Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

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 such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me read another letter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me read another letter.

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

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

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

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

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, 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.