate to my friend, he said this should not be about Mr. Murtha, and it is not about Mr. Murtha. It is about the message that has been sent around the world, as evidenced by e-mails coming back in from our troops now who think that the Congress is pulling the rug out from under the mission.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, let me answer my friend.

This is a letter from an army captain in Iraq. He says in this e- mail: ``I am a U.S. Army captain currently serving in Iraq, and I am shocked and appalled by Rep Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal. Please, please, please convince your colleague to let us finish this critical job. He is correct that the deployments and service and casualties are hard on all of us. He is wrong about what is demoralizing to us. What is demoralizing is a Congress which no longer stands behind our mission.''

That is why we are offering this resolution. That is obviously the message that is going out to thousands of servicemen around the world.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and in strong opposition to the underlying resolution. Our mission in Iraq is clear: Peace through strength, victory through resolve. Those who would have us retreat immediately have forgotten what appeasement does to the Islamic extremist madmen and murderers. Our goal in Iraq is honorable and wise. We must see this through to our victorious end. The choice is that simple, yet that important.

In his 2005 speech commemorating Veterans Day, President Bush affirmed that it is courage that liberated more than 50 million people from tyranny in the last century, and it is courage that will once again destroy the enemies of freedom.

As the stepmother of a proud Marine, Douglas Lehtinen, who, together with my future daughter-in-law Lindsay, is currently serving our Nation in Iraq, and as the wife of a decorated Vietnam veteran, I have witnessed this courage and this commitment to the mission of liberty.

In one of his e-mails from Iraq, Dougie asked that I remind the American people that it was not the United States who asked for this global struggle against Islamic extremists. It was the Islamic jihadists who targeted the free world and our Nation long before we entered Iraq. We cannot afford to yield the victory to the Islamic extremists by withdrawing now.

Dougie forwarded a piece to me just yesterday by Lieutenant General James T. Conway which best summarizes the opinion of many of our troops about the need to stay the course. Conway states: ``Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines realize that the biggest threat to mission accomplishment depends on what their fellow Americans do. The insurgents realize full well that the only choice they have of defeating the U.S. military is to weaken the will of the American population.''

He adds, The insurgents in Iraq maim and kill the less protected Iraqis, but their real target is that portion of the American public that is shaped by the news media.

Let us heed the message from our men and women in our Armed Forces serving in Iraq. They are in the best position to assess what we need to do, and they are asking us not to pull out of Iraq at this juncture. Iraq is at one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism worldwide.

Our ability to project major Armed Forces to the very heart of the Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war against terrorism the ability to directly address the tactical and ideological challenges of Islamic extremists. Through the promotion of an incipient Iraqi democracy, we continue our concerted efforts to counter the root causes of Islamic extremists in the region. These radicals are fully cognizant that the emergence of a new and democratic Iraq will inevitably threaten their very survival because freedom threatens them. Democratic governments deny them the funds, the weapons, and the sanctuary that they need to survive. Democracy denies them the new recruits that they need.

As such, Mr. Speaker, we must continue to support the people of Iraq in their efforts to strengthen their emerging democracies whose pace of development has been astounding. In January, the people of Iraq turned out in droves to vote in their first free democratic elections. In October, they once again voted to approve their Constitution, and today they are busily preparing for elections in December that will continue Iraq in its transition from a brutal totalitarian state to a free democratic nation. It takes time. We will succeed.