Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of our committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, last night and this morning, like all my colleagues, I watched the news reports about the parliamentary elections in Iraq. This is a proud day for the Iraqi people, and it is fitting that this Congress, this House of Representatives, recognize the courage of the Iraqi people, their desire to take control of their own destiny, and how much they have suffered to achieve this taste of democracy.

As has been stated by so many analysts in the news media, one of the most important outcomes of this election was the significant participation for the first time of Iraqi Sunnis in this election, many of whom, according to news reports, were encouraged to vote, escorted to the polls or guarded at the polls by armed Iraqi insurgents.

Everyone in the House of Representatives is proud of the Iraqi people. Everyone in this House respects the efforts made by our uniformed men and women to help the Iraqi people get to this historic moment.

This House could have sent a strong unified message to the Iraqi people, our troops in Iraq, and to the international community in support of our troops and in support of the brave Iraqi people. But, Mr. Speaker, once again, as it has so often done in the past, this Republican leadership has chosen to include controversial language in this resolution, knowing that it will provoke sharp and divisive debate over Iraq.

Rather than choosing to send a united message to the world, the Republican leadership has cynically and deliberately decided to highlight our divisions rather than our unity.

Late last night, the ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, one of the most respected leaders in this House on human rights, Congressman Tom Lantos, came before the Rules Committee with a resolution that focused on congratulating the people of Iraq for three successful elections conducted in Iraq this year. The resolution further praises our troops

for their contributions to peace and stability in Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, he was rejected out of hand.

Shame on the majority to treat one of the most respected Members of this body in such a fashion. Shame. Mr. Speaker, there are many points of view in this House about how the U.S. should proceed in Iraq. Even among the majority, there are differing points of view. I for one believe these successful Iraqi elections provide an opportunity for the United States to change course in Iraq and begin bringing U.S. forces home. As we pass the 1,000th day of the war in Iraq, I believe we must begin the transition to putting the Iraqis in charge.

After 3 years of war, the United States claims, for better or for worse, the elimination of Saddam Hussein from power, and that the United States has furthered the Iraqi political process, culminating in the passage of a Constitution and now the first democratic election and Iraq's first constitutional government.

At this point, plans for a full transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis demands a change in course, one that puts Iraqis in charge. Iraq can't move forward with 160,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. Embassy in the world, and with Iraqi public opinion behind a timetable for withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, many years ago Vermont Senator George Aiken said of the disastrous Vietnam war that the United States should declare victory and go home. Well, the elections in Iraq and the other milestones constitute a sufficient reason for the United States to declare that it has done all it can in Iraq, and it is time to reverse the Bush administration's policies.

President Bush's unwillingness to announce a plan to remove U.S. troops within a clear time frame and his refusal to renounce the use of permanent U.S. military bases there undermines his rhetoric about Iraqi democracy and will undermine the legitimacy of the new Iraqi Government. Our occupation of Iraq complicates the transition to democracy. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had it right, Mr. Speaker, when she said last month that the United States can support democracy, but we cannot impose democracy. And it is a deadly combination when democracy is equated with occupation.

While the President continues to give speeches on the war, the American people have become disenchanted with the administration's Iraq policies and its failure to disclose a plan for withdrawal. Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. The President has a credibility gap when it comes to Iraq. According to a December 8 New York Times/CBS poll, 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the war in Iraq, and 70 percent do not believe that he has developed a clear plan to get American troops out of Iraq.

We have lost more than 2,100 soldiers dead and over 15,000 wounded, overstretched our military, placed our homeland and those of our allies at greater risk, and still this President persists in a useless quest for, quote, victory.

But excuse me, Mr. Speaker, just what is ``victory''? Who defines it? Who decides when ``victory'' has been achieved in Iraq? Is it the Iraqi people themselves? Is it President Bush, who has already declared ``mission accomplished''? Is it next year? Or the year after that? Or 5 years or 10 years down the road? Is it when we have lost 3,000 troops in Iraq? Or 5,000? Or 10-? How many more American troops do we have to sacrifice? How many more Iraqi lives must be sacrificed before we decide that ``victory'' has been achieved?

While most Iraqis are confident in yesterday's parliamentary elections, two-thirds are opposed to the presence of U.S. troops, according to a poll released on December 12 by ABC News and Time Magazine. According to news reports, many of the Sunnis turned out in such large numbers yesterday because they see it as a means to end the U.S. occupation of their country. Arab voices through the Cairo process are helping change the dynamic in a positive way and are filling a role that the U.S. no longer needs to play.

The President must work with the United Nations and Iraq's Arab neighbors to develop an interim arrangement as American troops depart. The best way to preserve the gains made so far is to commit to long- term financing for reconstruction, working with the new Iraqi Government to set a timetable for withdrawal, and to arrange for an over-the-horizon troop presence.

The Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this House should be spending less time on spin and speeches and more time on preparing for bringing American troops home. The way out of Iraq begins by genuine respect for the will of the Iraqi people and their desire for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq. The President can begin to demonstrate this respect by putting an end to the attempted manipulation of Iraqi public opinion with fake news written by Pentagon contractors, the unambiguous announcement that the U.S. will not maintain permanent military bases there, and the immediate initiation of a coherent plan for the withdrawal of our forces there. This will not only give the vast majority of the Iraqi people what they want, but the new Iraqi Government its strongest chance for success.

Unlike what is stated in this resolution, there is nothing ``artificial'' about this approach. Congress, too, has a responsibility to take action where the Bush administration falters. Today we should praise the Iraqi people, but tomorrow this Congress should move to must-pass legislation to force beginning to bring our forces home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member on the International Relations Committee, who was denied his request to offer his amendment here on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to respond to what the chairman of the Rules Committee had said, let me make clear, nobody is talking about waving a white flag here. What we are talking about is trying to figure out a way to make a bad situation less bad. The polls have shown clearly that the majority of the Iraqi people want us out of Iraq. When a majority wants something, they usually get what they want, because that is what a democracy is about.

We don't know a lot about democracy in this House because we are routinely shut out of being able to have debates and votes on important issues. But the bottom line is that those of us who are advocating that the President set some sort of a timetable are doing so because we think that that is a way to strengthen the situation, to give the new government over there a chance to succeed. I don't believe it can succeed if it is viewed as a puppet of the United States. I don't believe it can succeed with a huge U.S. occupation over there. I don't believe it can succeed with the largest U.S. Embassy in the world over there. I don't believe it can succeed if those are the conditions.

And so having said that, let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of the authors of the amendment that was rejected last night in the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the Rules Committee respects a deliberative process in this House or that it is somehow democratic or receptive to alternative ideas, I think demonstrates to me that the chairman has pretty low standards when it comes to being inclusive.

The bottom line is, on important issues, on important matters like this one, we are routinely shut out. I mean, the chairman may be on board with what the President is doing in Iraq, but there are many of us who have great concerns. And the fact of the matter is, the section that is controversial in this bill deserves debate, not in the context of this resolution, but we should be on this floor debating this for a period of time and let everybody have their chance to present their viewpoint on what our policy should be in Iraq.

We should be debating Iraq almost every day. I mean, we are at war. We have lost 2,100 American servicemen and women; 15,000 are wounded. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we do not like to talk about it except in the context of these resolutions that kind of get dropped on us and brought to the floor; and we are supposed to praise our troops, which we all do.

We want to congratulate the democratic voting in Iraq, which we all do. But then tucked into this is a provision which some of us find objectionable.

This administration has a credibility gap, in my opinion, when it comes to Iraq. We have been misled too often, and it is time to demand the truth. It is not acceptable to embrace an open-ended U.S. policy toward Iraq that suggests that we put all our faith in the President.

He has been wrong on everything. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no tie to al Qaeda. There was no imminent threat to the United States from Iraq, and he rushed us into war. He said we would be greeted as liberators. Here we are approaching the third year. We are not greeted as liberators. We are stuck in a mess.

Mr. Speaker, I will also point out to the chairman of the Rules Committee that if you read the front page of today's Washington Post it says, ``Iraqi Vote Draws Big Turnout of Sunnis.'' Underneath, subheadline, ``Anti-U.S. Sentiment is Motivator for Many.''

A majority of the people in Iraq want us to begin the process of withdrawal; and what you are asking us to do is to embrace a resolution that says we will be there for as long as the President wants us, and that is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating today is an H. Res. resolution. Basically, this is just a sense of the Congress. It is largely symbolic.

One of the complaints that many of us on this side of the aisle, and I know some of the people on the Republican side have as well, is that we kind of skirt around the real issue, which is what the policy is. Staying as long as it is going to take, that is not a policy. That is a sound bite.

The President does not know where we are going in Iraq. He has given speeches that have been heavy on rhetoric, but not particularly big on specifics.

If we want to do something helpful here, bring a binding bill to the floor here that sets out our policy, and let us have it out. Let us have the debate. Let us talk about what our policy should be in Iraq. Let us come back next week or let us come back for a week in January and have this debate. Let us discuss what, in fact, our policy should be in Iraq. We are not doing that. This is all symbolic.

Notwithstanding the fact that we have 160,000 troops over there, that over 2,100 Americans have died over there, and 15,000 Americans have been wounded, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, we have yet to have a real policy debate on this House floor about what course we should take in Iraq. That is what we want. That is what we are hoping for. I do not think that is unreasonable.

To bring a largely symbolic resolution to the floor and tuck in it this kind of policy statement, give us an hour during the debate on the resolution to talk about everything, that is not the way we should be doing business around here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I will close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me remind the Members of this House, the chairman of the Rules Committee talked about how generous the Rules Committee is. This year, in the 109th Congress, we have had 43 restrictive rules, 22 closed rules, plus three additional closed rules that were included in one rule, H. Res. 351, and we have had 11 open rules as far as appropriations bills.

Let me also simply say my point was that on important matters we usually have closed rules, as we did yesterday on the pension bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so I could amend the rule and allow the House to consider House Resolution 613 instead of House Resolution 612. House Resolution 613 was introduced last evening by International Relations Ranking Member Lantos, the Democratic Leader Pelosi, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), which expresses congratulations to the people of Iraq on three national elections conducted in 2005.

This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee early this morning, but unfortunately, it was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and the text of House Resolution 613 immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of how Members of this House feel about the war in Iraq, I think all of us want to congratulate the people of Iraq for holding these historic elections and for getting out to vote despite the significant risks. We all want to congratulate our troops, but quite frankly, there is language in this bill that some of us consider inflammatory, that some of us strongly disagree with, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a unified message and not a divisive message here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in Iraq now for over 1,000 days, and I believe we must begin the transition to putting the Iraqis in charge. President Bush's unwillingness to announce a plan to remove U.S. troops within a clear time frame and his refusal to renounce the use of permanent U.S. military bases I think undermines his rhetoric and I think endangers the chance for democracy to succeed. Our occupation in Iraq complicates the transition to democracy.

People can disagree with me on this, but the fact of the matter is we should be debating this issue of how we deal with Iraq not in an H. Res. form, but in a binding resolution here on the House floor. We have time to debate Merry Christmas resolutions here in the House, but we never have the time to debate in a real way and in a meaningful way this war in Iraq.

We have sent thousands of our servicemen and -women into harm's way in Iraq. I would argue we rushed into this war. We have paid dearly for what the politicians in Washington have decided to do. We owe our troops better than just coming up and saying, stay the course. We owe them more than saying we are going to stay there until victory is achieved.

What is victory? I mean, nobody has defined what victory is. The President says we will know when we get there. Well, that is not good enough. That is not good enough for anybody in this House. That is not good enough for our soldiers.

We owe these brave men and women more than just a pat on the back and a congratulations. We owe them a real policy, and we owe the people of Iraq who have sacrificed so much the right to determine their own future. They want us to begin to extricate ourselves from Iraq. We should do that, and I would hope that my colleagues will vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up a resolution that truly unites this body and not divides it.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 619 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, yesterday was an extraordinary day not only in the history of Iraq but the history of the world. We saw the third free and fair election take place in the country of Iraq, and for the first time in the history of that nation we saw the people of Iraq choose their own leaders.

On January 30 of this year, there were many people who thought it could not happen, there were many terrorist attacks, and it actually was slow in coming. As you will recall, the pictures that we saw of voting stations where early on no one voted, but ultimately 8.5 million Iraqis voted to put into place a coalition government that was charged with the task of fashioning a constitution, a constitution that would work to bring together the very disparate factions that exist within Iraq, the three that we know of, the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurdish populations, and of course the other divisions that exist in the country.

Mid-summer, we saw the work on that constitution proceed. We saw the August date approach. There were problems, difficulties. And then we saw the October 15 election rapidly approach, and people from all over the world, including leaders of the U.S. forces there, were uncertain as to whether or not the Iraqi people would in fact ratify their constitution.

Mr. Speaker, we saw a 64 percent voter turnout, roughly 10 million Iraqis voting, and 78 percent of the people of Iraq from throughout the country among all of those three disparate factions within the country came together and overwhelmingly, with a 78 percent vote, ratified that constitution. The existence of that constitution called for parliamentary elections to take place, and for, as I said, the first time in the nation's history we yesterday saw the Iraqi people choose their own leaders, a 275-member parliamentary assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet the exact outcome of that election, but there are a number of very important things we do know about yesterday's election. We thought that there would be wide-ranging terrorist attacks, when in fact there were very few if any difficulties with the election at all when it came to attacks. We saw something that came as a great surprise to so many people, and that was a 70 percent voter turnout.

Mr. Speaker, 11 million Iraqis voted in this election. If one looks at where it is that we are headed, it is an amazing testament to what the United States of America and our Coalition Forces have done.

We, as a body, strongly support our troops; and we, as a body, strongly support the mission of our troops.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do, at this point, is share with my colleagues the resolution that, if we approve this rule, will be considered. It is a resolution introduced by the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. And I should say parenthetically that our thoughts and prayers are with Chairman Hyde right now as he is going through a very difficult situation in his family. But in his absence, I know that from the International Relations Committee our colleague from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) came before the Rules Committee last night and testified on behalf of this resolution; and she was joined by the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to these statements made about public opinion polls, I would like to point to my colleagues the ABC News poll about which my friend referred. Seventy-one percent of the Iraqis polled said that their lives were very good or quite good; 61 percent reported the security situation is very good or quite good in the area where they reside; 64 percent said they expect their lives to be much or somewhat better a year from now.

I know that my friend from Ohio is introducing a resolution, he spoke about it earlier today, talking about the independence and the Iraqis making a choice as far as our presence. The Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, made it very clear in an editorial that he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. He said:

``A timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they have to do is wait. Military plans must be flexible. We should have the suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist threat.''

That is not an American military leader making that statement. That is the President of Iraq.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the Republican Study Committee, my friend from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my very good friend from California by saying, first and foremost, there is nothing ugly and divisive about the debate that we are about to undertake, that we are in the midst of right now, number one.

Number two, I think it is important to note that while all of the recommendations that were made by the minority were rejected, I have just been given by the staff of the International Relations Committee an outline of those two recommendations that were made. They were to entirely delete the resolved No. 6 clause in the resolution, which was the language that I read which says that we cannot establish an artificial timetable for withdrawal, which is exactly what President Talabani said in his piece, number one. And, number two, it underscored the fact that there was a desire from the minority to change the goal of achieving victory to establishing stability in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for us to note that there should be, in fact, complete bipartisanship in our goal to not have an artificial timetable complying with the request of our men and women on the ground there along with President Talabani, as well as making sure that we achieve victory in Iraq. Nothing, nothing, has to be divisive about this debate. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day, an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives will support this, because we want to do more than simply pat our men and women in uniform on the back and pat the Iraqi people on the back. We want to talk about the importance of sustaining what took place yesterday for the future of Iraq.

I will in just a moment. We have got a limited amount of time. I look forward to engaging my friend, but I promised the former Secretary of State of Michigan that I would yield 2\1/2\ minutes to her. At this point I would like to do that and then would look forward to any comments that my friend would offer.

Absolutely. I look forward to it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield a minute to my friend from California as well.

Will the gentleman yield? I have yielded 2 minutes to the gentleman. I think he still has time.

I just would like to say that I believe that the resolution that has been brought forward is one which recognizes the directive, the call from the President of Iraq. It recognizes the sense of the men and women in uniform who are on the ground there. And I believe that an overwhelming majority, and I will say to my friend, there may be some Republicans who choose to vote against this measure. I don't know that every Republican is going to vote in support of this resolution, but this resolution underscores the importance of victory in Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend.

First of all, let me say that as a member of the Rules Committee, I am very proud of this democratic, small ``d,'' institution; and I am very proud of the work of the Rules Committee. I would like to say that in this session of Congress more amendments offered by Democrats have been made in order than amendments offered by Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that as my friend talks about ideas

being shut out, that is a mischaracterization of what has happened here. We have come forward with a sense of the Congress resolution, a simple resolution is what it is. I would like to share with my colleagues, since we are talking about the process of democracy in Iraq and the process of democracy here in the United States of America and in the people's House, according to the Congressional Research Service, they state on simple resolutions, ``Simple resolutions express nonbinding opinions on policies or issues (the `sense' of the House or Senate) or deal with the internal affairs or prerogatives of the House. For example, they are used to establish select and special committees, appoint the members of standing committees, and amend the standing rules. In the House, the Rules Committee reports its special rules in the form of simple resolutions.''

This is a simple resolution which I believe is going to enjoy strong bipartisan support. Democrats and Republicans will, I believe, in overwhelming numbers support this resolution which simply says, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize the incredible sacrifice by our troops, we recognize the incredible sacrifice and suffering that the Iraqi people encountered under Saddam Hussein and the struggle that they have gone through over the past 3 years. And it recognizes what has been clearly stated by Iraq's President, by our men and women in uniform and by the people of Iraq, and that is establishing some artificial timetable would undermine the process of democracy.

One must look at the letter which has gotten a great deal of attention that was sent from the number two operative in al Qaeda, Mr. Zawahari to the lead operative for al Qaeda in Iraq, the center of terrorism from Zarqawi. And he has said in that letter, Democracy is coming and there will be no excuse for violence thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that we do everything that we can for the stability of Iraq, the stability of the region, and the stability of the world, that we must maintain that path towards democracy. The coalition forces, the Iraqi security forces are making that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend.

I will simply say that I believe we should do everything we can to pursue the deliberative process here. I believe that the Rules Committee does that. We have a management responsibility. We bring resolutions through the Rules Committee. If there is controversy, I believe that recognizing our strategy for victory in Iraq is the right thing to do. People in Iraq, our men and women on the ground, recognize that.

I believe it is the right thing to do and I look forward to a strong and overwhelming bipartisan vote in support of this resolution.

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

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

I first say to my friend from Texas (Mr. Doggett) that this notion that we are going to stay just as long as President Bush wants us to stay and not a day longer, well, actually, what President Bush has said is that we will stay as long as necessary and not a day longer. And that was part of the initial strategy that was launched on his speech on the 26th of February 2003. And it is very, very clear that the President of Iraq has said that any kind of artificial timetable would, in fact, jeopardize the prospect of democracy.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I will say that the President has said in that speech that we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not 1 day longer. That is very clear to me, and so it is obvious.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the very, very able fighter for freedom, our great friend from Springdale, South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I do so to simply focus on the issue that is constantly raised here, and that is, the notion that we somehow impose closed rules on every piece of legislation.

There have been 113 rules considered on the House floor in the first session of the 109th Congress. With the exception of those rules which by statute or simple resolutions or appropriation continuing resolutions, 10 percent of those 113 rules have been closed rules.

We allow for a free floor in debate. More Democratic amendments than Republican amendments have been made in order. So we are enjoying democracy right here in the people's House, and the people of Iraq are enjoying the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen these buttons that my colleagues on the other side have been wearing, although I do not see them wearing it this morning, but they wore them last night, that says, debate Iraq. I just listened to a statement by my friend from Massachusetts, and I would say what is it that we are doing right now?

We have just gone through a very rigorous debate on the Defense appropriations process. It was considered under an open amendment process. We have gone through the Defense authorization process, and we have had a full debate on that. Every single day on the House floor at least one Member stands up to outline his or her position on the issue of Iraq. We are debating it constantly here, and it is a very healthy and important debate for us to have.

Mr. Speaker, as I have been listening to this debate, which has been taking place over the past hour, a name sticks in my mind. The name is J.P. Blecksmith. J.P. Blecksmith is a young marine who was tragically killed in one of the biggest battles in Iraq a year ago last month. It was the battle of Fallujah, and since he died, I have gotten to know his family, and his parents have repeatedly said to me personally, have gone on television and said this, that in the name of their courageous son who is a marine killed in the battle of Fallujah, it would be absolutely reprehensible for the United States of America to cut and run, for us to leave Iraq on some artificial timetable.

So, Mr. Speaker, today is a day of celebration. I cannot understand why my colleagues would say that the following line is somehow contentious. It simply says, while congratulating the Iraqi people for this overwhelming success that they had yesterday, congratulating our men and women in uniform and the Iraqi security forces and the coalition forces, it says basically what President Talabani of Iraq has said in a Wall Street Journal editorial. The resolution says, Setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq.

What is contentious about that? I cannot understand why anyone would believe, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot come together with a strong bipartisan vote, making sure that the success that we enjoyed on January 30 and October 15 and just yesterday in Iraq is sustained.

We know that Mr. Zarqawi has made it very, very clear that, as democracy blossoms, terrorism will come to an end.

So let us do everything within our power to support this resolution, to support our troops, to support the sustained victory of the people in Iraq. I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, I appreciate the privilege to address you, Mr. Speaker, and in turn, address the House of Representatives.

This has been a huge week here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We processed a lot of legislation this week. Much of it has been legislation that has been in the works for a number of years. And I think what I will try to do is maybe unravel this coming backwards across the way we passed it and work my way back into the legislation a little bit.

But I want to take up first the immigration reform and point out that in this debate that we heard today in this resolution that came forward, which was H. Res. 612, the continuous message from the other side was about being anti-immigrant, anti-immigrant.

But it confuses the difference between an immigrant and an illegal immigrant. In fact, I know of no one in this Congress that is anti- immigrant. I know of many Members of this Congress that are pro the rule of law.

And that is the distinction that we need to draw the line with. And I take us back to where would be if we went back even 10 years, but say go back 25 years, in a time when we did not have very much illegal immigration. It was a smaller percentage of our overall population; it was smaller in numbers, smaller in percentage, and it was not a very significant problem. It was something that was somewhat manageable back then.

And back in that period of time, if we had been able to control our borders and watched as we needed more employees in certain sectors of the economy, we would have seen a number of things happen that would have resolved this need that we keep hearing from business about labor.

They say that if we deported all of the illegals, our economy would collapse, and we cannot get along without them when perhaps 4 percent of our workforce in America is an illegal workforce. And if we lose 4 percent and retain 96 percent, I cannot believe that this resilient country could not find a way to bounce back from that and accommodate the difference.

So I take us back 25 years and ask, what would we do if we respected the rule of law? What would we do if we had borders that were controlled? How would we adjust to demands in a growing economy if illegal labor, cheap labor that pours in from overseas just were not available?

What if the United States of America, instead of being a large portion of an entire continent, what if we were an island? What if you drew the line on the 49th parallel on the north and our southern border on the south and envisioned the United States sitting out alone where illegal labor does not flow across our borders just because of the jobs magnet but in fact has to find an expensive way of transportation to get across a broad ocean?

Think, for example, of a country like Australia that finds itself in that kind of a circumstance. I take you back to a policy that they had up until 1971. Actually, they did not have a very good name for it. They called it White Australia, and some would be embarrassed about the name for that now. But that was the phrase that they used to describe their immigration policy, which is they were advancing the idea of European descendents populating the continent of Australia.

In fact, I graduated from high school in 1967, and I remember during those years that I was in college, I saw advertisements come from Australia saying this is a great place to move to. We really need you to come down here. There is a wealth of opportunity in Australia. And I thought about it. And so that advertisement that was there was because they needed more people to grow their economy.

In about 1971, they gave up on this mission to some degree, and they changed their policy to allow immigrants to come in from Southeast Asia. Now, how does this work politically? We can learn from these lessons here in the United States of America, and that is that it was big business that wanted the labor to come in, and it was labor unions that wanted to keep the labor out because they understood something in Australia as far as back as 1971 that there was a law of supply and demand.

That law of supply and demand seems to be missing from the rationale of the people who oppose enforcement of our rule of law with regard to immigration. They do not seem to understand that when we have an oversupply of labor, that drives the price down and that labor is a commodity, like where I come from, corn and beans or cattle and hogs, or gold or oil if you come from another part of the world, or currency. It fluctuates in the marketplace according to supply and demand.

So the island, or I should call it the large continent, and it actually is, the large continent of Australia did not have that option of being able to run open borders and let millions come in to drive their wage price down. They actually had to fight the politics out inside Australia and adopt a policy that brought in immigrants from Southeast Asia and other parts of the world to fill their labor supply. The pressure got great enough that they came up with an economic solution.

Well, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the United States of America, had we respected the rule of law, had we controlled our borders, the pressure would have been brought politically to do the things necessary to bring in the amount of labor in a legal and a rational fashion.

We would have done some other things, too. Some of these sectors of the economy would have seen their wages go up, and they would have decided they could not afford to pay those kinds of wages; so they would have gotten innovative and they would have used technology. We use robotics today. We use a lot of different techniques to cut down on the amount of labor we need to produce a product. We would do more of that if labor were higher. We would be more innovative. When labor is lower, we are less innovative. In a country where labor is cheap, they do not have much innovation at all. So the pressure of high wages would drive technology, and that would replace some of the labor, and that labor that could be replaced by more technology would then transfer to places where labor could not be replaced as well by technology.

Another thing that happened, and is a little joke here in Congress the last couple of days, is Southern California ran out of Okies that went there to do that hard work from the Dust Bowl. They did. They went over there and they were willing to do the hard work and work in the fields. They were glad to get in anywhere where they could get a job. But they transferred themselves from Oklahoma to California for the opportunity.

I take you to an article that I read in the Des Moine Register maybe 10 or 12 years ago, and it was about a section in Milwaukee that was six blocks by six blocks, 36 square blocks, and in that section for every single dwelling that was there, there was not a single male head of household that had a job and was working. And as I read through the article, I tuned myself to the ear of the writer, who said that it was too bad that they lost their jobs in the breweries in Milwaukee. The automation that came in so they could make beer with a lot less labor caused the good jobs that were there, some of them, to disappear. That caused people to be laid off. And so they went back to their homes and sat inside their homes, and when they went around to do the interviews and to survey, 36 square blocks, not a single working male head of household.

The people had come up from the South, from the gulf coast, from southern Mississippi, Alabama, down in that region, moved up there for those good jobs. They went up to access the good jobs in the breweries and other types of industry that was up there in Milwaukee; and they raised their families there and then, in a matter of a generation or two, found themselves laid off, and their children or their children's children could not get jobs in the breweries the same way that they had. So they sat in their household and did not go somewhere to find a job.

We know why that is. And that is in one of the better States with regard to welfare reform. But it is because the safety net of welfare had become a hammock for everyone in that entire 36-block area. They totally missed the point, though, that the same people's predecessors, that this was the progeny of their predecessors who had transferred themselves all the way from the gulf coast to Milwaukee, Wisconsin for what? For a job, Mr. Speaker.

And now we look at this economy in the United States as if labor cannot be transferred from one region to another to fill the demand. So there is a demand for some 5,000 roughneck workers out in the oil fields in Wyoming, in that area, that I happened to read an article on just yesterday; and we have got 15 to 18 million workforce sitting there unemployed in the United States of America, and we want to do a guest worker/amnesty plan for 11 million illegals in this country. What country in their right mind would pay 15 to 18 million people not to work and then bring in 11 million, or I would say closer to 22 million, people who do want to work at a cheap rate? That does not make economic sense, Mr. Speaker. And that is one of the supply and demand rationales that I would like to point out with regard to the immigration policy.

So if we were a rational Nation, if we were a Nation that did not have this convenience of opening up our borders and allowing the illegals to come in, we would have done these things: we would have transferred labor from one part of the country to another; we would have squeezed down the welfare so that some of the people, and, in fact, I would like it if most of the people, would get up and go to work. That would be two things.

And the third thing we would have done is what Singapore is doing right now. They are advertising to their people, saying have more babies. What is wrong with a fertility plan? That is a natural way to replace labor. Those three things would have happened within our borders, and then within our borders we would have been under political pressure to negotiate a rational immigration policy that was legal.

And, Mr. Speaker, I object to the idea that we would bring in third- class people. People who come to America, I want them to have a path to citizenship. I want them to access the American Dream. I want them to do it the legal way.

So we have addressed this immigration issue, and I actually did not come to the floor to talk about immigration, but it sparked me when I listened to the gentlewoman from Texas.

I came to the floor to talk about another subject matter, and that is the subject matter of Iraq. We have made significant progress there. This is a day of celebration. The reports are continuing to come in from the aftermath of the closing of the polls of their December 15 election. And the ink is fading on my finger and on the fingers of many of us here on this floor of Congress who have in solidarity dipped our fingers in ink. And it helps me, when I see my finger, to look at that and remember what they have all done, risked their lives to go vote, 11 million strong and more. The most people ever to vote in Iraq, the most purple fingers ever maybe anytime in the world.

So today we brought a resolution to the floor of the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 612, and that is a resolution to honor the troops, to declare our dedication and our unshaking will to see this through to a final victory in Iraq. And this resolution was written in a clear fashion, in a rational and a logical fashion. And we had a debate on this floor.

And Member after Member from the other side of the aisle came down, and they said, I honor and support our troops and request an open debate on the Iraq war on the House floor. Member after Member after Member: I honor and support our troops and request an open debate on the Iraq war on the House floor. One Member said, In opposition to our policy in Iraq, he also requested an open debate on the House floor.

Well, we had an open debate on the House floor. I do not know why we had 20 or so Members or several more come down and say they honored and respected our troops and requested an open debate on the House floor, because that was what we had scheduled was an open debate on the House floor. We had the debate. The question after I heard that I had was when I saw the vote go up on the board. If I were a soldier in Iraq, if I were in a military uniform, ready to put my life on the line for this country, and I saw this vote, 279 in favor of the resolution dedicated to victory and support of a free Iraqi people, 279 in support; 109, sadly, against, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-four voted present and 12 did not vote at all. So I add those up and come to over 150 who said they did not commit themselves to a full victory in Iraq. For whatever reason, they said they want an honest and open debate. Every of them that came to the microphone said, I honor and support our troops. I wrote the quote down. They were using the same script, I believe.

And I point this out: that you cannot honor and support our troops if you oppose their mission. There was a clear

opportunity here to support their mission in Iraq, to stand with them. This Congress voted to support their mission before the President ever ordered them into battle, and yet they still seek to pull down this effort.

Also, a number of Members in that debate said the Republicans and the President will not define victory. All they want is a deadline, a date certain, by which American troops will be out of Iraq, and accused the Republican side of the aisle of not being willing to define victory.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit this: the other side of this argument dare not define victory because if they do, then they will lose their ability to raise the bar and make it harder and harder and harder to meet their standards.

So I will stand here and define victory this evening. And this is a victory that will fit this war and it will fit every war throughout history, every one we know and every one that we will see and every one that our posterity will see. The definition of victory, Mr. Speaker, is when the losing side realizes and acknowledges that they have lost. That is what this effort is about. And if we could have gotten Saddam Hussein to stare into the barrels of a few tanks and decided that he had lost, that would have been the end of the war. We would not have had to send troops into Iraq. But they had to be convinced that they were losing, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we sent troops there is to convince the other side that they had lost.

Yet we have people over on this side of the ocean standing here on the floor of the United States Congress, seeking to convince our enemies that we cannot win and that the enemies cannot lose. That is, Mr. Speaker, undermining our effort and undermining our troops. And yet some of the same people come to this floor and say, I honor and support our troops and request an open debate on the Iraq war on the House floor.

We had an open debate. They voted against the resolution. And I will tell you, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot honor the troops and defy their mission. They go together. You must honor the troops and the mission together. They are integral and they are one and the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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