Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just came back from Iraq. He brought with him a quote from a Special Ops officer who is operating in that country. This man said this: ``We are not going to kill our way to victory.'' Now, if you look at what has gone on in the last 5 years, this Congress has allowed the President to go into Afghanistan, do half the job, cut and run to go to Iraq to a war that had no purpose. They took out Saddam Hussein, the President landed on the Abraham Lincoln and said ``Mission Accomplished.'' In fact he was right, they got rid of Saddam, but they have been fighting a war of occupation for 4 years. When the President landed on the Abraham Lincoln, 141 people had died; and now, 2,400 more have died in this war of occupation with no plan to end it, no plan to get out of it, and no end in sight. This President should be taken out of office. We can't do that, but there is an election coming in November of this year to take out the Republican leadership of the House.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Larson. I think that people may wonder why some of us come out here and talk about this week after week. It really has to do with the feeling of having seen this story once before. And when you know what it is to commit people to battle. I had to say, this person is fit for active duty and goes to war in Vietnam. I had to do that again and again and again. So I know what the weight is of doing that. When you ask, why are the generals coming out and talking about what is going on in this whole thing? Why do people who have been loyal to this country and have served for long, distinguished careers, now stand up and say about the management of this war, as General Newbold did on April 9th of this year, he said, My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with the casualness and the swagger that are the special privilege of those who have never had to execute these missions or bury the results. And it is incredible that we stand out here today, 120 days from election, being subjected to a propaganda war that things are getting better. In spite of bombings and people dying and our soldiers continuing to be killed, the administration says, We have to stay the course. Now, if you look around the world, you would think maybe, well, maybe it is just some antiwar Americans. Right? No. In yesterday's Guardian, or the July 5 Guardian, there was an article my Menzies Campbell. He is the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the British House of Commons. And he said, the British and American Governments have tried to pretend things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. The facts belie their optimism. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of car and roadside bombs doubled and the suicide bombs trebled. Electricity supplies and oil production are still below prewar levels. Iraq stands on the threshold of a civil war. Now, here is a leader in Britain saying exactly what we are saying. They have got troops on the ground. They are committed in support. But, in fact, they are becoming very antsy. Mr. Campbell comes up with a six-point plan to get out of Iraq. It is things that we have talked about right here in this room. He talks about a comprehensive U.N.-led disarmament, demobilization and reintegration strategy as necessary to make a reality of the Iraqi prime minister's policies that the militias must merge with the national security forces. We all know this cannot be a government that has militias running it. It becomes warlords. It becomes like Afghanistan. It is the same thing. He also says there needs to be an end to the systematic, indefinite detentions by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Today, there are 30,000 Iraqis held in more or less permanent detention, whether it be in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or wherever. And as long as we continue to do that, we are occupiers. There is no question about it. And the plan which Mr. Menzies Campbell puts forward, or the one that we put forward, there are reasonable ways to get out of this. But we must get out of Iraq if we are ever going to deal with the problems you talk about in Afghanistan. We cannot fight on two fronts. We have proven that. We left Afghanistan to go to Iraq, and the mess came right back up. And if we are serious about dealing with whatever kind of terrorism was being created in Afghanistan, we have got to go back and finish that job. Now, Menzies Campbell finishes by saying, you could change the words a little bit, but it would be the very same thing. With distressing regularity, the Commons, or the Congress, pays tribute to the brave men and women who have given their lives in Iraq. If the government cannot explain why this is necessary, that they should make this ultimate sacrifice, then it must be prepared to bring them home. And that is where we are today. We have a government that wants to get through 120 days, and I will make a prediction for you. Right there, the prime minister of Iraq, Mr. Maliki, is going to come in here in the next month, and he is going to stand up there and plead with us to leave our troops in Iraq. We have seen that kind of stuff already in this House. And you can bet that the PR from that will be to stimulate people to say, oh, gee, if we stayed just another 3 months or another 4 months or whatever. We have been there since 2002, 4 years, and this is what you have as the analysis by people who know what they are talking about. [From the Guardian, July 5, 2006] Only a U.N.-Led Peace Process Can Halt the Iraq Catastrophe--The Government Cannot Justify the Continuing Presence of Our Troops Unless It Shows It Has Learned From Its Failures (By Menzies Campbell) The British and American governments like to pretend that things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. The facts belie their optimism. Between 2004 and 2005 the number of car and roadside bombs doubled, and suicide bombs trebled. Electricity supplies and oil production are still below prewar levels. Iraq stands on the threshold of civil war. The illegal invasion, launched on a flawed prospectus and with little understanding of the consequences, has resulted in the deaths of about 3,000 coalition soldiers, 40,000 civilians and many U.N. and humanitarian workers. Since 2003 the coalition has met neither its obligations nor its objectives. There was a catastrophic failure to plan for postwar Iraq, followed by misjudgment and incompetence. This has been overlaid by a disproportionate use of military force, including gross human rights abuses. There are nearly 30,000 people being held without trial in Iraq. These failures and misjudgments have perpetuated the insurgency, increased corruption and criminality, and inhibited improvements to the lives of Iraqis. We must now face the possibility that Iraq could become a failed state. That would have devastating economic and security consequences for the region, and would risk taking the current humanitarian disaster to a completely new level. The catalogue of errors means the capacity of the UK and the U.S. to play a positive role in redeeming the situation is severely diminished. The legitimacy of the coalition, always questionable, is now simply not accepted by most Iraqis. A 2005 poll for the British Ministry of Defense found that eight out of 10 Iraqis strongly opposed the presence of coalition forces. Between 70 percent-90 percent want to see a timeline for the withdrawal of coalition troops. Faced with this reality, the British and American governments seem to be in denial. The last time the British government allotted parliamentary time for a full debate on Iraq was July 20 2004, which was only the second occasion since March 18 2003. It appears to be running scared of critical evaluation. The coalition does not have an exit strategy, nor does it have a strategy for staying. But to continue as it has been is not a credible option. The British and U.S. governments require a coherent stabilisation and exit strategy. The early moves by Iraq's government of national unity to form a reconciliation plan are positive, but vague on detail. The foundation of a new strategy should be a peace process led by the U.N. to accelerate national reconciliation and the internationalisation of support for Iraq. If the problems of internecine conflict within Iraq have international dimensions, so too must the solutions. A new strategy would seek to build on the policies set out by the Iraqi prime minister and work towards an international ``compact'', similar to that agreed with Afghanistan, setting out the commitments of all sides and a comprehensive security and reconstruction strategy. Only an international solution can shore up the legitimacy and effectiveness of Iraq's government, improve the delivery of essential services and facilitate the end of the militarisation. Every further association with the U.S. and the UK taints the Iraqi administration. What should that solution contain? First, establishing a regional contact group would strengthen the engagement of Iraq's neighbours, and require them to play a constructive role in reconstruction. A contact group could play a significant role in talking to insurgent groups, improving border controls and promoting economic stability. Second, enhanced measures to train, equip and professionalise Iraqi security forces are needed to de- politicise them and improve security. Coalition forces should move towards training, advising and equipping. Third, a comprehensive, U.N.-led disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration strategy is necessary to make a reality of the Iraqi prime minister's policy that the militias must merge with the national security forces. Fourth, there should be an end to systematic indefinite detentions by Iraqi and U.S. forces, and full access should be granted to U.N. human rights monitors and the Red Cross. Fifth, the reconstruction process must be expedited and legitimised (60 percent of Iraqis believe the U.N. should have the lead role). Increasing UNDP and the World Bank involvement would enhance transparency and accountability. Donors must play their part and deliver on their aid pledges. Sixth, Iraq needs a programme for phased security transfer and withdrawal of coalition troops. The Iraqis view them as occupiers. A limited British withdrawal is taking place but U.S. troops are redeploying in other parts of the country. The UK should aim to achieve a series of withdrawals, in parallel with the U.S., according to milestones in the stabilisation and reconstruction process. A transparent agreement with the Iraqi administration would help to counter the perception of occupation and illegitimacy. I have been supportive of British efforts to bring stability to Iraq. But, support for the government cannot be unconditional. Unless it shows that it has learned from its failures and is ready to look afresh at the way out of the Iraqi quagmire, it will be impossible to justify the continuing presence of British forces in Iraq. With distressing regularity, the Commons pays tribute to the brave men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq. If the government cannot explain why it is necessary that they should make the ultimate sacrifice, then it must be prepared to bring them home.

Mr. McDERMOTT. To the 40,000 people who died there.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this election is going to be a referendum on the President's plan to deal with Iraq. The American people need to know what is going on. And, of course, our press gives them one view. But I think it is important to see what the rest of the world is saying about what is going on in Iraq today. For that reason I am going to read some portions of an editorial from the Daily Star of Lebanon. It is the most influential and most balanced paper in the Middle East, and the title is ``Only Iraqis Can Keep Sectarian Violence From Ruining Their Country.'' ``In the latest outburst of sectarian violence in Iraq, roving bands of Shiite gunmen killed at least 41 Sunnis in Baghdad on Sunday as a car bomb targeted a Shiite mosque, killing 17.'' ``Bloody scenes such as these are becoming all too common in Iraq, where a low-intensity civil war threatens to erupt into full-scale sectarian conflict. The violence already poses a threat to the fragile Iraqi government. Sunni MPs, who have been boycotting Parliament sessions over the abduction of one of their colleagues, MP Tayseer Najah al-Mashhadani, are now considering extending their boycott to withdraw from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Cabinet. If they do so, the national unity government that took six long and tedious months of horse trading to create could easily topple. ``Recent developments in the country only serve to illustrate the bankruptcy of the sectarian power-sharing agreement created under U.S. occupation. This is not to say that there were no sectarian tensions in Iraq prior to the U.S . . . but the new poisonous political arrangement created under the U.S. occupation has only exacerbated existing tensions. ``The most deadly schism that has emerged in the country is the Sunni-Shiite rift. A small group of Sunnis has been waging a deadly insurgency and attacking Shiite citizens and mosques. In response, Shiite commando units, some of which are affiliated with the government, have been conducting reprisal attacks against mosques and civilians in Sunni communities. The sectarian `cleansing' of various cities around the country has driven tens of thousands of Iraqis to flee their homes. ``There can be no victors in a full-scale sectarian conflict in Iraq. One only has to recall the tragedy that was Lebanon's 15-year civil war to know that all parties will be the losers in a sectarian war. Even the minute personal gains achieved by trigger-happy gunmen will be erased whenever men with bigger guns come along to exact their revenge. ``Iraqis are currently heading in the same direction as the Lebanese were in 1975. And sadly, they have no one to turn to but themselves if they want to avoid civil war. They cannot turn to the U.S. military and ask it to use its muscle, because that will only stoke more intercommunal hostilities. Iraq's neighbors, who during a meeting over the weekend failed to offer the Iraqi people any tangible assistance, proved that they are unwilling to do much more than issue rhetorical statements. The responsibility of avoiding full-scale civil war rests squarely on the laps of Iraqis. During this volatile period, it is crucial that all Iraqi leaders act responsibly and refrain from inflammatory acts and statements that can only make matters worse.'' Now, it is clear from this editorial and from all the papers if you read them in the Middle East that the longer we stay there, the longer the violence goes on. If we want peace, if we want a stable government for the Iraqi people, if we want a society to develop in a civil way, we must begin the process of getting out. We cannot say we are going to stay there until it is quiet because it is clear from editorials like this one in The Daily Star and many other newspapers across the Middle East that it will not happen as long as we stay. We are considered the occupiers. The government is considered one that we created. Our fear, down at 1600 Pennsylvania, is that if we go, they will create a government that we do not like. But democracy requires that you trust the people to choose their own government. We will talk more about this in an hour from now.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President likes to say as the Iraqi people stand up, the U.S. will stand down. He has changed the mission from finding weapons of mass destruction to removing a dictator and bringing democracy to Iraq, saying the Iraqi people would decide what is best for their country. The President essentially likes to point to the recent formation of a new Iraq government as vindication of his policies and a turning point in bringing peace to a troubled land. Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki announced a 24 point reconciliation to stabilize the country, his government's first major independent initiative. Within hours, we learned the U.S. had been deeply involved in watering down what the administration did not like about the Iraqi reconciliation plan, including two key elements, an offer of amnesty for insurgents and calling for a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal. Well, Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. U.S. troops will never be able to leave Iraq as long as we stay the course of allowing the Iraqi government to make decisions only so long as we agree with. After all the sacrifices made by the American people, after all the American soldiers lost in combat, wounded and psychologically scarred in combat, the President's Iraq strategy is evolving into a corporate subsidy strategy. Influential leaders at home and abroad are beginning to raise questions about the President's intentions. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the record three recent articles from the mainstream influential news media in the Mideast and the U.S. ``Sovereignty is just a word on paper until Iraq is allowed to run its own affairs,'' is the title of an editorial published in the Daily Star, a distinguished newspaper in Lebanon. On the same day, the Daily Star reprinted a commentary originally published in the Los Angeles Times entitled: An Iraq Amnesty Will Split the Insurgency. The Arab News published a commentary entitled Reconciliation in Iraq: If Only Maliki Had Freedom of Action. Thoughtful people are raising troubling questions. This is the conclusion of the Daily Star's editorial: ``The Iraqis need the space to make hard decisions that will help them restore stability in their country. But they will never find this space so long as the U.S. officials continue to micromanage the Iraqi government according to their own plan. What the Iraqis really need most now is what the Americans promised them long ago, freedom. And that ought to include the freedom to govern their own country in a way that would benefit the Iraqi people.'' The President keeps telling Congress and the American people that it is stated policy to let Iraq stand up. If that is the case, then the President cannot instruct the administration to hold the Iraqi government down. Otherwise, we are installing a U.S. government, run by Iraqis, and that is one of the worst fears of the Middle East. If the President is going to follow his own policy, then Iraqi leaders may make decisions we don't like. If the President is calling the shots behind the scenes, then the new Iraqi government will have no credibility. Without credibility an Iraqi government is living on borrowed time, and we know it. This Nation has some history with attempts to install or prop up governments around the world beholden to the United States, and the record is dismal. How many times have we thrown billions at so-called friends, only to see these leaders ousted or ignored because they are seen as puppets of the United States? The Arab News commentary says, ``If left to his own devices Iraq's new Prime Minister Maliki has a good chance of uniting his fractured country and stamping out the violence. But there is just one problem. U.S. internal politics appear to be thwarting his efforts.'' Running Iraq from behind the scenes cannot be the President's definition of stay the course, or the U.S. will stay in Iraq indefinitely. The Iraq war has divided this Nation, and the Iraq government's decisions on difficult issues like amnesty for insurgents will divide America even more. The President said he wanted a free and independent Iraq. Well, perhaps he got what he wanted. Now what is he going to do about it? Finding a way to end the war can be as difficult as finding a way to start a war. It will be impossible unless the President starts talking straight to the American people and to the Iraqi people. You cannot install a puppet government and think that that is going to fool the Iraqis. They will continue to attack, which will keep our troops there and keep the death going. We must be honest about what our policy in Iraq really is. [From the Arab News, June 27, 2006] Reconciliation in Iraq: If Only Maliki Had Freedom of Action (By Linda Heard) If left to his own devices Iraq's new Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki has a good chance of uniting his fractured country and stamping out the violence. But there is just one problem. U.S. internal politics appear to be thwarting his efforts. On Sunday, Al-Maliki presented his Parliament with a 24- point national reconciliation plan that was backed by Sunni opposition figures. This included amnesty for insurgents without blood on their hands, further prisoner releases, and a timetable for Iraqis to takeover all aspects of their country's security. Des Browne, Britain's defense secretary, applauded the moves saying, ``There is no conflict in the world that has been resolved without dealing with the issue of reconciliation. Reconciliation requires risks, whether it is in South Africa, Northern Ireland or the Balkans . . .'' These are undoubtedly good steps on the road to cementing various factions but earlier press releases suggest Al- Maliki's initial grand design has been considerably watered- down. According to a report in last Friday's Times newspaper titled ``Peace deal offers Iraq insurgents an amnesty'' Al-Maliki was set to ``promise a finite, U.N.-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to U.S. operations against insurgent strongholds'' and an amnesty to insurgents responsible for the deaths of American forces. In the event, the above crucial points were excluded from the prime minister's proposals. In light of the turnaround, it is almost certain that U.S. officials have been busy whispering in his ear. On Thursday, Democratic senators proposed a vote to begin the drawdown of U.S. troops but were rebuffed by mostly Republican opponents, who believe an earl pullout would empower terrorists, weaken the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government and endanger the security of the U.S. In reality, most Bush supporters perceive the argument in terms of America winning or losing the war placing concerns about Iraq's stability secondary. For them an imminent withdrawal would be tantamount to an admission of failure or, worse, surrender that they fear will affect the outcome of next November's midterm elections. The idea that insurgents could be forgiven for the killing of U.S. military personnel has also failed to sit well with either members of the U.S. administration or Congress, who predict public outrage. An article by Lincoln Lease, a U.S. Army specialist serving in Baghdad, published on insidebayarea.com illustrates how some Americans might view that move. Lease writes: ``I take personal offense to Al-Maliki's proposition to grant any kind of amnesty--limited or unlimited--to any insurgent who has been involved in terrorism against the United States. It seems to me that Al- Maliki has slapped all the families of wounded or dead soldiers in the face.'' The idea that the Iraqi leader is intent on humiliating the families of American soldiers or bent on offending Lincoln Lease and his ilk is entirely preposterous. Al-Maliki faces not only the daunting task of quelling a bloody insurgency; he must also rid his country of foreign fighters, gain control over sectarian militias and commence the rebuilding process. To do this he must bring his people together in a process of forgiveness and reconciliation, a process that cannot be effective as long as Iraqi insurgents are being labeled ``terrorists'' for their attempts to oust invading armies that from the standpoint of most Iraqis entered the country under false pretences in the first place. In his article Lease asks Al-Maliki ``How can you even consider the possibility of granting any kind of reprieve for any insurgent? How can you view these terrorists as patriots defending their country? How can you justify the murder of U.S. soldiers on your streets? We came here to rebuild Iraq, not to occupy it.'' Poor Lincoln Lease has patently fallen hook, line and sinker for the official line. He says, ``we came here to rebuild Iraq'' while every one knows the reason given for the invasion was Iraq's stockpiles of WMD which turned out to be nonexistent. He might also be reminded that billions of dollars slated for reconstruction have been channeled elsewhere or simply disappeared into the ether. Moreover, his government's construction of up to five permanent military bases and the largest and most fortified embassy in the world indicates Americans plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul. While it is tragic that 2,500 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives since the 2003 invasion, new official figures point to the deaths of 50,000 Iraqi civilians during the same period; 20,000 more than George W. Bush's recent estimate. If Lease, who began his rant by expressing his ``rage and contempt'' was sincere in his concern for military families, he would be backing an imminent military pullout rather than focusing on his own ego-led sensibilities. A growing number of specialist think-tanks and Middle East pundits are now of the opinion that the very presence of foreign troops serves to fuel the insurgency, while evidence points to the fact that far from bettering the lives of Iraqis the occupation has thrust their war-torn land into an abyss of desperation and despair. Should Lease care to relinquish his rose-colored spectacles for a moment, he might care to read the recently leaked memo from the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to the U.S. State Department that reveals a country in turmoil, run by armed militias, its people traumatized by fear. Dated June 6 and published by the Washington Post, the memo highlights negative experiences encountered by nine members of the U.S. Embassy's staff afraid to tell even family members that they work for the Americans. It's been three years and three months since ``Shock and Awe''. The Bush administration has surely had its chance to bring some semblance of normality to Iraq and has failed dismally. There is only one thing left for it to do and that is to back off and allow Al-Maliki a free hand. Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was famously reported as telling Bush ``if you break it, you'll own it'' with reference to Iraq. That may be true but the only ones who can give that country back together are the Iraqis themselves. It's time they were given that chance.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my 5- minute Special Order out of order.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, on Sunday, Iraq's prime minister unveiled a 24-point plan that included a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Last week, the U.S. military's top commander in Iraq briefed the President and top Republicans about a plan to significantly reduce the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. For months, Democrats have been calling for a new direction, including a timetable to redeploy U.S. soldiers out of harm's way; and the American people have been saying it is time for a new direction that protects U.S. interests by protecting U.S. soldiers. The Iraqi people, the American people and the U.S. commanders all say the same thing: It is time for a timetable. And the President still says the same thing: Stay the course. Madam Speaker, the Democrats were wrong. The President's favorite phrase, stay the course, is not a slogan. It is a direct order for Republican Members of the Congress to deny their better judgment and disregard the concern of their American constituents and the top five military commanders. The President must have some kind of October surprise in mind. The President is off course, and until there is a mid-term course correction, America will remain misled and misguided in Iraq, and U.S. soldiers will bear the brunt of the President's stubbornness.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Our election. One of the fascinating things about it is, I don't know how many times the President has said, we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. Well, that makes sense to people. People say, yes, that is right. As soon as they are ready to take over their country, we will back out and we will leave. So we think he really means it. Then we have Maliki, the new prime minister, stand up and say, I have got a reconciliation plan, and I would like to talk with you guys about a timetable for you to leave. Have you heard the President say one thing about the prime minister standing up? Of course not. They have ignored the fact that the Iraqis that they maneuvered into charge of the place are actually standing up and saying, yes, we are going to have to talk to the Sunnis, because we are Shiia and they are Sunnis, and they feel like they are left out; and, secondly, we have to do something about all this fighting that is going on.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, well, one of the questions you have to ask yourself is, Did Mr. Maliki and the Iraqi Government sit down and come up with this reconciliation package all by themselves? Does anybody think that the American Government was not, in the form of the ambassador, involved in those discussions, or that talked to the military? Of course they did. So what you have got is our own government talking out of both sides of its mouth. The Iraqis, all they know is we are staying there. We have got a $500 million embassy, the largest embassy in the world. It is really Fortress America. We have got military installations which are very permanent, and we are saying we are leaving tomorrow or sometime, whenever you are ready to run your own country. The fact is that we have shown nothing to suppose that we really mean that we will one day say, you guys are doing such a great job, we are going home. See you later. That is not what we are up to. We are trying to control the natural resources of the area and trying to give ourself a platform to operate some place in the Middle East, and we simply are going to have this fight continue unless, and I could not help thinking, I was sitting over thinking about what I was going to say today. I remember during the Vietnam War, back in 1968, coming up to an election. What was Mr. Nixon saying at that point? I have a secret plan to end the war. Ha. A secret plan to end the war. After he was reelected, we went on for 4 more years. This issue, if the President is serious, then he ought to explain to us why he let his commanding general go out there talking about setting a deadline and bringing troops home. Does he mean to do that, or is that just to throw smoke up in the air and get people confused? I think it is the latter. I do not think he intends to bring any troops home if he is going to give the impression that they are leaving Iraq. And that is why we have to continue to get out here and talk about what is in the newspapers. I mean, you do not have to read very far. The London Times, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, a few papers, and you can see it if you put it all together in one place. And that is why it is important for us as a body to have these hours when we do this.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for yielding. I want to thank him for organizing this event this evening to give us a chance to spend a little extra time talking about what is going on. I think the American people, as they look at this situation, have every reason to be very confused about what is going on in Iraq; and I want to try to help them understand it. The first thing you have to understand is that everything that is happening on this floor and in the other body has to do with the 7th of November, the election. Don't ever lose sight that what is being done here is to influence the American people to keep the Republicans in power in the next election. Now, the confusion you feel is being created by the very people who want to retain power. If you ask yourself where are we today, well, on Saturday in the morning they announced in the London Times that Prime Minister Maliki wanted reconciliation. He wanted to have a reconciliation plan coming out, and he wanted to meet with the Sunnis and try to defuse the situation. You would think that would be in everybody's interest. Did you hear one word from the White House about the Iraqis standing up and trying to defuse the situation? Did you hear any support? None. Because the basic underlying fact that my colleague from Washington has pointed out is we have no intention of leaving Iraq. We intend to be there with 50,000 troops and permanent bases for an extended period of time. But we won't say that. We say exactly the opposite. What we are saying to the Iraqis is, now, look, this is what we mean. We mean we are not going to stay here. But the Iraqis open their eyes and they see this permanent stuff, and they say to themselves, it doesn't make any sense. They are not here on a temporary basis. An Arab friend of mine in Jordan told me that one of the things that Americans do not understand is what it means to an Arab when you occupy his land, and as long as we occupy their land, they will fight. He said, you can do all the talk you want, but until the United States indicates clearly that they are pulling their troops out, you will never get any peace in the area. That was on Saturday morning. Then we come to the New York Times the next day, Sunday, quoting General Casey. Now this is the President that says, stay the course, stay the course; and the New York Times leaks a story saying that they have drafted a plan for withdrawing troops by September. This is a leak. Did the President jump up and down and say, send out the FBI to find out who leaked that plan? No. Because they want to send that out to one part of the population. They want part of the United States to think we are actually going to pull the troops out, when in fact there is no real evidence that they are going to take them out. The American people have got to stay awake. Ronald Reagan said you should trust, but verify. The President says stuff, but when you try to verify it, you can't find it. He is against leaks, as long as it is an official leak of something he wants to get out there. Karl Rove really wants to get it out there.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today we granted a tax break of nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years to the wealthiest among us, and it made me think about a quote from children's literature, which I think is a good place sometimes to learn what we really ought to know. We all know about the morality tale called the ``Lord of the Rings''; and one of them is called ``The Return of the King,'' and the main character is Gandalf, the magician. The children asked Gandalf what they are supposed to do, and he says, ``It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clear earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.'' Now, we stand out here on this floor very frequently and talk about our children and what kind of a world we are leaving to our children, and we are leaving a world of debt to our children. The June 11 issue of the New York Times magazine says, ``Debt,'' and the subtitle is, ``America's Scariest Addiction is Getting Even Scarier.'' Well, we added to the debt today. Now, the question is, What does it mean when a country goes into debt? It means that we do not tax the people sufficiently for what services they expect, so we have to borrow the money. This year, we are borrowing from the Chinese the entire debt that we are creating in this year, some $300-some-odd billion that we did not raise in taxes, that we gave away this afternoon. We are going to go to the Chinese tomorrow and borrow that money. Now, what difference does that make? Well, ultimately you have to deal with debt. You all have credit cards. You understand what you have to do with a credit card: you either pay it off, which means we have to raise taxes, or stop giving it away. Or in the case of a country, we can devalue our money. You say, well, why, what difference does that make? Well, if our money, if the Chinese borrowed a dollar that was worth this amount, and we now drop it down by 50 percent, they have lost 50 percent of what they lent us. How do you think they feel when we do something like that? Well, the next time we come to lend, they say, give us a higher interest rate. Now, lowering the value of the dollar, which happened in 1983, 1985, some people remember when our money went down, and people lost a lot of money. That was a devaluation, and we are heading for another devaluation in this country. When it happens, we will also have inflation because with the cheaper dollar we can buy more, and it is easier to buy foreign goods. So we will buy more, and they will buy our goods, and they will demand higher interest rates. Now, the Feds try to control inflation by driving up interest rates. Some may even remember when our interest rates were 22 percent, when buying a house was absolutely impossible. Well, then interest rates came down because we changed our fiscal policy. We paid our debt. We started borrowing. Under Mr. Clinton we actually went into a positive state. We no longer were borrowing. We were actually taking in more and paying down some of that debt. But in the last years since 2000, we have just gone on a wild spree, and we have gotten ourselves deeper and deeper in debt. People like me worry about that because my children are going to pay for it, not me. In fact, it may be my grandchildren that pay for it. There are two categories of debt that you have to worry about. One, of course, in this country is personal debt. Now, lots of people bought houses in the last year, last years, 5, 6 years, and they have been buying houses because the interest rates were low. They were buying on interest only, or they were buying on ARM, that means adjustable rate mortgages, and all of those had a term, an adjustable rate of 4 or 5 years, and those ARMs are coming due now. Because of what is happening in terms of the dollar and in terms of inflation, the Feds are raising it every month. Since March of 2004, the ARM rate has gone up 59 percent, and it could easily jump 50 percent when these adjustable rates happen. Some people are going to lose their houses. Listen to the children.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I look around the House today, there is scarcely a dozen people on the floor, so they must be somewhere else, probably watching this on television. So those of you who have just tuned in on television, you are watching not the House of Representatives, but the theater of the absurd. What has gone on in this floor this morning and will continue in this afternoon is absolutely absurd. The first thing we did was we refused to consider a bill to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been the same since 9 year ago, $5.15 an hour. This is what ordinary Americans consider a starting wage, and this House will not do it. Now, the second act of this theater of the absurd is let us get rid of the estate tax. It was put in by who? By a public-spirited Republican. Theodore Roosevelt, right. It was not some wild-eyed lefty. It was a guy who was a public-spirited Republican President of the United States, and it is used as a way to finance things that we think we ought to do. If you read last Sunday's New York Times, and you read the debt that this country is in, and just read the section on college debt, you can see what we could do if we would shift the cost of education back on to the State and off the back of our kids. The average debt coming out of college is $20,000. Why would you want to be a schoolteacher dragging that kind of debt or a doctor, $150,000? But, no, we have to pass a law to give an unending ability of people to get rich in this country and never give anything back. Now, when you talk about who calls you in your district, well, Mr. Gates called me and he said, do not vote for the repeal of the estate tax. Now, the third act to this thing, just so you understand how really crazy this is, the third act we are going to do before we leave here today is pass the line item veto to the President. It is a total capitulation by the right, by the House Republicans, saying, please save us from ourselves; we cannot stop giving money away.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, for over a year, the American people have asked in increasing numbers for the Congress and the President to work on a real plan for Iraq. As we all know, the American people have been increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress both there and here. For one thing, the battle lines have grown beyond Iraq's borders. The continuing U.S. presence in Iraq has inflamed tensions throughout the Arab world, and hostile sentiment is growing. That makes it harder to deal effectively with Iran and harder to achieve stability and security for Israel and the Palestinian people. In other words, the casualties in the Iraq war are spreading to U.S. strategic and diplomatic interests throughout the Middle East. The price we pay continues to escalate, and so does the violence. Iraq has become an unlimited front without battle lines and without a visible enemy. That is the Iraq war our soldiers face every single day. On any given day, the level of violence may be more or less than the day before, but no one doubts that the United States' soldiers patrol and rest a heartbeat away from certain violence and potential death. They live the Iraq war 24/7 and patrol an unlimited front in an open- ended commitment of U.S. forces. While the President waits for the Iraqi clerics to declare themselves ready to take up government, some in the Iraqi Government itself are demanding to know when the U.S. forces will leave. Now, that might sound ungrateful after all the sacrifice by our soldiers and all the money we have spent. On the other hand, it may be the clearest sign yet that the Iraqi leaders are emerging who recognize that Iraq will never stand alone until it is on its own. They are not alone in this desire. It is what the American people want. It is what they want to see, an end to the unlimited sacrifice by U.S. soldiers, unlimited expenditures by the U.S. Government, and unlimited battle lines surrounding our troops. Despite the nature of last week's debate, the American people finally have begun to see this House take a step forward, with 153 Members voting in favor of the Murtha plan for strategic redeployment. It begins to address the military issues associated with projecting U.S. power in a region without keeping U.S. forces in the middle of Iraqi sectarian violence. The Murtha military option does something else. It offers a realistic opportunity for diplomacy to take root in ways both familiar and effective in the region. For some time I have urged the involvement of the United Nations as a first step to diffuse the focus on hostility directed towards the United States. The more the U.S. is seen as directing people, government, and events in Iraq, the more we prolong the violence. That has been a familiar theme in the Middle East and one that I heard repeatedly last August when I met with civic and business leaders at a prestigious Arab leadership forum in Amman, Jordan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as National Security Adviser under President Carter, has outlined a vision for Iraq that is a thoughtful roadmap for peace. The nations of the Middle East, including Iraq, have relied for centuries on a gathering of regional leaders to resolve conflicts. It is time to establish a way for that historical process to occur. Adopting the Murtha plan is the first step. U.N. leadership is second, because it sets the stage for the nations to become involved without military forces and without the balance tipping to any one ideology, including some we absolutely do not support. Finally, the roadmap leads to a regional conference where those closest to the problem have the most to gain and/or lose in solving it. Now, the role of the United States at this point would be a role the United States can play better than any other nation in the world. We can help broker peace from the sidelines instead of fighting the war on the front lines. U.S. diplomacy has accomplished miracles over the years. Israel today is better off than it was before President Carter called the parties to Camp David. It is time we make a similar commitment to a peace process in Iraq. Let the Murtha plan be the foundation block on the road to peace in Iraq. One hundred fifty-three Members of the House voted to support what the American people believe: We can protect the American interests without automatically ordering our soldiers into combat. We can project American military might without occupying a country. We have a realistic plan for Iraq and a growing desire to see it implemented. It may take an election to start the real discussion about Iraq, but the American people are ready, willing, and determined to have it. The election is coming. Brzezinski's Iraq Plan Makes Sense Former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that the U.S. could leave Iraq now and create a better and stronger situation. His simple four-point proposal is (essentially): 1. Washington should quietly ask Iraqi leaders to publicly ask the US to leave, rather than announce arbitrarily a date for the departure. (The catch--If we had any diplomats left in this administration, they could call Ali Sistani and the Kurdish leaders and the top Sunni leaders and ask them to agree to this easily--but the Dubya-Cheney administration's diplomacy quotient is zero!) 2. After such a public request, the US and Iraqi governments would jointly consult on a date for ending the occupation to allow a complete and orderly disengagement. 3. After this, the Iraqi government--not the US--should then also call for a regional conference of Muslim states, some immediately adjoining Iraq, others more distant, to help consolidate internal stability. 4. On leaving, the US should convene a donors' conference of Western states, Japan, China and others with an interest in Iraq's future stability to help with the restoration of the Iraqi economy.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, of all the urgent matters in the world today, and there are many, none is more poignant than the plight of millions of homeless refugees in countries like Africa, Asia and Latin America, and here in the United States. There are 8.4 million refugees worldwide. Some were displaced because of natural disasters. Most were forced to flee their homes and their homeland and loved ones to avoid being killed because of persecution, civil war and outright genocide. They were forced to flee through no fault of their own, and were forced to abandon their belongings and their lives. They fled with the clothes on their back, memories and hopes that one day they would go home again. Today we meet some of these people. This is World Refugee Day, organized by the United Nations to focus attention on the millions of innocent people who are entitled to live and not merely survive. Every one of those 8.4 million refugees has a personal story. They hope, as we do, for healthy children, a bright future and peace and security in their lives. They long for a standard of living measured by dignity, not by personal possessions. And it is within our power to make a difference. I think of it this way: if a million people make one small difference today, the world will wake up tomorrow a much different place. Almost every day I wear a tie from Save the Children, although I left it off today, because Save the Children does, and lots of Americans help them. There are other noble organizations just like them. Organizations like World Vision in my congressional district respond every day to the needs of people in places like Darfur. The need always outstrips the available resources. But no one gives up. They just dig deeper. They have been there on the ground in camps next to people who are just like us. Once that happens, you never forget. I know. I went to the refugee camps in Darfur last year as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation. You don't forget people jammed into a refugee camp who pass you handwritten notes asking you to tell the world that they exist and not to forget them. There are those who refuse to forget. A megastar like Angelina Jolie willingly trades on her name to focus global attention on poverty and homelessness. Angelina is a U.N. goodwill ambassador whose works speak louder than words and whose words echo through capitols, including this one. Angie is redefining the phrase, ``one person can make a difference.'' She will make a difference again tonight as she goes on CNN to tell the world firsthand about the millions of people around the world who want nothing more than to go home. But they cannot do it alone. Watch, learn, and listen. In a world united by technology, we remain divided by brutal conflicts with millions of innocent victims homeless and held hostage, and that is where they will remain until the nations of the world intercede. Nations rally behind leaders, political or otherwise, and nations are beginning to hear the voices of people like Ms. Jolie. The United Nations tells us that 6 million people have returned to their homelands in recent years. That is dramatic progress, but the world has a long way to go before human liberty is protected in every nation. All too often, refugees return home to find their towns and villages completely destroyed. And all too often, new conflicts disenfranchise or endanger new people. From afar it seems almost impossible to believe that one person can make a difference. Then I remember the scraps of paper with personal notes handed to me in Darfur. You recognize the work of organizations like Save the Children representing millions of Americans. You meet people like Bono and get to know people like Angelina, and pretty soon you realize that we are all in this together. You recognize that refugees haven't given up. How can we? Today is the day to see the faces and hear the voices of those who don't have a home, but do have a heart. Today is the day to meet the people who are worth fighting for, who believe that hope can triumph over despair and that courage can overcome adversity and that every person on Earth is entitled to a life of dignity. Do the world a favor. Change the television channel tonight. Watch and learn the news on CNN as they help us face the world in which we live. Listen to humanitarian leaders like Angelina. She will help you understand and change the world that we can all make a difference. There is no one who can't make a difference for a refugee in this world.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, ``Comedy Central'' and ``The Daily Show'' have come to the floor of the House. The House Republicans have thrown up their hands and said, save us from ourselves. They are going to come out here with the line item veto. Now, every single item that goes out of this House has been through a committee chaired by a Republican with a Republican majority on that committee. No single item has gotten out of here that they have not had their look at. They want to slip it into the bill and then send it to the President and run down there to the White House and say, Please, Mr. President, save us from ourselves. We can't stop ourselves. We have to keep spending money. This is the most ridiculous piece of legislation you have come up with in this session. There is no excuse for it whatsoever. If you can't stop yourselves in the committee, and you can't stop yourselves on the floor, why would you have to call the President? Do you understand the separation of powers? We are the ones who decide how the money gets spent, not the President. It is your responsibility that you have spent away the surplus into the biggest deficit in history. Shame on you.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to really tell a morality tale that the American people may well not know anything about. Many things go on in the world, and we learn nothing in our press. But if you read widely, as I do, and read something called the Asia Times, which is one of many newspapers around the world, you find out very interesting things are going on. Everyone knows that there is a problem with AIDS worldwide, and the problem with AIDS is that we, today, have the ability to actually treat people with AIDS with the triple therapy drugs that will make their life longer, allow them to continue working, allow them to take care of their children, create less orphans. There are many, many positive benefits from triple therapy around the world. The problem is the drugs are made in the Western world where they are very, very expensive. In the Asia Times story, an article entitled World Health, A Lethal Dose of U.S. Politics, that is dated 6/19/2006, that I will enter into the Record, this article talks about a veteran World Health Organization professional by the name of William Aldis, who found himself in such conflict with the World Health Organization that he was fired. Now, they called it a promotion. They put him elsewhere. But basically they put him in a position where he would have no power similar to what he had before. He was the representative to Thailand. Now, Thailand's use of these medications has reduced their level of deaths from AIDS by 79 percent. These drugs are effective, but very expensive. And the problem is that under the World Trading Organization rules, countries are allowed to make their own or to develop generics that are much less expensive. Now, Thailand comes to the point where they want to develop a bilateral trade relationship with the United States. And the United States, at that point, uses their muscle to say to the Thais, you no longer can have this loose standard of developing drugs. You must abide by United States intellectual property law. Therefore, you are cut off from an inexpensive source of the medication that is in use in Thailand today and in many other countries in the world. Now, this is a question of morality. We have the capacity to treat the millions of people who are living with AIDS and thousands of them, millions dying every year. We have the ability to treat them. But on the other side, we have the pharmaceutical industry that says we want to get the last nickel, we want to get the most money out of this situation that we can get. And the United States Government is helping the pharmaceutical industry squeeze the Third World. Now, a lot of people say why does the rest of the world dislike America? It is this kind of stuff that goes on under the radar screen of most people in this country who do not understand what is going on who, therefore, do not understand why the rest of the world looks at us as being in it for ourselves and no one else. We can talk all we want to about liberty, and we can talk all we want about the free enterprise system and all these things, but when it comes down to money we put the squeeze on. Now, you say, well, hasn't the President been generous? Hasn't he put $15 billion out there to deal with the AIDS epidemic? Yes, in theory he has made that and some of that money has been appropriated out of this House, but it is being used to buy drugs that are much more costly. We could buy many more drugs if we would buy generics produced in these countries by themselves. Now, recently there was a Congressional Research Service report, and this is our research service in the Library of Congress, that said that the United States' main purpose for pursuing bilateral FDAs is to advance U.S. intellectual property protection rather than promoting free trade. This is wrong, and the American people should know about it and insist that their government make available the drugs for the rest of the world's treatment.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this debate begins with one fundamental truth. We are in Iraq and our leaders have no plan to get us out of Iraq. The President says U.S. soldiers will stay in harm's way for as long as he says so. ``We will stand down,'' our leaders say, ``when the Iraqis stand up.'' In other words, Iraqi clerics and the factions they control and the decisions they make about whether to cooperate with the Iraqi government will determine what we can do. The extent of our involvement, the length of our stay, the number of our dead is controlled by religious clerics in Iraq because we have no strategy except to wait for the Iraqis to stand up. Republican leaders in this Chamber say we will stay because Iraq is a model of success and it is helping us win the war on terror, as if a resolution they alone write will somehow make Iraq the role model for projecting U.S. influence around the world. Today, the American people say with a growing voice that Iraq was a mistake, and staying with no plan or timetable is the wrong course for our soldiers and our Nation. The unending war, the permanent bases, the fortress embassy we are building all make a powerful argument that our involvement in Iraq is more an occupation than a liberation. This promotes terrorism. This helps recruit terrorists. It doesn't help end the terrorism. U.S. soldiers in Iraq are doing an heroic job, but we are not doing ours. It is not partisan politics to insist that a nation at war have a plan to achieve the peace. The resolution and its backers seem to think it is unpatriotic to ask questions and to demand a plan. That is not true. Our foreign policy fails when we fail to ask enough questions, not too many. American soldiers are falling every day, and there is no one, not a single person in this House who does not respect and support our soldiers. But this resolution is intended to paper over the truth about the Iraq war and it does not support our soldiers and will not make a difference in winning the war. Our soldiers need and the American people expect their leaders to develop a battle plan that will work in the field because it is based on military intelligence, not political expediency. We are in a war and we need a battle plan from the President, not a message memo from the House majority leader. War isn't waged by a political party nor is it won by political ideology. Iraq needs a credible battle plan. There is only one at the moment, and we should be debating it. John Murtha put forward a plan 6 months ago and only today are we able to discuss it at all, with no ability to alter the resolution before us. This is not an honest debate, an honest attempt to seek answers for our problems in Iraq. It is a debate about a letter of endorsement for the President, not an examination of our options. Jack Murtha has emerged with a battle plan, and it is no surprise. He is a decorated combat soldier who reflects what the best military minds believe. As a veteran myself of the Vietnam era, I must say that Jack is a soldier's soldier, a combat hero who has one and only one goal: To defend our Nation with the finest military and the best plan. Jack has a plan: Strategic redeployment. It is smart, proud, honest and effective. You can't win a war with rhetoric and resolutions. You win with a thoughtful plan. I support the Murtha resolution that puts in place a plan to protect our soldiers, protect American interests in the Middle East, and protects American people here at home. It is a battle plan that resolves to bring our troops home on a timetable driven by the United States, not subject to the approval of Iraqi clerics. It is a commitment to secure the peace by being smart about the war. The American soldiers need a battle plan, not a resolution that reflects a bunker mentality of the Republican Party losing its grip on political control. Two grim things came out of the Pentagon today. When the President declared ``mission accomplished,'' 141 people had died. Today, the 2,500th person died. The other thing that came out was a 74-page booklet to help Republicans manage spin control during the Iraq debate on the floor. It is called ``The Iraq War Debate Prep Book.'' The Defense Department is putting out PR pieces. That is an affront to the American people. It is not a front on the war. The American people want change because the Pentagon under this administration distributes PR plans. Debate talking points. What is the military doing with that kind of stuff up here on the Hill in this body? We see no military plan. Support U.S. soldiers by passing Jack Murtha's plan to get out of Iraq.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I brought my rubber stamp to the floor today because I want to remind everyone that tomorrow you have got to bring your rubber stamps to endorse the President's proposal in Iraq. The majority leader's plan is nothing more than let us do more of the same. Now, there is no plan from the White House. What they say, and listen to these words, when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down. That gives the control to the clerics, from the Shiia and the Sunni. When they stop the civil war, then we can come home. We have put our troops under the control of the Sunni and Shiia clerics in Iraq. That is not supporting the troops. We have to have a plan about when they come home. We will decide. We say there are 250,000 trained. And there are only 20,000 of those insurgents out there. How many do they have to train before they can handle 20,000 insurgents? Well, the Iraqi clerics will tell us. Do not forget your rubber stamp tomorrow.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a remarkable document showed up in our mailboxes this afternoon. It is called a ``Confidential Messaging Memo'' for the floor debate on Iraq and the global war on terror. This is apparently a memo that Republican leadership provided to Members on their side so they would know how to go about rubber- stamping the President's every thought and deed and could do their best to make sure that we don't have the kind of debate that the American people deserve. The American people deserve to have us talk about what is really going on in Iraq and how it does or does not make us safer. They deserve to have mistakes acknowledged and paths forward discussed honestly and frankly, admitting problems and working together to make things better. They deserve a Congress that is more interested in their security than in scoring points for the November election. According to the Republican leadership's tactical memo, this is precisely what the American people will not get. Instead, there will be confusion and intentional misdirection. There will be ad hominen attacks, and that means attacks on individuals, and attempts to make Saddam Hussein and 9/11 more or less the same thing, attempts to call Democrats' legitimate questions about the administration's rationale for war and conduct of the war into what, and I quote, ``policies to concede defeat on the battlefield.'' The memo is filled with advice on how to deflect, confuse, conflate and con. I would like to enter that memo into the Record so everyone will be able to read it and not be confused when they hear the debate begin tomorrow. They will know what the script is that the other side is following. Mr. Speaker, let me read some portions now because I think we all have a right to know what Republicans are advising their Members to say and think. ``During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on delivering these key points: ``The Importance of Our Actions. It is imperative during this debate that we reexamine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.'' In other words, the Republicans are being told to continue the big lie that Iraq was behind 9/11 or had something to gain from 9/11, and it is all tied together in one neat package. Secondly, the Republican leadership wants to make the point that they are smart and tough enough because they don't look back, they don't analyze, they don't admit errors, and they don't learn. Now if they were a baseball pitcher who was this bad, Rumsfeld would have been jerked five innings ago. But, of course, our President ran the Rangers and gave Chicago Sammy Sosa, so we know his judgment in baseball. Now to do anything else, according to their memo, is to be ``prone to waiver endlessly'' or ``to abandon our efforts'' against terrorism. It is as if the Republicans believe there is only one kind of effort against terrorism that has validity, and that any kind of thoughtful consideration of alternatives is a sign of cowardice and weakness. ``Republicans believe,'' the memo says, ``victory in Iraq will be an important blow for terrorism.'' Yes, of course, it would be. But what is victory in Iraq and how do we get off the path we are on presently and onto that victory path? We are forbidden to talk about those questions. It would be wrong for 435 fairly well-educated, loyal Americans, who have been sent here by their districts to help govern this country, to start raising questions about what we ought to do. There will be one proposal with no amendments; that is it. It would be ``weak'' and ``wavering'' and a sign of ``abandoning our efforts'' if we attempt to make those efforts more rational and successful and relate them to the goal of making Americans safer. We are in trouble in Iraq. We don't have a plan except to keep plowing ahead with the same old policy: a strategy that is getting Americans and Iraqis killed and driving Iraqis to despair and helplessness. We don't have a Congress that can step up and take responsibility and try to make the administration listen to reason. The President's policy is to put the control of this in the hands of the Iraqis. When they stand up, we will stand down. Who is going to tell the Iraqis when to stand up? The clerics, of course. The Shiia and Sunni clerics will decide when they stand up. What if they don't tell them to stand up? We are there until it ends. This is a charade. We will go through it tomorrow, but it will not shed any light on where we ought to be going as Americans. And we don't have a Congress that can step up and take responsibility and try to make the administration listen to reason. So the Republican leadership scheduled public relations time in the House in an effort to stop the Republican free fall in the polls. Republican leaders cannot tell the American people what they intend to do except more of the same. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. I call on the Republicans to abandon the cynical strategy put forth by their leaders and think for themselves. Confidential Messaging Memo--Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on Terror This week, the House of Representatives will engage in a debate about the war in Iraq, the Global War on Terror and our efforts to strengthen our national security in a post-9/ 11 world. The past week has brought news of several important, positive developments in Iraq and the Global War on Terror: U.S. military forces eliminated the terrorist Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's top commander in Iraq and a cold-blooded killer. The Iraqi government named new interior, defense and security ministers as part of the new government's continued progress. Just this morning, President George W. Bush traveled to Baghdad to meet the newly appointed Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki and to discuss our growing partnership with the new democratic ally. Clearly, these positive developments are the result of steadfast support of both our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and across the globe. We should not refrain from touting such progress. During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on delivering these key points: The Importance of Our Actions It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies to keep us safe. The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or unchallenged. In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council. So, during this debate we must make clear to the American people that the United States had to take action in the best interests of the security of our nation and the world community. As Republicans who supported military action against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe, the United States had to show our resolve as the world's premier defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were preyed upon, rather than after standing witness to their demise at the hands of our enemies. As President John F. Kennedy once stated so eloquently: ``The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.'' A Portrait of Contrasts This debate in the House of Representatives gives our Republican Conference the opportunity to present the American people our case for strong national security policies whose purpose is to protect the nation against another attack on our own soil. Similarly, we must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political issues of our era. Articulating and advocating our core principles will allow the American public to witness Members of Congress debate a fundamental question facing America's leaders: In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their own? Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats' only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses. These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11 world. During this debate, we need to clarify just how wrong the Democrats' weak approach is and just how dangerous their implementation would be to both the short-term and long-term national security interests of the United States. Resolve Will Triumph Over Retreat As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world. Let there be no doubt that America and its allies in the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism face difficult challenges. The American people are understandably concerned about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. There have been many tough days since Iraq's liberation and transition to a sovereign democracy. Democrats are all too eager to seize upon the challenges we face as their rationale or motivation for retreat. As Republicans, we understand the diplomatic and national security hazards of such a move. We must echo the American public's understanding of just how great the stakes are in Iraq and our long-term efforts to win the War on Terrorism. Building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing but tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But achieving victory there and gaining democratic allies in the region will be the best gift of security we can give to future generations of Americans.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).