Congratulating the people of Iraq on the three national elections conducted in Iraq in 2005.

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.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in sorrow, not in anger, because this morning could be a morning of unity and celebration and congratulations. Yesterday in unprecedented numbers the people of Iraq rejected the threats and intimidation of the terrorists and chose a new permanent national Parliament, the first fully sovereign, elected democratic assembly in the history of Iraq. This should be cause for celebration for the Iraqi people, for our troops, the troops of our allies and the Iraqi security forces who bravely protected the Iraqi people who came out to vote. Unfortunately, the resolution before us does not do that, and that I deeply regret.

Mr. Speaker, we all know 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. Yesterday I was asked with a number of other Democrats to go to the White House. I sat next to the President as we talked about the possibility of building a united approach to this difficult dilemma. But the leadership, in a rigid, unbending, almost ruthless fashion, refused to take one single word of change or modification in their resolution. It was a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, which is inappropriate in a democratic legislative body where some of us have been attempting to operate in a bipartisan fashion.

I introduced a resolution and asked the Rules Committee to make it in order. My resolution congratulates the Iraqi people on three democratic national elections, encourages all Americans to support the Iraqi people, and commends our troops and those of our allies and the Iraqi forces for protecting their people at election time.

That is the resolution which should be before us today. We would get a unanimous vote, and we would send a message to our troops and to the whole world that Congress is united. Instead, by rigidly demanding total adherence to the Republican formula, there will be an ugly, divisive debate in this body this morning. This is not in our national interest.

I wish to use the balance of my time to read the resolution that I believe ought to be before us, Mr. Speaker.

The text of my resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 613

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 all segments of Iraqi society actively 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, for a new, national

parliament that will serve in accordance with the recently-

approved Iraqi Constitution for a four-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; and

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--

(1) congratulates the people of Iraq on the three national

elections conducted in Iraq in 2005;

(2) encourages all Americans to express support for the

people of Iraq in their efforts to achieve a free, open, and

democratic society; and

(3) 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.

There isn't a Member in this body who could not subscribe to this. This is not the time for an ugly and divisive debate. And with its rigidity and total unwillingness to listen to half of this body, the majority has chosen to give us an ugly and divisive debate.

Will my friend yield?

I would like to comment on your observation.

Thank you for your courtesy.

Thank you.

My good friend Mr. Dreier suggested that there will not be a divisive debate this morning. That divisive debate has already begun. You need to listen to the words of what my colleagues are saying. I attempted to avoid this divisive debate this morning. I attempted at the end of this session to have this Congress go home with a unanimous vote congratulating the Iraqi people on what they have done; congratulating our military, our allies and the Iraqi forces for making it possible for them to vote.

There are divisions on policy, and it is an ostrich policy to pretend that there are no divisions. I may agree with the gentleman's view about a timetable. That is not the issue. The issue is that the last discussion of Iraq in this body will show division, bitterness and divisiveness, and that could have been avoided with a little bit of flexibility and consideration on the part of the majority for the views of almost one-half of this body.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Reclaiming my time, it is in the national interest to show the greatest degree of unity in this body, and your resolution does the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, like the President's wishful, staged declaration of ``Mission Accomplished'' on that aircraft carrier 2\1/2\ years ago, or the Vice President's declaration that the insurgency was in its ``final throes,'' this resolution proclaims the desire of Congress for ``victory'' in Iraq.

Instead of dispatching our troops in adequate numbers, this Congress made one speech after another. Instead of covering our troops with adequate, impenetrable armor, this Congress passed one paper resolution after another like this, which provided little shield from those who would do our brave men and women harm.

Well, each day's news shows how out of touch this Administration and its congressional followers continue to be. Like the administration, this Congress has no idea what victory means other than trying to escape the morass that its bad judgment got us into.

I believe that victory in Iraq, which we all desire, begins with a commitment to championing the truth. This is an administration that cannot utter ``Iraq'' without saying ``9/11,'' even though it knows there is absolutely no connection between the two.

To win a war you have to shoot straight. Our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan understand that, but this administration and its congressional followers demonstrate again and again that they do not-- when they are discussing the real weakness of the Iraqi army or fail to do so, the strength of the insurgency, or the length our armed forces should be deployed.

They are so proud of the democratic choices made in Iraq this week and so very fearful for there to be any democratic choices on the resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others. They fear a democratic debate in this House because their position is one of complete weakness. They have waved the white flag themselves at the possibility of a true debate in this Congress.

What we need is a genuine debate about the best pathway for our security in Iraq. The President finally conceded over 30,000 civilians have died in this invasion. We have passed 2,000 young, brave men and women in the service of America, and we are on the way to 3,000.

This administration has begun a public relations offensive when what we need is an offensive for the protection of our families. It has abandoned that

in favor of a meaningless political victory, not a real plan for success for the security of our families.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Has the President or your resolution been willing to declare that it rejects the idea of permanent bases in Iraq?

Mr. Speaker, given the stated interest in democracy here in the House, I would ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to permit for division of the question so that we could express our unanimous support for the various provisions of this resolution, except for that on which we have disagreement as to the best way to achieve success in Iraq. At this point, so that we can have the kind of democracy that occurred this week in Iraq, of which the majority seems so proud, and actually have it right here on the floor of the House, I ask unanimous consent for a division of the question on the provisions of this resolution.

Given his professed interest in democracy, I am sure he will yield for that unanimous consent.

Shocking, truly shocking, that democracy cannot exist here on the House floor.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

As a member of the International Relations Committee, I rise in strong support of this resolution and take a moment to express our prayers and good wishes to the author of this resolution, who labors at the side of his namesake at this very hour in a hospice in Illinois.

It is extraordinary day today, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress that has had the privilege to travel to Operation Iraqi Freedom on three different occasions, the news that 11 million Iraqis, with Iraqis on point handling the security during these elections, 70 percent of Iraqis turned out. It was, in no uncertain terms, a victory for democracy in Iraq. And it is my privilege and honor to rise this morning on this floor in support of the rule and the underlying resolution that confirms this great day in the history of freedom, December 15, 2005, when millions of Iraqis defied terrorists to say ``yes'' to democracy.

I stand also in support of the affirmative statements in this resolution that this House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq and sees this election as a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and a defeat for the terrorists in that country. It is also in this resolution an effort to state emphatically the rejection of the wisdom of an artificial time line and also to recognize the extraordinary sacrifices made by members of the United States Armed Forces and their families. It is about them that I rise especially today, Mr. Speaker.

This week at my office in Muncie, Indiana, a group of the citizens that I

have the privilege of serving came to protest our military presence in Iraq, to urge the withdrawal, as some have done and continue to do, of our forces from this nation. And while it is their right to do so, let me say emphatically, it is my duty to stand with our Commander in Chief, to stand with our soldiers in the field, and to stand with the good people of Iraq until we achieve a total victory for freedom in this nation.

I derive that sense of duty from seven names that I felt obligated to mention today. They are the names of the soldiers that I represented until they stepped into eternity, who fell in Operation Iraqi Freedom, from eastern Indiana.

Lance Corporal Matthew Smith.

Private Shawn Pahnke.

Specialist Chad Keith.

Staff Sergeant Frederick Miller, Jr.

Sergeant Robert Colvill, Jr.

Specialist Raymond White.

Lance Corporal Scott Zubowski.

These seven men didn't leave their post, and this Congressman won't, either. It is them and to their credit and to their grieving families that I rise in support of this resolution today. It is the sacrifices of over 2,000 American soldiers who laid down their lives for the freedom that we saw demonstrated in the streets of every corner of Iraq yesterday that I support this resolution.