[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1492-H1562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just recently adopted, I 
call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) disapproving of the 
decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more 
than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 63

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),  That--
       (1) Congress and the American people will continue to 
     support and protect the members of the United States Armed 
     Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and 
     honorably in Iraq; and
       (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President 
     George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more 
     than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 157, debate 
shall extend not beyond midnight on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, or 
Wednesday, February 14, 2007, with 12 hours of debate commencing on 
Thursday, February 15, 2007, in each instance equally divided and 
controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their 
designees.
  Pursuant to section 2 of the resolution, on each demand of the 
majority leader or his designee after consultation with the minority 
leader, it shall be in order to debate the concurrent resolution for an 
additional hour, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader 
and minority leader or their designees.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) each will control 5 hours.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we entered today and we will be, 
for the next 4 days, involved in the most serious of discussions.
  It is a heavy responsibility for any Member of Congress to determine 
whether or not to send our people in harm's way for the purposes of 
defending freedom. We should consider that with great solemnity and 
with great care. The reason for the extensive period of debate is 
because we believe that all Members of Congress ought to have the 
opportunity to express their view.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Speaker of this House, Nancy Pelosi of California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding and the solemnity with which he introduced this debate.
  My colleagues, in a few weeks the war in Iraq will enter its fifth 
year, causing thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of casualties, 
costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and damaging the standing of 
the United States in the international community. And there is no end 
in sight.
  The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of 
action in Iraq, and they are demanding a new direction.
  On January 10, President Bush proposed deploying more than 20,000 
additional combat troops to Iraq. This week we will debate his 
escalation.
  In doing so, we must be mindful of the sacrifices our military 
personnel are being asked to make in this war and the toll it is taking 
on them, on their families, and on our veterans. Each one of us must 
determine, in a

[[Page H1493]]

manner worthy of their sacrifice, whether the President's proposal will 
make America safer, make our military stronger, and make the region 
more stable.
  As this debate begins, let us be clear on one fundamental principle: 
we all support the troops.
  In this bipartisan resolution that is before us today, it clearly 
states: ``Congress and the American people will continue to support and 
protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving 
or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.'' We honor the 
service of our troops by asking the difficult questions about this war. 
As Republican Senator Robert Taft of Ohio said 2 weeks after Pearl 
Harbor: ``Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of 
any democratic government.''
  And just 10 days ago, President Bush told House Democrats: ``I 
welcome debate in a time of war . . . I do not believe that if you 
don't happen to agree with me, you don't share the same sense of 
patriotism I do,'' the President said.
  In the spirit of responsibility to our troops and the patriotism we 
all share, let us consider whether the President's escalation proposal 
will lessen the violence in Iraq and bring our troops home safely and 
soon.
  From the standpoint of the military, the President's plan must be 
evaluated for its prospects for success. It is based on a judgment that 
the way out of Iraq lies in sending more troops in. Our experience in 
Iraq has proven just the opposite. Four previous troop escalations have 
resulted in escalating levels of violence.
  And as with any military action, the President's plan must also be 
evaluated on the additional burdens it will place on our troops and 
military families who have already sacrificed so much, the impact it 
will have on the already dangerous state of our military readiness.
  Our military has done everything they have been asked to do, and they 
have performed excellently. But in order to succeed in Iraq, there must 
be diplomatic and political initiatives.
  There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's 
neighbors diplomatically, and there has been no sustained and effective 
effort to engage Iraqi factions politically. The Iraqi Government has 
failed to honor promises made last year when the constitution was 
adopted by failing to propose amendments to include all sectors of Iraq 
in the civic life of the country. As a result, today we are confronted 
by little political accommodation, hardening sectarian divisions, 
ethnic cleansing by neighborhoods, and waves of refugees burdening 
neighboring countries.
  After the Members of this body, this House of Representatives, have 
fully debated the President's escalation proposal, we will have a 
straight up-or-down vote. In a few days, and in fewer than 100 words, 
we will take our country in a new direction on Iraq. A vote of 
disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which 
will be coming to the House floor.
  Friday's vote will signal whether the House has heard the American 
people: no more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq. Our taxpayer 
dollars must go to protect our troops, to keep our promises to our 
veterans, and to provide for the safety of the American people.
  In light of the facts, President Bush's escalation proposal will not 
make America safer, will not make our military stronger, and will not 
make the region more stable; and it will not have my support.
  I urge my colleagues to support our troops and vote ``aye'' on the 
bipartisan Skelton-Lantos-Jones resolution before us today
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our Republican 
leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today we begin an extended debate on a resolution 
criticizing the latest effort by American forces to win in Iraq.
  There is no question that the war in Iraq has been difficult. All 
Americans are frustrated that we haven't seen more success and that we 
haven't seen it more quickly.
  But war is never easy and almost never goes according to plan. Al 
Qaeda and their supporters in the region have been steadfast in their 
efforts to slow us down and frustrate our efforts to succeed. But 
because they cannot defeat Americans on the battlefield, al Qaeda and 
terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at 
home.
  Over the next few days, we have an opportunity to show our enemies 
that we will not take the bait.
  It is fitting that yesterday was President Abraham Lincoln's 
birthday. And not since the dark days of the Civil War has our homeland 
been a battlefield. Lincoln's leadership preserved the Union through a 
turbulent age that threatened to undo the American experiment. His 
belief in the promise of the United States, a promise enshrined in the 
Declaration of Independence that stated for the first time in history 
that all men are created equal, this is what drove him to pursue 
victory.
  Surrounded by personal and political rivals, Lincoln could have given 
up. He could have recalled the Union forces and sent them home. But he 
didn't.
  I think we need a similar commitment to victory today.
  The battle in Iraq is about more than what happens there. This is one 
part of a much larger fight, a global fight against Islamic terrorists 
who have waged war on the United States and our allies. This is not a 
question of fighting for land or for treasure or for glory. We are 
fighting to rid the world of a radical and dangerous ideology. We are 
fighting to preserve and defend our sacred way of life. We are fighting 
to build a safer and more secure America, one where families can rear 
their children without the fear of terrorist attacks.
  Lincoln famously said in 1858 that ``a house divided against itself 
cannot stand.'' I believe, as Lincoln did then, that we must choose 
sides on a very critical issue. Then it was whether we should abolish 
the evil institution of slavery. Today it is whether we will defeat the 
ideology that drives radical Islamic terrorism. Will we do what it 
takes to stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs? Will we 
commit to defending the freedoms and liberties that we all cherish? Or 
will we retreat and leave the fight for another generation? These are 
the questions with historic implications that will be answered this 
week.
  Many of my friends across the aisle think this is exactly what we 
should do, give up and leave. This nonbinding resolution is their first 
step towards abandoning Iraq by cutting off funding for our troops that 
are in harm's way.
  And we know what al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the 
battlefield. They think that we can't stomach a fight. This is why they 
haven't been afraid to strike us whenever and wherever they have had 
the opportunity to do so.
  This war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war 
began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979, went on for well over a 
year. Then on October 23, 1983, the suicide attack on our Marine 
barracks in Beirut occurred, killing 241 American servicemen and 
injuring 60 others. On February 26, 1993, was the first World Trade 
Center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000 
others. On June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were 
bombed, killing 20 and injuring some 372 others. On June 7, 1998, the 
Kenya embassy bombing killed 213 people and injured 5,000 more. And on 
June 7, 1998, the Tanzania embassy bombing killed 11 people and 68 
others were injured. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked; 17 
American sailors killed, 39 other sailors injured.
  We all know what happened on September 11, 2001, when 3,000 Americans 
died for no other reason than they were Americans.
  Do we really believe that if we pack up now, if we abandon Iraq and 
leave the country in chaos, that our enemies are just going to lay down 
their arms and leave us alone?

                              {time}  1245

  For too long, world leaders responded to terrorism by retreating and 
just hoping for the best. In a post-9/11 world, this is no longer an 
option.
  God forgive us that it took such a loss of life to open our eyes, but 
our eyes are open. We are engaged in a global war now for our very way 
of life.

[[Page H1494]]

Every drop of blood that has been spilt in defense of liberty and 
freedom, from the American Revolution to this very moment, is for 
nothing if we are unwilling to stand up and fight this threat.
  We didn't start this war. They did. Now we have got a duty to finish 
it, and, for the sake of our kids and theirs, to win it.
  The nonbinding resolution before us today criticizes the new strategy 
for succeeding in Iraq implemented by General Petraeus. It 
``disapproves'' of the strategy before it even has a chance to begin. 
The general's goal is to stabilize the Iraqi democracy, deny the 
terrorists a safe haven and ensure stability in the region. It is a 
prudent strategy that puts the performance of the Iraqi Government 
front and center.
  I can't guarantee that this plan is going to work. I hope it does. 
Republicans have put forward a complementary bill aimed at helping it 
succeed. But I again can guarantee you this: If we cut off our funding 
for the troops that are in the field and we abandon Iraq, as many 
supporters of this nonbinding resolution want to, the consequences of 
our failure will be catastrophic.
  Last year, Osama bin Laden issued this warning to the United States 
regarding the war in Iraq. He said, ``I would like to tell you that the 
war is for you or for us to win. If we win, it means your defeat and 
disgrace forever.''
  Now, think about this for a moment. Al Qaeda knows what the stakes 
are and it issued all of us a challenge. Now, tell me, what message 
does it send if we are afraid to meet that challenge? What message are 
we sending to North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and other enemies of freedom 
around the world? If we abandon Iraq, regional stability is going to be 
jeopardized. Iraq will become a fertile breeding ground for radical 
Islamic terrorists. Without a central government or other stabilizing 
force, Iraq's neighbors will be compelled to enter Iraq to protect 
their own interests. The consequences will be devastating and could 
easily lead to regional war.
  If we abandon Iraq, the instability, coupled with the damning image 
of another American retreat, will embolden Iran and Islamic militants 
and endanger Israel. Iran's leaders and terrorist groups have made it 
clear of their intentions to wipe Israel off the map. We would be 
leaving a staunch ally in the Middle East with nothing but chaos and 
instability separating them from their greatest enemy.
  If we abandon Iraq, those who seek weapons of mass destruction will 
know they have nothing to fear from a fearful America. Neither al 
Qaeda, North Korea or Iran are going to give up their quest for weapons 
of mass destruction if they know they are free to pursue these weapons, 
secure in the knowledge that America doesn't have the stomach to stop 
them. We will be leaving for our children, and theirs, a vastly more 
dangerous world.
  During the Cold War, we took some small comfort in the idea of 
mutually assured destruction, that the Soviet Union wouldn't attack us 
because we could retaliate with equal devastation. There is no such 
comfort in a world where terrorist gangs roam free. It is the nature of 
our enemy to fight us wherever and whenever they can. Whether it is in 
Asia, in Africa or elsewhere, al Qaeda has supporters and sympathizers 
throughout the world. They have the ability to strike us at any time 
with their lethal force across the globe.
  Right now, we are fighting them in Iraq. The battlefield is the most 
visible part in the global war against these terrorists, but it is but 
one part. If we leave, they will just follow us home. It is as simple 
as that. We cannot negotiate with them. We can't reason with them. Our 
one and only option is to defeat them. And this nonbinding measure 
before us today will only embolden them.
  Now, it is important for this body to debate the important issues of 
our day. Last summer, the House held an extended debate on the war in 
Iraq and the global war on terror which gave all Members an opportunity 
to go on record. We worked closely with our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to draft the language of that resolution, and I 
believe that we had a productive debate.
  What we are dealing with here today isn't even a resolution to debate 
the war itself. It is a nonbinding resolution attacking a single 
strategy in the prosecution of a much larger war. ``Nonbinding'' means 
nonleadership. It is not accountable, and I don't think it is the right 
message for our troops.
  This is a political charade, lacking both the seriousness and the 
gravity of the issue that it is meant to represent. And, as I said 
before, the question before us today isn't actually in this resolution. 
I think it is much more fundamental. The question is, do we have the 
resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies? Will we stand and 
fight for the future of our kids and theirs?
  As President Eisenhower once said, ``History does not long entrust 
the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.'' Does Congress have the 
fortitude to do what needs to be done? Our soldiers do. The men and 
women of our military are the greatest force for freedom that the world 
has ever known. They are brave, they are committed and they can win 
this fight if we ask them to. I think the big question is, will we 
support them?
  My colleagues, the world is watching. The question is, how will we 
respond
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of 
the time available to this side be jointly managed by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman 
of the International Relations Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak today with a heavy heart. I am deeply saddened 
as I take the floor this afternoon; saddened because we find ourselves 
embroiled in a conflict in Iraq, a conflict that is involved with 
insurgents that we failed to acknowledge or recognize, a conflict that 
is overlaid by sectarian violence between the Shiite Muslims on the one 
hand and Sunni Muslims on the other.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great American tragedy. The mission of this 
Congress is to urge the change of course.
  We are here today because of a series of irretrievable strategic 
mistakes. Let's understand the goal of this resolution: number one, to 
fully extend our support to those in the uniform of the United States. 
I have been on the Armed Services Committee now throughout the years, 
and more recently as its chairman, and I cannot tell you how proud I am 
of those who are in uniform, whether they be deployed in the Middle 
East or somewhere else in the globe or here in our country. We must let 
them know, and this resolution does let them know, that we fully 
support them, as well as their wonderful families.
  The second part of this resolution deals with the Presidential 
decision to increase our troops by 21,500. However, it is not clear 
what support troops are needed. The Pentagon says 2,500 support troops. 
The Congressional Budget Office says 13,000 minimum. But whatever it 
is, we find ourselves not seeing a change in strategy, as was promised 
by the administration and the White House, but just another tactic that 
had been used before, an increase in troops. No more, no less. We are 
here to say that is not a good idea.
  The series of irretrievable mistakes is a serious list: the skewed 
intelligence we received from the Defense Department Office of Special 
Plans; the postwar phase of conflict that did not have sufficient 
planning; not enough troops, as pointed out by General Eric Shinseki, 
the former Army Chief of Staff; allowing the uncontrolled looting and 
the breakdown of law early on after the occupation began; the dismissal 
of the Iraqi Army, rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel or 
having them do security work that is important to the stability of that 
country; the deBathification, that put so many thousands of Iraqis out 
of business, out of work, including thousands of school teachers. The 
administration has consistently refused to adjust its overall strategy.
  I take no pleasure in this, but it is a moment of ``I told you so.'' 
On September 4, 2002, and again on March 18, 2003, I sent letters to 
the White House

[[Page H1495]]

predicting some of the deadly outcomes we are experiencing today, and I 
warned against a jagged ending to the conflict. While there is a 
peacefully elected Iraqi Government, it is a government so divided 
along sectarian lines it has not been able to accomplish even the most 
basic steps needed for national reconciliation. And now we have the 
President's plan for a troop increase, which is a tactic that we do not 
approve.
  The President's plan will embroil our troops even more deeply into 
the sectarian conflict. Put together hastily, it is insufficient as a 
requirement for success. Forty percent of all of the Army equipment of 
our country is either in Afghanistan or Iraq. The readiness of our 
troops is in peril. We are stretching the Army and the Marine Corps to 
the breaking point. That is where we are, and basically it is because 
of the conflict in Iraq.
  Today is an opportunity for us to express our support for the troops 
and to say it is not a good idea to increase the troop level in Iraq 
because it has been tried unsuccessfully before.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our Republican 
whip.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
resolution. General Petraeus said a resolution like this would 
discourage the troops. The Secretary of Defense said a resolution like 
this would embolden the enemy. This Congress should be doing neither of 
those things.
  What this resolution will not do is take a position on what we should 
do as we face the challenge of our generation.
  President Johnson was criticized a generation ago and still today for 
choosing bombing sites in Vietnam. He was the Commander in Chief; yet 
he should have left those tactical choices to the military.
  But his actions made imminently more sense than this. It is hard to 
imagine a group less capable of making tactical decisions about 
specific troop deployments than 535 Members of Congress.
  The resolution today is about the exact number of troops. Will the 
one tomorrow or next week be a vote on which block in Baghdad to target 
or which car to stop?
  And, of course, today what we debate is a tactic in the greater fight 
we are in. The new commanding general determined this surge is the 
right course of action. The Iraq Study Group was supportive of ``a 
short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize 
Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. 
commander in Iraq determines that such a step would be effective.''
  Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the current situation in Iraq 
cannot continue. That is why the President has advanced a new way 
forward.
  Actions do have consequences, and this resolution the Democrats 
advance today is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for the 
current strategy because it is a vote not to change that strategy. The 
current strategy is not working, and as a southwest Missourian told me 
yesterday, We are there. He went on to say, It really doesn't matter 
how we got there or what we thought. We are in a fight that won't stop 
if we leave.
  The fact of the matter is that Congress does have the power to end 
the war if it has the political will to do so.
  Almost 24 years ago, in November of 1983, the Congress voted to 
withdraw from Lebanon by March of 1984. Many of the proponents of this 
resolution voted then, who were Members of Congress then, voted to 
leave. They lost 153-274, but the message was sent, and we left anyway, 
and when we left, the myth of American weakness began to take hold in 
al Qaeda.
  The language of this nonbinding resolution does not tackle the tough 
issues of war. It tries to have it both ways: disapproving the tactics 
but supporting the troops. It does not say we will fund the troops in 
the future or not fund the troops. It does not say we will supply the 
troops in the future or not supply the troops. This resolution just 
says enough not to say anything at all.
  America should see this move for what it really is, a political first 
step to cutting off funding to the dangerous mission our troops face.
  The truth is, we are in a war against a hostile and ferocious enemy 
that will stop at nothing. Imagine how this debate this week bolsters 
those radical terrorists whose sole goal is to destroy America because 
we disprove, as no society ever has, the dogma of religious 
totalitarianism that they use every day to recruit followers and 
funders and suicide bombers.
  Our diversity, our ability to live together, and the prosperity and 
vitality that are the result have produced the enemies we face today. 
As long as we live as we do, they must be wrong.
  This week, the Congress will send the signal to those enemies and to 
those who fight to protect us from them that America has the will and 
indeed the courage to continue fighting these Islamic totalitarians or 
that we do not take the consequences of failure seriously
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding.
  I must begin by reacting to the two distinguished Republican speakers 
who preceded me. The distinguished Republican leader recited movingly 
and accurately terrorist outrages across the globe. Those terrorist 
outrages make the passage of our resolution all the more urgent and all 
the more imperative. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are 
attempting to referee a religiously based civil war which saps our 
strength and destroys our fabric as a society.
  As to the distinguished Republican whip, may I say this resolution 
does not make tactical decisions. It reverses a mistaken course. The 
administration is recommending an acceleration of the wrong course. Our 
resolution reverses that course.
  Mr. Speaker, it is too late to go back and make right all that has 
gone wrong in Iraq, and clearly carrying on with more of the same will 
do no good. But the administration has yet to learn that you cannot 
unscramble an omelet. Instead, it is trying to add to the mix another 
21,500 men and women who deserve better than that.
  In pursuing its policies in Iraq, the administration cannot 
unscramble and undo its many mistakes: buying into rogue and flawed 
intelligence; disbanding the Iraqi Army; conducting mindless and 
extreme de-Baathification; permitting the early looting and destruction 
and violence; allowing the growth of a government based on hate-filled 
sectarianism; allowing waste, fraud and abuse in the use of U.S. 
taxpayer funds; and on and on ad nauseam and ad infinitum.
  While we all hope that the goal of a quiet and stable Iraq will be 
achieved under General Petraeus, I am deeply skeptical. It will be 
incredibly difficult, if not impossible. The place is just too much of 
a mess.
  Our continued heavy presence in Iraq has not forced Iraqi leaders to 
take the requisite actions on power-sharing, resource-sharing, and 
national reconciliation. In fact, it has done the exact opposite. They 
have made minimal and cosmetic efforts in the knowledge that we will 
fill the gaps.
  In the meantime, there are so many other fronts, globally and here at 
home, on which we might have made much more progress if we had not been 
fixated these last 4 years on Iraq. Domestic and foreign problems have 
festered while we invested blood and treasure in Iraq. As our Iraq 
problems have mounted, our commitment and ability to resolve other 
pressing issues have vanished.
  Last November, the American people sent a loud and unmistakable 
message. With the announcement of an escalation of the war in Iraq, it 
is obvious that the administration did not get it. So we are trying one 
more time.
  The resolution before the House is the second chance for this 
administration to hear a strong and clear message on Iraq, one it 
ignores at its peril and at ours as a country.
  The majority of Congress wants de-escalation. The majority of the 
American people want de-escalation. Many Republicans throughout the 
Nation, and even our Republican colleagues in this Congress, want de-
escalation. Poll numbers show that the Iraqi people want the United 
States to gradually withdraw, and Prime Minister al-

[[Page H1496]]

Maliki has indicated in virtually every way that he can that he, too, 
opposes the surge.
  But the administration wants escalation. So it is going its own way, 
nearly alone.
  There is a clear-cut policy difference here, Mr. Speaker. It is 
reflected simply and unambiguously in our resolution. Those of our 
colleagues who oppose escalation should vote for the resolution. Those 
of our colleagues who stand with the administration in supporting 
escalation should oppose it.
  Along with 52 hearings on Iraq in the House and the Senate over the 
past 5 weeks, this resolution represents the first phase in a long 
overdue process of congressional oversight of the war in Iraq. It is 
not the last phase. Congress will be dealing with the Iraq issue for 
months to come, in fact, for as long as it takes to end this nightmare. 
But this simple resolution will establish the first marker. Those who 
want to draw down the U.S. presence will be on one side of that marker. 
Those who want to take further steps into the quagmire will be on the 
other.
  Mr. Speaker, we are throwing our soldiers into the midst of a civil 
war, particularly those whom we are sending to Baghdad. It is utterly 
unrealistic and grossly unfair to expect soldiers straight out of Iowa, 
Alabama, or California to be able to differentiate between Iraqi Sunnis 
and Iraqi Shias, much less to be able to tell at a glance which of 
these groups are with us and which are against us. But that is exactly 
what we are asking them to do, and we are asking them to do it in an 
urban terrorist setting and to do it without any linguistic or cultural 
background.
  The first sentence of the recent National Intelligence Estimate tells 
us everything we need to know on this issue: ``Iraqi society's growing 
polarization, the persistent weakness of the Iraqi security forces and 
the Iraqi state in general, and all sides' ready recourse to violence 
are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence 
and political extremism.''
  Every day we read another article illustrating the impossibility of 
the situation into which we have inserted our brave men and women. One 
day, we read how the Iraqi Army is infested with militia members. 
Another day, we read that countless members of al-Sadr's violently 
anti-American Mahdi Army have actually been trained by U.S. soldiers 
unaware of the trainees' true affiliation. On yet another day, we read 
that U.S. soldiers cannot even tell their Iraqi counterparts the object 
of their joint military missions for fear that the mission will be 
compromised.
  This weekend, we read an interview with a U.S. soldier who 
acknowledged that he had no idea whatsoever whether an arrest he 
witnessed by Iraqi security forces was justified or merely another 
instance of sectarian revenge.
  Mr. Speaker, Iraq is a hall of mirrors, and the administration has 
utterly lost its way. More troops will not help. The United States 
wants Iraq to be a state based on the rule of law, but too many Iraqis 
prefer score-settling, chaos, and civil war. We cannot create a stable 
Iraq when the Iraqis themselves do not seem to want it.
  Let us not leave our finest young men and women literally stranded in 
an Iraqi maze. Let us make this resolution the first step on their 
journey home. We must begin a reduction in force at the fastest 
responsible rate possible, consistent with the safety of our troops.
  And then it will be time to rebuild our battered military and, just 
as importantly, rebuild the battered reputation of the United States.
  For the sake of our troops and our national interests, I strongly 
support this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.

                              {time}  1315

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Putnam of 
Florida, the Republican Conference chairman, such time as he may 
consume.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my friend from Florida for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution because, 
unfortunately, it is anything but resolute. In one legislative breath 
it offers support for our troops, but then expresses disdain for the 
mission they have been asked to carry out. And then, I must admit I am 
surprised, after all the tough talk we heard from the other side, this 
is a rather toothless 97 words. The resolution does nothing to help win 
the war, but it doesn't do anything to help stop it either, which 
allows the majority to offer its support and withdraw it too.
  Now, the majority has surely studied its constitutional law, and 
knows that the most direct way that it can affect current strategy is 
to cut off the funds necessary for winning this war. So why are we not 
having this week a real vote, a real up-or-down vote on funding our men 
and women in harm's way? Actually, the Congress has had one up-or-down 
vote, it was up only, when the Senate unanimously confirmed General 
David Petraeus as our commanding officer in Iraq. General Petraeus, who 
took over just last Saturday, literally wrote the book for the Army on 
counterinsurgency strategies. And now, after unanimous Senate approval 
and just days into his command, the House is prepared to pull the rug 
out from under him. If that is not a mixed message, then what is it, 
Mr. Speaker?
  Indeed, it is a shame that the majority has brought to the floor such 
a narrow, nonbinding resolution that misses the bigger picture, because 
this is so much larger than what is going on in any given neighborhood 
in Baghdad.
  It is easy enough to go back and list all the disappointments we have 
had in Iraq; it is easy enough to wring our hands about any one 
particular tactic. But it is like focusing on one jungle, on one atoll 
on the march to Tokyo over 60 years ago. The very nature of our enemy 
requires us to look at the bigger picture. The harsh reality we have 
encountered in 5\1/2\ years since militants attacked us on American 
soil is that its intricate web of terror is utterly global.
  Today, al Qaeda operates in over 60 countries, with members in the 
hundreds and supporters in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps even 
millions. This is the case even after the tangible successes that we 
have had.
  More than three-quarters of al Qaeda's known pre-9/11 leaders have 
been captured or killed, more than 4,000 suspected al Qaeda members 
arrested, and more than $140 million of its assets seized from over 
1,400 different bank accounts worldwide. And after having accomplished 
all that, the majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us 
one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of 
California. And when ideological militants achieve their objectives, 
history tells us that they don't settle, that they only attempt to 
expand their reach even further. And that means following us home.
  The consequences of failure in Iraq read like a far-fetched war game, 
but I assure you they are quite real: the inevitable incursion of 
Iranian and Syrian combatants into the country, the threat to peaceful 
Arab states, and the further emboldening of Hamas and Hezbollah.
  So we have arrived at one of those muddy historical crossroads. Will 
we continue to take the fight to the enemy, or will we fall back and 
hope that the enemy does not follow us home? That question is one that 
we must continue to ask ourselves, even if it is much larger than the 
narrow scope of this resolution, this resolution that was born of what 
has become an overly politicized debate.
  Time was, politics stopped at the water's edge; but no longer, it 
seems. A discussion of this nature should be about more than political 
labels and single tactical issues. It should be about the consequences 
for future generations.
  The history of free peoples divides itself as neatly as it can into 
generations for a reason: because it aspires to celebrate the 
contributions made by that group of people who consciously join 
together to vanquish a common enemy. If we do not join together now to 
defeat this insidious foe, then it will almost certainly fall to our 
posterity do so. And they will have a much larger concern than any one 
troop deployment in any one city. They will be tasked with rebuilding 
the lasting damage that was done to America's resolve this week. They 
will look back upon this discussion and seek to understand what we were 
thinking when, with just 97 words, we considered shrinking from this 
critical moment.
  The poet Robert Frost once wrote that, ``The best way out is always

[[Page H1497]]

through.'' We doggedly seek the way through. Success in Iraq, security 
for our allies, and everlasting victory for freedom. This week's 
discussion should be about the way through, not the way back
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan, a veteran of the Second World War, Mr. Dingell.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could rise in support for the 
administration's policy. I wish it made sense. I wish it was in the 
best interests of this country to support that policy.
  It has been now 4 years since the first American soldier entered the 
deserts of Iraq, and about 4 years since the President has declared 
victory. Since then, more than 3,100 Americans have been killed, 24,000 
and more have been wounded, and anywhere between 40,000 and 100,000 
Iraqis have died.
  You know, I am proud and grateful that I could have the privilege of 
serving my country and making some small offering to its success in 
time of war. I understand how important it is we support our troops 
there. They have done a magnificent job, and everyone in this Chamber, 
including this speaker, support them fully. It is regrettable, however, 
the leadership in Washington that has been less than stellar.
  Unfortunately, the veracity of this administration and the respect in 
which it is held on these matters ranks somewhere around that great 
fantasist Baron Munchausen, the teller of fantastic tales.
  I am against this plan, if it can be called such, because it is just 
more of the same policies and programs that have consistently failed 
for 4 years. I am against this surge because it will not make Americans 
safer, because it will put more American lives at risk, because it 
continues to neglect the battle in Afghanistan, and because it 
completely disregards the necessary diplomatic and political 
recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group.
  Twenty-one thousand is too many to kill and too few to succeed. And, 
more importantly, that number is going to be sent over there away from 
the adventures that we are confronting in Afghanistan and the troubles 
that we are seeing in that place, and we are going to send people over 
there without adequate preparation, proper equipment, and training.
  Vice President Cheney has told us that insurgency is in the last 
throes. Mr. Speaker, the national Intelligence estimates said that 
fanatical terrorism has now, and I quote, ``metastasized and spread 
across the globe.''
  At each possible turning point, the toppling of Saddam Hussein's 
statue, the dissolving of the Army, the creation of the Iraqi 
Constitution, the vote for the constitution, the Parliamentary 
elections, the capture of Saddam, the death of Zarqawi, the Bush 
administration has told us that victory is at hand. And yet the killing 
goes on and seems to have risen to new levels and new evidence of risk.
  I don't believe that we can any more condone this long train of 
failure which has brought us so little success and such tremendous 
sacrifice in blooded treasure. It is time that we recognize that our 
troops are in the middle of a civil insurrection or a civil war. It is 
time that we recognize that we must turn this situation now over to the 
Iraqis. The matter will be decided by the Iraqis, not by us. It will 
not be decided militarily, but rather politically, by the people in the 
area, and not by Americans who are coming increasingly to be viewed as 
intruders and to be less liked and less supported.
  I know that commentators and defenders of the administration will 
assert that Iraq is too important, too vital to our national interests 
to be debated or criticized. I happen to think the debate in this body 
on matters of great importance is the reason that we exist, and it is 
time that we speak on behalf of the American people to tell this 
administration: ``Find a new mechanism to prevail in this matter. Find 
a new way to spend our lives and treasure. Find a new way to see to it 
that we prevail and that we make this country safe,'' because it is 
clear that this is not going to happen with the current policy as 
exemplified by this administration.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I hope that the 
country will see to it that the President finally hears the message 
that his policies are failed, it is time to make changes, and that we 
have to do so in the interest of the United States and world peace
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield as 
much time as he may consume to Mr. Hunter, the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution by the Democrat leadership sends a 
message to three parties: America's enemies, America's friends, and 
America's troops. And I think it is going to be received by friend and 
foe alike as the first sound of retreat in the world battle against 
extremists and terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not stopping anything with this resolution. In 
fact, the Big Red One is already moving its first brigade toward Iraq; 
the 82nd Airborne, America's all-American division, is already in Iraq. 
In fact, the Second Brigade is already in their sector in Baghdad. As a 
matter of fact, in the Baghdad plan, which reinforcements are serving, 
all nine sectors now have American and Iraqi forces in place and 
operating. So you are not stopping anything; you are simply sending a 
message, and it is the wrong message. Because this Nation has been for 
the last 60 years involved in spreading freedom, and it is in America's 
interest to spread freedom. Nobody would say that it is in our interest 
or it is not in our interest, for example, to have a free Japan on that 
side of the Pacific, or to have a free El Salvador in our own 
hemisphere, or to have those nations which were behind the Iron 
Curtain, nations like Poland, now standing side by side with us in 
Iraq. It is in our interest to spread freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been here before. A lot of us have. I remember in 
the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was standing up to the Russians in Europe 
and the USSR was ringing our allies in France and Germany with SS-20 
missiles, and the President of the United States moved to offset those 
missiles with Pershing IIs and ground-launched cruise missiles, and you 
had from the left a call that this was going to start World War III. 
And you had pundits throughout this country, as a matter of fact 
somebody showed me an old headline the other day, ``Better Red Than 
Dead,'' which emanated from that debate and that action.
  But we stood tough, we offset the Russians, we showed strength, and 
at some point the Russians picked up the phone and said, ``Can we 
talk?'' And when we talked, we talked about the disassembly of the 
Soviet Empire.
  In our own hemisphere, when we went in and helped that fragile 
government in El Salvador and stood up a little shield around that 
government, we had people saying that is going to be the next Vietnam 
for the United States. Well, it wasn't a Vietnam for the United States, 
and Salvadorans are standing with Americans now in Iraq. In fact, I 
think we have got people who died of old age waiting anxiously for the 
next Vietnam.
  Now we are in a different part of the world, and it is a tough 
mission, and moving freedom and spreading freedom in that part of the 
world is very, very difficult. And I would just say to my colleagues, 
my friends who have talked about the smooth road not taken, how we have 
made mistakes; if we just kept that Iraqi in place of Saddam Hussein's, 
somehow things would be better now. Saddam Hussein's army had 11,000 
Sunni generals. Now, what are you going to do with an army with 11,000 
Sunni generals whose mission is to stabilize a population which is in 
the majority Shiite?

                              {time}  1330

  A lot of people have said we should have had 200,000 to 300,000 
troops in country. Now at the same time they would say we have got to 
put an Iraqi face on this occupation. How do you put an Iraqi face on 
the occupation with 200,000 or 300,000 Americans in country?
  The facts are, there is no smooth road. This is a tough and difficult 
road. Our military planners have come up with a strategy. It involves 
nine sectors in Baghdad with Iraqi troops to the front and with backup 
American battalions behind them, mentoring them, giving them advice, 
and in many cases stiffening their spine.

[[Page H1498]]

  Now, there is no guarantee of success. But this is a first time. I 
think we should check our history, and my friend, Mr. Skelton, I think 
you should check our history and see if this Congress has ever, after a 
military operation is already in place, is already moving forward, the 
Big Red One is already moving out. The all-American division, the 82nd 
Airborne, already has troops in place in combat, in the city, that we 
retroactively say, you know, we don't support this. The only message 
that can possibly send to the rest of the world is a fractured message.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to end with a comment, with a quotation from 
Douglas MacArthur in his farewell speech at West Point. I thought it 
was appropriate for these times. He talks about the American soldier, 
and he says this, ``Their story is known to all of you. It is the story 
of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the 
battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded 
him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; 
not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of 
the most stainless.
  ``His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In 
his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that 
mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. 
He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's 
breast.''
  Mr. Speaker, our soldiers are engaged in combat right now. The worst 
disservice that we can give to them is to retroactively blast and 
degrade the mission that they are currently undertaking. There is no 
good role, there is no good purpose that is served by this.
  So I would ask all my colleagues, let us get behind not only our 
troops, let us get behind their mission. Let us vote ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a 
Korean War veteran, recipient of the Purple Heart, recipient of the 
Bronze Star, Mr. Rangel.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I didn't come down here, my colleagues, to 
talk about General MacArthur, but I guess I knew of him better than 
anyone in this room.
  General MacArthur was called out of Korea. He was the commander of 
the entire Armed Forces there, and left us in the Second Infantry 
Division completely surrounded by the Chinese in November of 1950. The 
last I remember, he was called back by the Commander in Chief, Harry 
Truman, for defying his direction. So with all due respect to the great 
late general, this is hardly a time to talk about what soldiers have to 
do when they defy authority.
  I want to thank those who have given us an opportunity today to 
express ourselves under question of life and death. Very few people 
have this responsibility, yet those here in this House, you didn't get 
elected to do this, but today you have to decide whether or not you 
want this war to continue and how many people have to die before it is 
stopped.
  You here talk about me supporting a draft, but I challenge anyone to 
tell me that their feelings about this war in Iraq would not be 
different if they thought that their loved ones, their family, their 
community, would be placed in harm's way.
  Whether you are for or against the war, or no matter how you voted, 
when you see the casualties mounting up, when you visit the hospitals 
and see young dedicated people without their skulls, their faces, their 
legs, their arms, you don't have to know any of these kids to start 
crying. But if you have children and grandchildren, and your 
imagination allows you to believe that they would be included in the 
21,000, and no matter how many times they go, there has to be a feeling 
that maybe this is the last chance I have, you have to have a different 
feeling if you are not dealing with someone else's children.
  Now, people would say these kids want to fight. I mean, they are 
different from most kids. They volunteered. They want to do it.
  It is strange how most of them sought the $40,000, $30,000, $20,000 
bonus or sought educational benefits, or don't come from families that 
are affluent in this country. It is strange that you never heard the 
President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense ever make a 
plea to the patriotism of America to say, Give me your young, your able 
body, give me your patriots, we have a war to fight. You have never 
heard that.
  Oh, no, we applaud those who enlisted, but there has never been a 
plea out there for America to make sacrifices. A country at war, and 
the President doesn't ask people to sacrifice anything.
  Well, my son in the Marines got out of the Persian Gulf. He is out, 
and he too enjoyed the GI Bill. But recently I attended a funeral in my 
district of a young man who died in Iraq, and I have gone to others, 
and the family was outside, and they pled with me, please, Congressman, 
tell them our son was a hero. Please, Congressman Rangel, we thank you 
that you are here, salute my son, please.
  I have gone to these funerals before. Most of these young men and 
women were marines. So I was so used to seeing this blue uniform with 
the red stripe. The family actually walked me to the coffin, and my 
knees buckled. Why? Because as sensitive and as passionate I am about 
the loss of life, instead of seeing a brown-skinned Dominican in a 
marine outfit, I saw a soldier about 20 years old. I saw a soldier of 
about 20 years old in an Army uniform, not a Marine uniform. Guess 
what, he looked just like me.
  I ask my colleagues to try to figure, if you were involved as an 
individual, as a kid, or your family was involved, that this great 
country and this great Constitution has given you the right, right in 
your hand, to determine who lives and who dies. You cannot make a 
mistake in supporting this resolution, it is not going to hurt our 
beloved warriors, it is going to help our country, it is going to help 
them, and it is going to make us proud one day to be able to say, when 
asked, What did you do when this was going on in the world, and your 
Congress was asked?
  You would be able to say, There was a resolution. It may not have 
been a profile in courage, but I supported it, and I am proud that I 
did
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to Mr. King of New York, the ranking member of the Homeland 
Security Committee.
  Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the opportunity to take part in this 
debate, which as my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, isn't this 
a historic debate? It is part of our job. It is our obligation. It is a 
legal obligation; it is a moral obligation to be heard on this most 
pressing issue of our time.
  I would also add at the outset, when we have talked about those who 
died in Iraq, and all of us go to the wakes of those who were killed in 
our district. Just the other day, if we are talking about the quality 
of the type of person, where they come from and who was killed in Iraq, 
there was a young man who was actually in what used to be the heart of 
my district, very affluent area, Manhasset. He was a graduate of Duke 
University, all-American Lacrosse player, was offered a scholarship to 
law school, but he turned it down to go in as an enlisted man, as an 
Army Ranger.
  He served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he was killed on his 
third tour of Iraq. His family was proud of what he did, what he 
accomplished, what he stood for. I think it doesn't really add to the 
level of debate to somehow be suggesting that those who go to Iraq 
because they cannot be anywhere else or somehow it is all driven by 
economic need, he was a young man with everything in front of him.
  He had all the opportunity in the world, and he went, and he joined 
the Army, went in as an enlisted man, died as a sergeant, and he was on 
his third tour in Iraq. So I think it is important to put that in the 
Record. Also, I know there are any number of Members in this body who 
have had members of their families serving in Iraq.
  I think if we are going to talk about the gentleman from New York who 
wants to bring back the draft, we can have that in a separate debate. 
But I don't think it should be part of this debate.
  Now, when this debate was actually scheduled, I actually thought it 
would

[[Page H1499]]

serve a constructive purpose. But as I look at the resolutions being 
offered, if I could really, I guess, quote from Senator Lieberman of 
Connecticut, rather than a resolution, it is really a resolution of 
irresolution.
  It is inherently contradictory, because it pledges support to the 
troops but also at the same time washes its hands of what the troops 
are attempting to do. I have heard speaker after speaker get up here 
today and say the new policy cannot work. The new policy is more of the 
same. This is the President's policy. He hasn't gotten the message from 
the American people.
  Well the fact is, this policy is strongly supported by the new 
commander in Iraq, General Petraeus. As was pointed out, the Senate 
unanimously approved the appointment of General Petraeus by a vote of 
81-0. Now, for people to come here today and say this is an inherently 
flawed policy, this is a policy that cannot work, this is a policy that 
is doomed to failure, to me, after General Petraeus has said that he 
believes the policy can work, that he supports the policy, is to attack 
directly either the credibility or the competency of General Petraeus, 
and that is a terrible message to be sending to our troops.
  Actions do have consequences. I don't doubt the good faith of anyone 
on either side of the aisle when it comes to supporting the troops. The 
fact is, often you have to think beyond what the actual words are 
saying and realize the consequences those words have. For instance, my 
good friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who I have 
actually traveled to Iraq with in 2003, where we met with General 
Petraeus and others in Mosul and with others and troops in Baghdad, he 
said that Iraq is a mess, and we have to end the nightmare.
  Does anyone really think by Americans pulling out the nightmare is 
going to end, that the Middle East will become stable if we leave? 
Certainly al Qaeda doesn't believe that. Certainly the mullahs in Iran 
don't believe that. And also our allies don't believe that.
  Again, what are the consequences of our actions? Are we saying just 
draw down for the sake of drawing down? I heard the distinguished 
Speaker of the House of Representatives say our goal is to get our 
troops home.
  Well, I would say our goal should be to have our troops come home 
after we have achieved a goal, a goal of at least a stable Iraq, an 
Iraq which is able to protect its borders against Iran, and an Iraq 
which is able to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a privileged 
sanctuary in Iraq, and an Iraq which is able to create a situation in 
the north where the Kurds and the Turks are not fighting with one 
another.
  So these are all serious issues that have to be addressed. I regret 
to say this resolution does not address it in any way. If anything, it 
is a serious step backward.
  Now, also we have heard that we have to listen to the polls. We have 
to listen to what public opinion has to be at any particular time. 
Well, if anyone wants to go back and look at the polls, in 1952, 
President Truman's popularity rating was 22 percent. War in Korea was 
amazingly unpopular, and yet today he is acknowledged as one of our 
greatest Presidents, and the war in Korea is looked upon as an 
absolutely indispensable step in the defeat of communism, because they 
drew the line in Asia at the 38th parallel.
  I know my good friend Mr. Rangel served in Korea, he was wounded in 
Korea, and he performed valiantly in Korea. That war now is looked upon 
as one of the linchpins of the Cold War strategy, which, again, brought 
down the Communist menace.

                              {time}  1345

  Also I tried to research this. I am not aware of any time in the 
entire history of our country where the United States Congress has 
adopted a resolution questioning a particular battlefield strategy.
  Like him or not, and I certainly support him, but the President is 
our Commander in Chief. I said the same thing when President Clinton 
was our Commander in Chief, and I was serving in this body at that time 
when there was tremendous criticism directed at him.
  But the fact is, the President, no matter where he or she happens to 
be from, is the Commander in Chief. And we are at war. It was a war 
that was authorized by this Congress. And we should not be, I do not 
believe, setting the precedent of adopting resolutions questioning 
specific strategies.
  Should we have adopted a resolution in the winter of 1944, 1945, 
questioning President Roosevelt's strategy in allowing the intelligence 
failures that brought about the Battle of the Bulge? We can go step by 
step. Certainly President Lincoln, during the Civil War when strategies 
were changed throughout the war and finally resulted in a victory.
  Also we have to realize that the war in Iraq is part of an overall 
war against Islamic terrorism. As the former chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee, as ranking member of the Homeland Security 
Committee, certainly we see that this is an enemy which is overseas and 
it is here. It is an enemy which is plotting every day to find ways to 
attack us.
  I know later the distinguished ranking member of the Intelligence 
Committee will also speak to this part of the issue. But the fact is, 
we do not live in vacuums. We cannot isolate battlefields and silos and 
say this is Iraq, this is Afghanistan, and this is the Twin Towers.
  The fact is, we are talking about actions having consequences. And I 
have been very critical of the Republican Party for 1983 when I believe 
we precipitously withdrew from Beirut. That had consequences. I was in 
this body when we precipitously withdrew from Somalia. I was also in 
this body when the Twin Towers were attacked the first time in 1993 and 
we took no action, or Khobar Towers when a constituent of mine was 
killed in 1996. We took no action.
  The USS Cole in 2000 when we took no action. In 1998 the attacks on 
the African embassies, where we took very limited action. All of those 
had consequences. In fact, now we see after September 11, 2001, we find 
the historical record where Osama bin Laden said that when we saw that 
the United States was willing to withdraw from Somalia, how that 
emboldened Islamic terrorists throughout the world, how that showed 
them that we did not have the staying power, we did not have the guts 
to stick it out.
  Listen, those who are really putting it on the line, those who have 
the guts are the men and women of the battlefield in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. But also we as elected officials have to show some courage 
and not just give in to the zeitgeists, not just give in to the latest 
public opinion poll or to the latest election, because quite frankly we 
were not elected to win elections; we were elected to show leadership 
and to do what has to be done.
  When future generations look back at this, will they really say that 
we helped the struggle against Islamic terrorism by pulling out of 
Iraq, by not continuing that fight? Does anyone really think that that 
will not embolden al Qaeda, that that will not embolden Iran? Can 
anyone honestly say that?
  And so I believe that what disappoints me about this debate and this 
resolution is we are treating Iraq almost like it is a pinpoint. It is 
one issue standing by itself, and it is not. It is part of a mosaic; it 
is part of a worldwide struggle. As someone who lost more than 100 
friends, neighbors, constituents on September 11, I have seen firsthand 
the evils of Islamic terrorism.
  As ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, I know how 
there are forces in this country who would take action against us. I 
know the connections between forces in this country and forces 
overseas. It is no secret. It should not cause us any confusion as to 
why al Qaeda wants us to lose in Iraq.
  It should not cause us any confusion as to why al Qaeda encourages 
the enemy against us in Iraq, and in fact has al Qaeda in Iraq itself 
fighting against us.
  So now we come to the question of, with our troops committed there, 
with this being an absolutely essential part of the war against 
terrorism, what do we do? I agree that there is a consensus that the 
current policy has not been successful. There have been successes, but 
the policy itself has not been fully successful.
  That is true in almost every war in which America has been engaged. 
It was certainly true during World War II, it was certainly true during 
Korea, and even take a war like Kosovo, which is

[[Page H1500]]

probably almost as antiseptic as a war could be, even though every war 
when anyone's life is on the line is brutal and deadly.
  But from a strategic point of view, we are talking about it should 
have been a simple war. We ended up bombing a Chinese embassy in 
Belgrade. So, I mean, mistakes are made. And for us to say because 
mistakes are made we should redeploy our troops, which really is a 
euphemism for withdrawal.
  We are sending signals to the world. We are sending signals to our 
troops, we are sending signals to our allies, we are sending signals to 
our enemies. On the one hand if we are unanimously confirming General 
Petraeus who supports this policy, and on the other hand we are saying 
we know the policy cannot work and we are actually going for the first 
time in American history going on record opposing a particular 
strategic policy, then I would say, where are we getting this from?
  People say that this is just the same policy as we have had all 
along. General Petraeus says it is not. And I do not believe it is. Can 
I guarantee the new policy will work? No, I cannot. But I have met with 
generals, I have met with military experts, and they give good reasons 
why it can work. And there are people of very good faith on the other 
side who say it will not work.
  But as I look at this, our commander, who is looked upon as the 
expert in counterinsurgency, who is the general who has certainly 
achieved the most in Iraq, and anyone who has been to Mosul knows the 
job that he achieved there, if he says this policy should work, and can 
work, then I believe we have the moral obligation, we have the legal 
obligation, and we have the obligation to history and for our children 
and grandchildren that we not undercut General Petraeus, that we not 
tell our troops we do not have faith in their ability to carry out the 
mission which General Petraeus says can be carried out, and we do not 
embolden our enemies by saying just wait this out a few months, wait it 
out a few months and you will get it, wait us out a few months and we 
will pull out like we did in Beirut or Somalia.
  We cannot allow that message to be sent. The burden is on us. And if 
we fail in this mission, and the mission I believe of standing with our 
troops, standing with our commander in the field, and standing with the 
policy that the overwhelming majority of Congress voted for in 2003, 
and also the pledge that all of us made on September 11, 2001, then we 
will have failed in our obligations as Members of the United States 
Congress and failed in our obligation to our oath of office to do what 
has to be done, which should be done, which is essential if we are 
going to win the war against Islamic terrorism.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I find it rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, that those who oppose this 
simple, straightforward resolution tend to confuse a permissive war 
with a necessary war. The goals of the insurgents in Iraq are far 
different from the terrorists that had their genesis in Afghanistan. 
Let us not be confused between the two conflicts or their origins or 
those against whom we fight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a veteran of the Korean War, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman, Mr. Skelton, and I 
stand proud today with my fellow veterans in the House of 
Representatives to register our opposition to the President's plan to 
escalate the war in Iraq and to show our support for our men and women 
in uniform.
  Now, last November 7 the American people sent a clear message to 
Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq. Now after 
nearly 4 years of bloodshed, death and destruction, Congress is likely 
to go on record as opposing the plan for escalation of this war.
  No longer will Congress stand by while the President wages a war that 
defies logic, common sense and human decency. This week we shall take a 
stand. This week, we tell this administration enough is enough, stop 
ignoring the American people, stop ignoring your generals. And by the 
way, I include to the gentleman from New York two speakers ago, General 
Colin Powell, no less agrees with us.
  Stop ignoring the foreign policy experts. Stop wasting American lives 
and resources on this disastrous and unnecessary conflict. This week's 
debate on this resolution represents an important turning point in 
public dialogue about Iraq. And so I welcome it, but it is not enough. 
The escalation must be stopped, and we cannot let the momentum against 
the war subside after we deal with the escalation.
  Our priority must remain ending the fighting and dying in Iraq. We 
must end the senseless deaths of servicemembers like marine Tarryl Hill 
of Southfield, Michigan, who only last Wednesday died when his vehicle 
drove over a bomb in Fallujah.
  Tarryl Hill was 19 years old. He had joined the military to help 
finance his education to become a chemical engineer. I do not want to 
see one more promising life like his extinguished on the altar of this 
administration's arrogance. The loss of Tarryl's life brings to mind 
the bereavement of another patriot from Flint, Michigan, Lila Lipscomb, 
whose 26-year-old son, Michael, died in Iraq in April 2003, when his 
helicopter was shot down.
  A member of a military family, Ms. Lipscomb initially believed 
President Bush when he told the Nation that war was necessary for our 
national security. But her son's letters from the front lines and his 
tragic death showed her that he should have never gone to Iraq.
  I need to spend a little time explaining my opposition to the troop 
surge, which is simply even more of the same. This policy is going in 
precisely the opposite direction recommended by the generals who get 
transferred if they do not agree.
  It would simply expose GIs to more intense door-to-door fighting, in 
the vain hope that in the meanwhile the Iraqis will miraculously 
reconcile with us still being in their country.
  The real and underlying question is how we remove ourselves from this 
quagmire. As I have emphasized many times, our Constitution gives 
Congress the central role in decisions of war and peace. Last fall the 
American people spoke loudly with their votes. We should be here 
showing the voters that we heard them and that their trust was well 
placed.
  The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of 
the purse. And so we must use it. Supporters of the President's failed 
Iraq policy have argued that using Congress's spending power to end the 
war means that we do not support the troops. It is beyond absurd to 
suggest that those of us who favor ending funding for the war would 
simply abandon the troops in the field without equipment and the 
supplies they need.
  Cliches about supporting the troops are not really about our service 
members' best interests. The true purpose of these accusations is to 
distract us from the fact that we are bogged down in an unwinnable war 
that threatens to drag on for years, if not decades. Keeping our troops 
out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is the best 
possible way to support them. The American people understand that 
marching ahead blindly into oblivion is no way to support our troops. 
That is why they have asked us to end this war.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration continues to live under the illusion 
that it can salvage its reputation by achieving a military victory in 
Iraq, when it is clear that diplomacy is the most effective means at 
our disposal. The recent National Intelligence Estimate reflecting the 
collective judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies only confirms what we 
have seen in the daily headlines for almost a year. It concludes that 
the civil war has reached an intensity that is ``self-sustaining'' and 
that there are no Iraqi national leaders with the ability to stop it. 
No wonder the administration stalled completion of the NIE until after 
the election and the President's presentation of his latest proposal.
  Most of the American people know that there is only one way to 
proceed in Iraq. We must begin the phased withdrawal of American troops 
in the next 4 to 6 months and conclude it within the year. Redeploying 
our Armed Forces does not mean ``cutting and running.'' On the 
contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the region 
through renewed diplomacy, a regional conference and reconstruction 
that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is the only one 
that can lead us to victory.


        Announcing the Passing of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by House leaders 
that our colleague, Congressman Charlie Norwood, has passed away. I 
would

[[Page H1501]]

ask our colleagues to join me as we rise in a moment of silent prayer 
for Charlie.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues and visitors.
  Congressman Norwood was a proud Vietnam veteran, and his service to 
our Nation will be sorely missed. Mr. Deal will soon come to the floor 
to make a statement on behalf of his State's delegation.
  With that, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. 
Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear of the purpose of today. We face a real 
test of what this House of Representatives stands for and who we, as 
Representatives, really are.
  Do any of us really believe that the resolution in front of us today 
is a serious piece of legislation? Does it properly recognize all of 
America's military and other national security professionals who defend 
us day and night? What of the hundreds of folks in the Intelligence 
Community that are ignored in this resolution, who each and every day 
are working hand in hand with our Armed Forces trying to achieve 
success in Iraq?
  Does this resolution discuss or force a debate on the really tough 
issues of who it is that hates America and others so much that they are 
willing to kill innocent men, women and children? Again, this 
resolution comes up short.
  What is the threat, and how should America respond? That is the 
debate that we should be having on this floor. This resolution is all 
about staying the course. It says, Support our troops and don't engage 
in new tactics; just keep going down the same path. That is not good 
enough.
  There are people who hate us enough to want to kill. I speak of 
militant Islam's hate for America, a hate that extends to others, 
including Muslims. And these militant Islamists kill, they kill 
violently and indiscriminately, but this resolution is silent on the 
threat that we face as a Nation, and it is silent on how we should 
respond.
  Who are these radical Islamists, and what should America's response 
to this threat be? We face this on a global basis. What is America's 
response to jihadism? How will America win this war against this 
calculating enemy? And how will America lead the world once again in 
the face of such a ruthless threat?
  The resolution that we are debating today simply asks, Do you support 
America's fighting men and women, and do you support or oppose a tactic 
in a battle that is only one front in the war with these military 
jihadists who are bent on the destruction of the infidel America and 
others around the world.
  Let me say to my colleagues that I don't believe I am wrong in saying 
that this debate is really about whether or not America is a great 
Nation that leads in the face of difficulty. Nor do I believe that I am 
wrong to question what actually happens when this debate and vote are 
over. Have we really helped the American people understand the threat? 
What message do we send to our troops in harm's way? And what is it 
that the American public needs to understand so that it can better 
understand the challenges that we face? My own answer, Mr. Speaker, was 
that we need to understand the consequences of failure. We need to 
fully understand the nature of the threat that is posed now, and 
moreover in the future, if we fail in the larger war against militant 
Islam.
  Mr. Speaker, let me outline some things about this very real threat 
to our very existence that needs to be known by the American public 
and, indeed, this body. This is not a global war on terror. I have 
never liked that term, I don't know why we keep using it. This is a 
global war with jihadists. We are not at war with a tactic, we are at 
war with a group of militant Islamists who hate us and who hate much of 
the rest of the world. What is a jihadist, other than someone or some 
group so full of hate that they are willing to kill?
  I have a passion for understanding this threat. And thanks to a great 
deal of superb research done by many experts on the subject, in 
particular the author Mary Habeck, we have been enlightened as to who 
these individuals are, and perhaps also get an insight into the 
question of why do they hate, and why do they hate so much that they 
are willing to kill.
  I can tell you that these militant Islamist jihadists are a fringe 
element of Islam who have very specific ideas about how to revive 
Islam, return Muslims to world power, and how to deal with their 
enemies. They are committed to a violent overthrow of the existing 
international system, and to its replacement by an all-encompassing 
Islamist state, the Caliphate.
  Mr. Speaker, in studying this threat, this militant Islamic jihadist 
threat, we must also understand why Iraq is such an important element 
of their war against the West. This is where the letter from al Qaeda's 
number two leader, Zawahari, to the late al Zarqawi outlining the 
Islamic Caliphate that would stretch from Indonesia across the Middle 
East and Africa is instructive. In that letter, Zawahari outlines a 
four-stage plan to create this religious empire.
  Stage one. ``Expel the Americans from Iraq.'' Expel them in defeat. I 
fear that this debate may be the first step in that process.
  Stage two is to create an Islamic religious government in the old 
Mesopotamia, that is, Iraq, developing it and supporting it ``until it 
achieves the level of a Caliphate,'' until it fills the void stemming 
from the departure of the Americans.

  Step three is to extend the jihad way to secular countries 
neighboring Iraq. The jihadists will attack heretic Muslims, as they 
define them.
  And stage four is the clash with Israel, because Israel was 
established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
  Let's be clear about this. This jihad is about them. It is about 
their god, their religion, before it becomes anything about anyone or 
anything else. That's right, it is about them before it is about us.
  The militant jihadists believe that Islam worked well for over a 
thousand years, spreading a true gospel, a unified society that 
followed the Shari'a, a law handed down by God. They believe that the 
modern world has forsaken that pure religious life, and they believe 
that only in a Caliphate governed by the Shari'a is the way to return 
to that pure life.
  This is the world that they now want to recreate and force on the 
rest of the world. That is why they are fighting and that is why they 
are killing. They see today's world as one where unbelievers, the 
United States, Japan and others, dominate politically, culturally, 
militarily and economically. This directly assaults their religious 
beliefs, as in effect, much if not all of the world is controlled by 
unbelievers, unbelievers who must be destroyed, including secular 
Muslim states in the region.
  To illustrate, let me quote from Osama bin Laden's Fatwa. Listen to 
what these people tell themselves and each other: ``There is no more 
important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the Holy Land, no 
other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it. There is 
no precondition for this duty, and the enemy should be fought with 
one's best abilities. If it is not possible to push back the enemy 
except by the collective movement of the Muslim people, then there is a 
duty on the Muslims to ignore the minor differences among themselves. 
Even the military personnel who are not practicing Islam are not 
exempted from the duty of jihad against the enemy.''
  It should be clearly understood that a central tenet of jihadists' 
beliefs is the belief that God is one; he has no equals, he has no 
partners. This is important. If one believes that God is one and all 
that matters of rule giving or law making belongs to him, no human 
being, no government could make laws or alter the Shari'a laws of God. 
This would be, for all intents, setting oneself up to be the equal of 
God. Herein lies the problem that these militant Islamists have with 
the West and secular Muslim countries. This belief is applied equally 
to infidels and Muslim heretics.
  The bottom line is that any government or order of law other than 
Shari'a is illegitimate. This belief, in their minds, justifies the 
killing of heretical

[[Page H1502]]

Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This is not recent thinking. A prominent 
early 20th century Egyptian Muslim ideologue named Hasan al Banna 
professed this point about Muslims and nonMuslim heretics. He stated, 
quote, we will not stop at this point, but we will pursue this evil 
force to its own land, invade its western heartland, and struggle to 
overcome it until all the world shouts the name of the Prophet and the 
teachings of Islam are spread throughout the world. All religion will 
be exclusively for Allah.
  He went on to say that this violence would not be to avenge wrong 
suffered, nor to kill the unbelievers, but to save mankind from its 
many problems. Are we starting to get a picture of who the enemy may 
be? It is also important that jihadists' interpretation of Islam is 
they will reject any system of laws not based on Shari'a.
  Democracy. Why do they hate us? Democracy, he claimed, is the 
ultimate expression of idolatry, giving reason for the hatred of 
Western values. This is about them, it is not about us.
  Al Banna is not the only studied ideologue. Another name, Sayyid 
Qutb, wrote, ``Islam has a mandate to order the whole of human life, 
and that the Western idea of separation between religion and the rest 
of life is, quote, a hideous schizophrenia that would lead to the 
downfall of white civilization and therefore its replacement by 
Islam.''
  Qutb maintained that political and religious ideology of the jihadist 
is derived directly from the Koranic argument that God, unique and 
without partner, is the only being of sovereignty. Therefore, the only 
role for national leaders is to implement God's laws. This gives the 
jihadists their belief that attacking secular or Muslim heretic 
societies is justified. Qutb basically justified all-out warfare on all 
of these societies.
  Where does that leave us today? It leaves us with a discussion that 
should be much deeper than the resolution that is in front of us. The 
resolution in front of us is a shallow political document.
  Let me return to Osama bin Laden's Fatwa against the West. Let me use 
his own words. In calling on all Muslims, he says, ``The explosions at 
Riyadh and Al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging.''
  To further his murderous goals, bin Laden then went on to outline the 
terrorist approach to his holy war to by saying, ``It must be obvious 
to you that due to the imbalance of power between our Armed Forces and 
the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e., 
using fast-moving light forces that work under complete secrecy; in 
other words, to initiate a guerrilla warfare where the sons of the 
nation, and not the military forces, take part in it. And as you know, 
it is wise, in the present circumstances, for the armed military forces 
not to be engaged in conventional fighting with the forces of the 
crusader enemy, unless a big advantage is likely to be achieved and 
great losses induced on the enemy side. That will help to expel the 
defeated enemy from the country.''
  He goes on, ``Therefore, efforts should be concentrated on 
destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the grace of 
Allah, it is completely defeated. The time will come, by the permission 
of Allah, when you will perform your decisive role so that the word of 
Allah will be supreme and the word of the infidels will be the 
inferior. You will hit with iron fists against the aggressors.''
  The modern words of bin Laden alone do not adequately explain the 
current militant Islamic threat to the United States and its friends 
around the world. Again in their own words, this quote from a senior al 
Qaeda leader, quote, Islam became to be the only hope in jihad under 
the banner of Islam to become a solution for all of the enemies of 
America and of those weakened nations, even to the leftist and peace 
groups in the Christian world. Whoever follows the writings of some of 
the Western authors will find that some of them started to declare, 
through their writings, about the American tyranny, that there is no 
hope to face America other than through the armed Muslims. To the 
extent that in one of the demonstrations that included hundreds of 
thousands against globalization and war in Italy, the demonstrations 
carried a picture of bin Laden placing Che Guevara's hat on it, drawing 
him to be a Che Guevara look-alike. They wrote under his picture, 
``anti-American.'' Through this action they expressed that the symbol 
of today's Islamic jihad is the only solution to face America.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Speaker, here is the true threat to America and the West: this 
militant Islamic jihad, a jihad that spans the globe, including attacks 
in Bali; in Spain; the United Kingdom; in the Philippines; in Kashmir; 
in Kenya; in Jordan; Israel; Nigeria; and, yes, in the United States 
and Iraq. What is not being discussed is this global problem, this 
threat to peace and stability everywhere in the world. Why, I ask, is 
the focus so keenly on Iraq as the problem, the only problem for us to 
debate? Iraq is not the problem. It is but one front in this larger 
war. The American people are not being well served by our leaders and 
the media that are solely focused on the conflict in Iraq. This is but 
a single front in a much larger war.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close with these final thoughts about the 
militant Islamic threat we face not only in the front in Iraq but, 
indeed, around the world, including here in America.
  There is a fundamental clash of civilizations at work here. There is 
a fundamental belief by the jihadis that Islam must expand to fill the 
entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so. This 
belief includes their facts that democracy, liberalism, human rights, 
personal freedoms, international law, international institutions are 
illegal, illegitimate, and sinful. Democracy, and in particular the 
United States democracy, is the focus of their wrath because it is 
considered the center of liberalism. This is not an enemy with whom we 
can negotiate. We must contain them and defeat them.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us does not address this threat, a 
real threat to our very existence. We are at war, and I fear we don't 
even know that we are under attack. This myopic resolution does not 
recognize or address that threat.
  I urge my colleagues and the House to vote ``no'' on this resolution.


 Moment of Silence Observed in Memory of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we 
recognize the Members of the Georgia delegation to make the sad 
commentary on Congressman Norwood's passing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moran of Virginia). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  On behalf of my colleagues from the State of Georgia, it is with 
great sadness that I announce that our colleague Charlie Norwood passed 
away at approximately 12:45 today.
  Charlie was a great Member of this body and a friend to all.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this body observe a moment of silence 
in his memory.
  Amen.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, once again my friends on the other side of 
the aisle are attempting to confuse the conflict in Iraq with the war 
against terrorists and has their genesis in Afghanistan, trying to put 
it all in one basket. That is not the case. Anybody can have their own 
opinion, but, Mr. Speaker, they may not have their own facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California 
(Mr. Thompson), a gentleman who is a Vietnam combat veteran of the 
173rd Airborne Brigade.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
recognizing me for time.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, as a combat veteran, from the bottom of my 
heart, I say thank you to the brave men and women who have served in 
Iraq, each with great distinction.
  Our troops have done an outstanding job. They have done all that has 
been asked of them and more. They have performed with the utmost 
professionalism, making all of us very proud.
  Now, I believe it is past time that we start bringing these brave men 
and

[[Page H1503]]

women home. They should be home with their families, not in the middle 
of Iraq's civil war. Moreover, we shouldn't be sending more troops into 
Iraq's civil war. Some of our servicemembers have been on two, three, 
and even four tours of duty in Iraq already.
  This escalation would put too much strain on our military and not 
just our troops. Much of our military's equipment is damaged. It will 
take years and billions of dollars to repair it and replace it. Nearly 
every Reserve and National Guard member has been mobilized. The 
escalation is in no one's best interest.
  Two weeks ago I joined with my colleague Patrick Murphy from 
Pennsylvania, a decorated Army captain who served in Iraq, to introduce 
binding legislation to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of 
Iraq. Our bill, which has already attracted 20 co-authors from both 
sides of the aisle and has a companion bill in the Senate, provides a 
practical and comprehensive strategy for ending our military 
involvement in Iraq. It sets a firm deadline for phased redeployment of 
our troops beginning May 1 with all combat brigades out by March 31 of 
2008. It provides a concrete plan for shifting security 
responsibilities to where they belong: with the Iraqis.
  I have visited with our troops in Iraq, and I have talked to those 
who have been training the Iraqi security forces. They have told me 
that the U.S. troops have finished their job and that Iraq needs to 
step up and start securing their country. Americans cannot continue to 
do it for them.
  Our bill recognizes that the President's escalation plan is a 
continuation of his failed ``stay the course'' slogan and it would not 
allow the increase of troop levels without congressional approval.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The 
Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality 
and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special 
U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their 
neighbors. Our bill is a strategy for success in Iraq and is the best 
way to bring our brave men and women home as quickly and safely as 
possible.
  While I strongly believe that today we should be debating and passing 
our binding solution, H.R. 787, I know that this week's debate is the 
first real debate we have had on Iraq in more than 4 years. In this 
week alone, we will more than quadruple the amount of time given to 
debate this war since it began.
  Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for bringing this important matter to the 
floor. This resolution is a critical step in getting our men and women 
out of this ugly mess, a full blown civil war in Iraq. I support 
today's resolution, which joins with the American people in sending the 
President a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer. 
We need to focus on getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and 
quickly as possible and making sure that the Iraqis step up and assume 
the security responsibilities for their country.
  I also rise to tell those who have served, those who are serving in 
Iraq today, and their proud families thank you. Your Nation thanks you 
for your great service to our country.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In this debate on Iraq, we must always be aware that the remarks are 
not to be confined only to the American people. Our words will be heard 
not just by our friends but by our enemies also. They are watching to 
see what America will do. No weakness of ours, no internal political 
struggle will go unnoticed.
  The suicide bombers, the leaders of al Qaeda, the rulers of Iran, 
many others are listening, seeking encouragement for their fellow 
extremists, listening for signs of our defeat.
  We know from many sources that al Qaeda, the terrorists in Iraq, and 
our enemies planning further attacks on us closely follow what is said 
and what is done in the United States and use that knowledge to help 
them calculate their next steps against us. They routinely cite 
statements by U.S. sources as validation of their strategy to defeat 
America.
  Let me quote Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of the Islamic jihad, 
who said that talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel ``proud.'' He 
said: ``As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud, very proud from the great 
successes of the Iraqi resistance, this success that brought the big 
superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.''
  They are looking for concessions of defeat, signs of weakness, and it 
is within this context that we embark on this debate today.
  The question before us concerns not the past but the future. Where 
should our country go from here? We are not merely debating a 
resolution, but we are deliberating on our Nation's future.
  The war in Iraq is but a part of a far larger struggle, a global 
struggle, the struggle against Islamic extremist militants. As in the 
Cold War, our current struggle is one of survival. The enemy does not 
mean merely to chase us away. The goal of the Islamic extremist 
radicals is to destroy us. If we run, they will pursue. If we cower, 
they will strike.
  The choice before us is this: Do we fight and defeat the enemy, or do 
we retreat and surrender? We must not fool ourselves into believing 
that we can accommodate our enemies and thereby secure their 
cooperation. We should not believe that the enemies' demands are 
limited and reasonable and thus easily satisfied or that we can find 
safety by withdrawing from the world. This strategy has been tried in 
the past with catastrophic consequences.
  Neville Chamberlain genuinely believed that he had brought ``peace in 
our time'' by washing his hands of what he believed to be an isolated 
dispute in what he termed ``a far-away country between people of whom 
we know nothing.'' That country was Czechoslovakia, and Chamberlain's 
well-intentioned efforts to withdraw Britain from the problems in that 
far-away region only ensured that an immensely larger threat was 
thereby unleashed.
  The threat of Hitler did not appear suddenly out of a vacuum. The 
challenges that we face today thus have been building for many years.
  We experienced the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. 
The destruction of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of 
the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole 
in 2000, and then most dramatically the attack on our Nation on 9/11.
  As these attacks built over the years, we did little in response. Our 
enemies came to believe that they could strike us with impunity and 
that we would shrink from our responsibilities, from defending our 
interests, that we would not stand up for our very own survival. They 
felt safe in planning for larger attacks.
  Now our fight is truly one of global proportions. Some may not want 
to believe it. The terrorists, however, are certain to believe it. As 
stated by senior al Qaeda leader al Zawahiri, `` . . . Jihad in Iraq 
requires several incremental goals. The first stage: expel the 
Americans from Iraq. The second stage: establish an Islamic authority 
or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level 
of a caliphate, over as much territory as you can, to spread its power 
in Iraq.''
  He continues: ``The third stage: extend the jihad wave to the secular 
countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what 
came before, the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only 
to challenge any new Islamic entity.''
  These are the words of al Zawahiri, not my words. And this al Qaeda 
leader went on to say: ``The whole world is an open field for us.''
  What then are the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal and surrender? 
The terrorists, our mortal enemies, will have demonstrated that they 
have defeated us, the strongest power on Earth. They will have proven 
that our enemies only have to make the cost too high for us and that we 
will give up. The result would be an extraordinary boost to their 
morale and standing in the world, resulting from such a historic and 
momentous accomplishment on their part. They will become heroes in the 
minds of millions. They will be inundated with recruits, with 
financing, with support of all types.

                              {time}  1430

  And they will be eager to go after us.

[[Page H1504]]

  A leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad recently said of 
an American withdrawal from Iraq, ``There is no chance that the 
resistance will stop.'' He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would 
``prove that resistance is the most important tool and that this tool 
works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step 
in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United 
States.''
  These are his words, not mine.
  We know that the terrorists would draw these conclusions because they 
have done so before when we recoiled in the face of terrorist attacks. 
In bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of Jihad and other statements, bin 
Laden repeatedly pointed to America's weakness being its low threshold 
for pain. As evidence, he pointed to the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia 
in 1993 because of casualties from attacks by al Qaeda and its allies.
  Bin Laden said, ``When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor 
battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, 
you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your 
dead with you. The extent of your impotence and your weakness became 
very clear.''
  These are bin Laden's words, not mine.
  We witnessed the consequences of Somalia and the ensuing inaction. 
However, the implications for withdrawal and surrender in Iraq could be 
even greater. There would be an intensification of the violence.
  As the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq recently affirmed, ``If 
Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this 
estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a 
significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in 
Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have 
adverse consequences for national reconciliation.''
  Iraq would become, as one of my Democratic colleagues said in 
December of 2005, a ``snakepit for terrorists.''
  Sunni Arabs throughout the Middle East would certainly view the 
resulting situation as a Shiite victory in Iraq and, in turn, as a win 
for the regime in Iran. Neighboring countries would likely seek to 
prevent Iranian domination of Iraq and the region by providing 
financial and other support, including potentially troops, to anti-
Iranian factions.
  It would be interpreted as a defeat of the U.S. and would thus 
strengthen rogue regimes in Syria and Iran. Iran would be free to 
expand its influence throughout the Middle East, including its long-
term effort to dominate the Persian Gulf and the world's oil supply.
  Iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and 
Hezbollah would likely increase, thereby ensuring the murder of 
countless civilians and a further destabilization of countries in the 
region and indeed beyond.
  Let us not forget that Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, twice attacked in our 
own hemisphere, in Argentina, in the mid-1990s. Let us not forget that 
in 2002 a court case in the United States found that one of two men 
were convicted of financing Hezbollah of $2 million in illegal activity 
here in the United States and that last year an individual from Detroit 
was charged with supporting Hezbollah financially and was described by 
the United States Attorney in the case as a ``fighter, recruiter and a 
fundraiser.''
  Let us not forget that Iran is a nation believed to be pursuing 
nuclear weapons, and thus leaving the region vulnerable to Iranian 
domination, and that would have grave consequences for the U.S. 
security priorities.
  Surrendering Iraq over to the terrorists would erode the trust of the 
U.S. in that region and affect our critical regional interests in the 
entire neighborhood. Our allies, such as Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain and 
Egypt may become reluctant to continue their cooperation with us, which 
currently includes providing access to their facilities, logistical 
support that we need to protect our interests in the region.
  The damage would not be confined, however, to the Middle East. Our 
enemies would be encouraged to join forces in a coalition to directly 
challenge the United States and expand their efforts to undermine us 
and our allies.
  It is already happening. Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez is openly 
forming an alliance with Iran, and recently called on Iran and 
Venezuela to join forces to ``finish off the U.S. empire,'' quoting 
him.
  Let us consider the consequences of withdrawing and surrendering Iraq 
to Islamic militant extremists. As James Woolsey, the former Director 
of the Central Intelligence Agency, has emphasized, ``We have to do our 
damndest to win this thing, in spite of the history of mistakes in 
tactics and strategy. The stakes are too high to do otherwise. The 
whirlwind we will reap if we lose means that we owe it to the world and 
to future generations to do everything humanly possible to avoid giving 
the Islamists the encouragement they will certainly obtain if they 
win.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is not just an abstract policy discussion for me. 
This is a subject close to my heart. My stepson Doug and his wife 
Lindsay are both marine pilots who served in Iraq alongside many other 
brave Americans. They understand the consequences of defeat. They 
recognize the deadly enemy that we are facing.
  Lindsay will soon be deployed to Afghanistan, in just a few weeks, 
where, depending on our actions in this Chamber this week, she could 
face a more deadly enemy. All of us, all of us long for a world in 
which the mortal challenge of Islamic militant extremism does not 
exist. But that world is a fantasy, and that is the world that this 
resolution seems to address.
  Many times in our history we have met with great challenges, and many 
of them seemed insurmountable. And yet every time we rose to face them, 
and we prevailed. We are faced once again with an overwhelming 
challenge, that of Islamic militant extremists focused on our 
destruction and on world domination. There is no path backward, there 
is no retreat, because that will only bring disaster.
  I am saddened that some in this Chamber have felt the need on this 
floor to characterize the decision of our young men and women to join 
the military as being motivated by money, by bonuses and by other 
financial benefits, rather than their patriotism.
  My stepson Doug and my daughter-in-law Lindsay are both college 
graduates. Doug is a graduate of the University of Miami. Lindsay is a 
graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has a master's in English. They 
have many, many opportunities they could have pursued. They chose to 
serve their country, because they and many others are patriots. They 
did not do it for bonuses. They did not do it for money.
  Let us not just support our troops. Let us support their mission. And 
their mission is to defeat the Islamic extremists.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, during his 20 years of service to this 
country, the gentleman to whom I am about to yield earned two 
Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Bronze Stars, the Soldiers Medal and 
other awards. A Vietnam combat veteran serving two tours as an assault 
helicopter pilot, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Boswell).
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the 
time. I appreciate being part of this discussion today.
  Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but be somewhat taken by Mr. Rangel's 
comments about the lack of urgency and the lack of sacrifice in our 
country because of what is going on with our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and I can say to you, whoever is listening or watching, 
wherever you are, when I go through my communities, my towns, I sense 
the same thing. Where is the sense of urgency and where is the sense of 
sacrifice?
  I will tell you where it is. When you go to see the troops off, to 
see their families, to see them, then you know where the sacrifice is. 
Then you know where the urgency is, to be there when they go back the 
second or third time, and, as some have said, the fourth.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, a 
resolution in support of our troops who are serving with distinction in 
Iraq, and opposing the President's call for escalating the troop levels 
in Iraq.
  As a two-tour combat veteran of the Vietnam conflict, as Ike said, as 
an assault helicopter pilot, I, like many others in this body, know 
firsthand of the

[[Page H1505]]

everyday sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform serving in 
Iraq. And, I might add, if I could, I know the sacrifices of their 
spouses and children. Branded on me always will be the reminder of my 
children when I had to leave, and they wondered if their dad would come 
back. You can't forget that. And it is happening to our troops 
repeatedly. More than 3,100 have given the supreme sacrifice. Over 
20,000 have been injured, many of them very severely.
  This resolution recognizes our brave men and women for performing 
their mission to the best of their ability. All Members of this body, 
all Members of this body stand foursquare behind their efforts.
  As one Member of Congress who voted in support of the Iraq war 
resolution in 2002, I recognize the pretext for going to war was based 
on faulty, misleading, misinformation. I cannot reverse that vote, but 
I can no longer acquiesce to a failed and tragic military exercise in 
Iraq.
  Two months ago, Generals Casey and Abizaid stated they did not 
support the increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, and recently 
President Bush maintained that that military policy with regard to Iraq 
would be determined by our military leaders. However, last month, 
President Bush ignored his top military advisers and called for a 
20,000-plus increase in U.S. troops in Iraq.
  I and others have been pressing the administration to level with the 
American people on the status of the Iraqi Security Forces being 
trained and ready to defend their Nation. If the Iraqis are trained and 
ready, reportedly over 300,000, as we have been told, it is time to 
begin now a planned phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. Sending more U.S. 
troops to Iraq does nothing to enhance the Iraqis' training. It only 
places more U.S. forces into harm's way to become additional targets of 
the Iraqi civil war. This failed policy must stop. We can support our 
troops in the field and oppose this escalation of U.S. forces.
  The sectarian civil war violence in Iraq is increasing, and U.S. 
troops are becoming an increasing target of the various tribes and 
factions. We cannot continue to place ourselves in the middle of this 
civil war. It is time to insist that the Iraqis resolve their own civil 
war. We must insist and allow the Iraqis to defend their own Nation. 
The Bush administration stated that Iraq Security Forces are trained 
and ready in sufficient numbers to do the job. Again, they stated over 
300,000 trained and equipped.
  Therefore, I believe now is the time to oppose any further escalation 
of U.S. troop levels and now begin the planned, phased withdrawal of 
U.S. forces. I regret today's resolution is nonbinding. We need to 
begin addressing this matter in real substantive legislation. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this resolution and to work in unison 
to bring our troops home.
  Mr. Speaker, you know what we do best? You know what we do best? I 
will bet everybody who is paying attention intends to file their income 
tax April 15. We do best when we are under pressure to get it done.
  I think it is time to say to Mr. Maliki, you know what? You have got 
your government in place. You have got your chance for democracy. It 
has been given to you. We went in there and Saddam is gone. He is 
history. You have got your chance. It is up to you. Now, you have got 
your problems, but you have got your government and it is in place. You 
have your problems, but you have to work them out. We cannot come in 
there and settle a civil war. And that is exactly what is going on.

                              {time}  1445

  We were, like you were there and I was with you in the White House, 
14 months ago when they said to the President, the Vice President, 
Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice and General Pace, if you have got at 
that time, 14 months ago, if you have got over 200,000 troops trained, 
equipped and in field, then what is your plan to bring our troops home? 
And just like now, silence fell in the room.
  Now, the claim is over 300,000 trained and equipped in the field and 
we are not bringing ours home. So we should say to Mr. Maliki, you have 
got to do it, pick something, whether it is oil fields or pick 
something and say starting next week or the week after you are 
responsible for their security because we are going to bring our troops 
out and bring them home and we are going to take them to Baghdad, put 
them on airplanes and fly them home. You have got to do it. It is yours 
to do and we hold you responsible to do it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time that has been 
consumed and the time remaining on each side, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) has used 1 hour, 3 minutes, having 3 hours and 57 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has used 45 
minutes, leaving 4 hours and 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Then subject to the Chair, I wish to recognize more than 
one speaker in a row on our side.
  I yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Boyd), a gentleman who is a Vietnam combat veteran, rifle platoon 
leader of the 101st Airborne Division.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from Missouri, is 
it your intent to keep going or will you come back to the Republican 
side? Mr. Boyd and I are lucky enough to be in the same committee, and 
I think we are probably working under the same time constraint, if we 
could go back to the Republican side. That is what I wanted to ask you, 
after he speaks.
  Mr. SKELTON. That would be fine.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you.
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, chairman of the 
House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for giving me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my fellow veterans to express strong 
opposition to sending more than 20,000 additional United States troops 
to Iraq, and I rise in strong support of the underlying resolution that 
we are debating today.
  Mr. Speaker, when thinking about our political and military situation 
in Iraq, I often reflect on my own service in Vietnam and my thoughts 
there as a person, when I served there as a young man in uniform 
proudly defending the ideals on which America was built.
  I often think, how is it different today? How is today's soldier in 
Iraq different than soldiers 40 years ago in Vietnam? I think there are 
some differences, but there are obviously many striking similarities.
  Obviously, our soldiers today have communications technologies and 
other war-fighting technologies that are far superior to what we had 40 
years ago in Vietnam. Soldiers now have access to a 24-hour news cycle 
that we did not have in the 1960s.
  But, Mr. Speaker, what is the same, what is exactly the same, is the 
fact that our soldiers are trained and equipped to accomplish the 
mission given to them by their political leaders in Washington. They 
are trained to execute this mission and to the best of their ability, 
without any thought to whether that mission is right or wrong, or even 
whether that mission is well thought out. Clearly, this is very similar 
to what we experienced during Vietnam.
  When I served in Vietnam, we were trying to execute a mission that 
was impossible to do because our political leaders had given us a 
poorly defined mission that we could not win militarily.
  Our brave men and women serving in Iraq rely on us, their political 
leaders, to develop a winning strategy, and it is very clear that we 
are not winning in Iraq by any standard of measurement that you might 
want to use.
  I returned from my service in Vietnam at the height of the anti-war 
sentiment; and let me tell you, there was no worse feeling than coming 
home after a tour of duty to find that you had come home to an American 
society that was not grateful and was not behind you.
  I want to make sure that our sons and daughters serving in Iraq today 
do not experience what we experienced 35, 40 years ago. The American 
people and their leaders in Congress all support the men and women 
executing the outlined mission. These men and women who have fought and 
defended our country should be proud of the job they have done, and we 
all are proud of them.
  However, we should have learned from the mistakes our political 
leaders made in Vietnam and not make those mistakes again.
  The problems we are having in Iraq have nothing to do with our troops 
and

[[Page H1506]]

their ability and their training and their equipment. Our problem is 
with our policy.
  The men and women serving in Iraq are counting on their political 
leaders to develop a successful strategy in Iraq, and interjecting more 
young American men and women in uniform into the crossfire of an Iraqi 
civil war is simply not the right approach.
  The warring factions in Iraq have been at odds since the death of 
Muhammad in 632 A.D., and the United States military is not going to 
solve an Iraqi political problem, a problem that has existed between 
the Sunnis and the Shias for more than 1,400 years.
  Past troop surges aimed at stemming the violence in Iraq have failed, 
and continuing to deploy more American troops will not bring us any 
closer to a self-governed Iraq.
  We have been training and equipping Iraqi security forces for almost 
3 years. We have 325,000 trained, conducting security operations there. 
The continuing presence of large numbers of American troops in Iraq 
only postpones the day when Iraqis will have to assume responsibility 
for their own government. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon the Iraqis 
to make peace and promote democracy in their own country.
  With 140,000 of our troops in Iraq, the war in Iraq is exhausting our 
resources, resources that we, our people, are demanding that we have at 
home to solve some of our domestic priorities such as health care and 
education. And those resources are not only dollars; they are human 
blood.
  Again, I stand here today to oppose the Iraqi troop surge because all 
evidence suggests that it is not a path to victory in Iraq and will 
only put more Americans in harm's way.
  Ultimately, the debate today is about one thing, the men and women 
that proudly wear the uniform and the best way to take them out of the 
center of an increasing sectarian conflict and civil war in Iraq.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Kingston 
such time as he may consume, a member of the Defense appropriations 
subcommittee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
yielding, and Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
  I want to say this, that if the troops in Baghdad watched what 
Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us in 
the Free World, they do not sit around and watch C-SPAN and what silly 
politicians do. They live in a real world where there are real bullets.
  This resolution, on the other hand, is not real. It is a political 
whip check designed for press releases. It is nonbinding.
  The Democrat National Chairman, Howard Dean, famously said: ``The 
idea that we are going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just 
plain wrong.''
  Speaker Pelosi called the war ``a grotesque mistake.''
  So if the situation in Iraq is so hopeless, and unwinnable, why are 
we messing around with nonbinding resolutions? If the war is a lost 
cause and there is no longer an American interest, why do we not just 
go ahead and get out of there now? It is not worth another life or 
another dime.
  Conversely, if the cause is worthwhile, should we not fight to win? 
Nonbinding resolutions, Mr. Speaker, are great for the Democrat club 
back home, but for those of us who serve in Congress, we are the law of 
the land. We are elected to pass laws, fund wars and influence 
policies. Our opinions, as expressed in nonbinding resolutions about 
what should happen in Sudan or Israel or Cuba, they are appropriate, 
but when it comes to American soil, our job is to pass real legislation 
and make real laws. We do not have to vent our frustration. We can 
change policy.
  This week's resolution is just a cover-your-rear-end political design 
to give the legislative branch a chance to say I told you so. But, Mr. 
Speaker, as you know, like it or not, a real vote is coming.
  It is coming in the form of the fiscal year 2008 supplemental bill. 
In that supplemental resolution, $5.6 billion is designed to pay for 
21,500 new troops in Iraq. All Members will have a chance to vote on 
that supplemental bill; and as you know, an amendment can be offered to 
delete the $5.6 billion. A ``no'' vote would be against it, and a 
``yes'' vote would be to say we are against having the troops there and 
we are not going to pay for it. That is what is real.
  I think in November the electorate made an adjustment. They did not 
like what the Republican House was doing, and I certainly understand 
that. I think we did fail on many levels to deliver the products which 
we promised we would deliver to the people. But the Democrats are in 
the same situation. It was an anti-war fever that swept so many of them 
into office, but here we are with a nonbinding resolution.
  Now, I understand that it is frustrating. I serve, as you do, on the 
Defense Committee; and as you know, many times we do not get all the 
information that we want. We have heard, as Mr. Boyd said, general 
after general after admirals after captains telling us we do not need 
more troops in Iraq, and now they are saying that they do. We have also 
heard the President say the decisions for military changes in Iraq will 
be made in Baghdad, not in Washington, DC, and I hope that is the case 
with this situation.
  I am very frustrated about it, but one thing we have been told 
unequivocally by those same generals and admirals and Secretaries of 
the Navy and Army and Secretary of Defense and today from the 
ambassadors from Jordan and Egypt is that if America withdraws from 
Iraq at this time, it is sure to bring chaos and destruction. That will 
lead to a full-scale sectarian war which could lead to a division. It 
could be so chaotic that the United States of America would have to 
return to Iraq in larger force numbers than we have now. It could lead 
to Iraq becoming a nation state controlled by terrorists or terrorist 
sympathizers and that would be in control of the third largest oil 
reserve in the world.
  Now, we have seen what Mr. Putin and Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela 
are doing with their petro-dollars and all the anti-American ill will 
they are spreading around the globe. Would you really want to empower a 
bunch of terrorists with those kinds of oil revenues?
  Then the other thing we are told is if you pull out immediately or 
quickly what happens to U.S. credibility abroad? As we are dealing with 
China, who very recently shot down a satellite, we are very concerned 
about that. North Korea, we are at the negotiating table with them 
right now. And Russia seems to be slipping away from democracy and 
going back to some of its older ways that we are worried about. As I 
have just said, Hugo Chavez is spreading bad street money all over 
South America, which is not a good sign.
  And then finally, Mr. Speaker, if we pull out, what does it say to 
the American servicemen who have already lost their lives? Hey, sorry, 
we did not mean it; your sacrifice was not worth us gutting it out, if 
you will.
  You know, it is interesting, the President has been criticized for 
``staying the course,'' and he is no longer staying the course. Who is 
supporting staying the course by a ``yes'' vote to this nonbinding 
resolution, but the Democrat leadership and the Democrat Party.

                              {time}  1500

  If you are saying it is a lost cause but we support you, how are you 
saying, no, we are not going to send recruits? It doesn't make sense. 
You just can't have it both ways. This is staying the course. The 
President no longer wants to stay the course. He is saying let's plus-
up the numbers, let's divide Baghdad nine different ways. And that is 
something the RAND Corporation has called for as it has studied the 
history of nations that have insurgencies. Subdividing the areas is an 
effective way to fight insurgencies. The President has said let's go 
into al Anbar province; let's go into Sadr city. Those are changing of 
the course.
  Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote is a vote to stay the course; a 
nonbinding resolution is an insult to those who are in harm's way. If 
you truly believe that the war is a lost cause, why mess around with a 
nonbinding resolution? A ``no'' vote to this is a vote for change, and 
I believe it sends a stronger signal to the troops that we support you 
and we are sending new recruits to help you finish and complete this 
job.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 6

[[Page H1507]]

minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, my fellow Blue Dog, Colonel 
Tanner, a Vietnam Navy veteran, retired colonel of the Tennessee Army 
National Guard.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here with the other 
Democratic Members who are veterans to talk about this resolution.
  I want to start off by saying what Allen Boyd said. I was on active 
duty during the Vietnam years. The problem here is not the troops; the 
problem is the competency of the civilian leadership that has gotten us 
into this mess.
  This resolution supports our troops and calls for a different 
strategy by our civilian leadership with respect to Iraq.
  When I was on active duty when I was in the military, I followed 
orders. That was my job. My role here in Congress as I see it is to try 
to help formulate some sort of competent civilian leadership and 
strategy so the troops can be successful. We have not seen that in 4 
years. The war began in Iraq in March of 2003. Since then, we have lost 
3,124 people dead and over 23,000 wounded, and it is not a bit better 
today than it was the day we started.
  The war has cost Americans almost $400 billion, with another request 
for $285 billion more, with no end in sight. Competent civilian 
leadership for our men and women in uniform on the diplomatic and 
political fronts must be demanded by Congress and the American people 
if we are to properly honor the sacrifice of the dead and the wounded 
and their families.
  Instead, what do we have? We have unbelievable reports that the 
Pentagon can't identify 170,000 guns issued to the Iraqi forces in 
October of 2005; some of our soldiers buying their own body armor; up-
armored Humvees sitting in Bosnia or Herzegovina while we needed them 
in Iraq. And David Walker, the Comptroller General, says he believes 
that almost 30 percent of the money spent over there has been wasted, 
stolen, or otherwise unaccounted for.
  I think any patriotic American ought to come to this floor if he or 
she has the opportunity and ask questions about the incompetency of the 
Pentagon and civilian leadership thus far.
  I believe any viable Iraqi strategy to be successful must contain 
clearly defined goals to hold the Iraqi leaders accountable for their 
own security. Mr. Boswell, a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, said as much 
earlier.
  Our men and women in uniform have performed magnificently. They have 
completed every task assigned to them. But impressive military might 
alone is not enough if the Iraqi people cannot or will not make 
progress in securing their own country and establishing a civil 
democracy.
  Western-style democracy works because we have a theory called 
separation of church and state. When people don't go to the same 
church, they nonetheless can get together Monday through Friday and 
build a civil society and get along with each other. If these folks are 
unwilling or unable to do that for philosophical or psychological 
reasons, then we can only try to force a square peg into a round hole 
for so long. It has been going on for 4 years, and they are seemingly 
incapable. And I say that what we need to do is rethink our strategy 
and that a pullback to the perimeter is preferable to prolonging a 
costly and deadly military strategy toward a political goal that is out 
of reach.
  Whether or not this new strategy works, I am glad to see that General 
David Petraeus will be commanding our men and women on the ground. He 
has proved himself a strong military commander, and I wish him well. It 
is not his strategy that I question.
  Here is why this resolution is important to me: not only do the 
majority of the Iraqis in every poll that has been taken over there say 
they will be better off if we leave or get out or pull back, or however 
one wants to talk about it, but what it is doing in Iraq to our effort 
in Afghanistan. I am going to be leading a delegation to Brussels next 
Saturday to talk about Afghanistan. We are losing our momentum in 
Afghanistan because of the Iraqi whirlwind that is sucking everything 
into it in terms of our military supplies, our military approach, and 
so forth. Almost everyone who has looked at this situation agrees, from 
the Baker-Hamilton Report to everybody else, that we need to radically 
change our strategy.
  Listen to these words from the Council of Foreign Relations. They 
say: ``The United States' interests in the Middle East and Persian Gulf 
region can be more effectively advanced if the United States disengages 
from Iraq. Indeed, the sooner Washington grasps this, the sooner it can 
begin to repair the damage that has been done to America's 
international position.''
  Speaking of Afghanistan, they also say: ``Iraq is siphoning off so 
many resources that we could end up failing in Afghanistan as well.'' 
The report warns that Iraq is all consuming and makes it difficult for 
the United States to address other priorities.
  That is exactly what we are talking about here, a different strategy 
for Iran, for our troops to be successful; an accountability from them 
as to their own security, so that we can concentrate with 26 other 
nations in NATO who are helping us fight the war in Afghanistan, a war 
that we can win, a war that we must win, and a war that is every bit as 
important if not more so in the war on terror than Iraq ever was.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a veteran of 
the U.S. Navy.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand today with fellow 
veterans as the House debates the most damaging, costly, and divisive 
course of U.S. military involvement since Vietnam.
  At a naval station in California, I treated combat veterans returning 
home from Vietnam, many with severe physical and psychological wounds 
like PTSD and the effects of agent orange. After Vietnam, America swore 
there would never be another tragic military misadventure, but that is 
exactly what is happening in Iraq.
  The American people want this Congress to end the war and to bring 
our soldiers home now, not 2 years from now at the end of this 
President's term. That is what the American people elected Democrats to 
do in November.
  What we do this week is a miniscule little step. Step two will come 
when we get to appropriations next month.
  We have to get out of Iraq. We have to get out now, not 2 years from 
now. We are killing them, they are killing us, and nothing is getting 
better. And the reasons we started this whole war have turned out to be 
false. The American people know this, and today they are watching our 
debate. They will judge our actions.
  Getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq has been my top priority since they 
were sent there 4 years ago under false pretenses. And the new claim by 
the President that escalating the war will reduce the violence is just 
another attempt to mislead the American people. It is a lot like Lyndon 
Johnson sending the bombers into Cambodia and Laos. They don't accept 
it. The American people don't accept it and they won't.
  Those who claim we cannot leave Iraq without causing chaos ignore 
reality.
  I ask to insert in the Record a piece by Retired Lieutenant General 
and Reagan administration NSA Director William Odom that decisively 
debunks this argument.

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2007]

                        Victory Is Not an Option

                          (By William E. Odom)

       The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly 
     delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions 
     from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees 
     it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-
     American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of 
     producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the 
     consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is 
     a declaration of defeat.
       Its gloomy implications--hedged, as intelligence agencies 
     prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact--
     put the intelligence community and the American public on the 
     same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in 
     Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of 
     Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are 
     still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the 
     war soon.
       Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to 
     defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant 
     to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling 
     those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, 
     wringing hands and debating ``nonbinding resolutions'' that 
     oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S. 
     troops in Iraq.

[[Page H1508]]

       For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of 
     mind, the president's relentless pursuit of defeat and 
     Congress's anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two 
     more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and 
     possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not 
     inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the 
     game of ``who gets the blame'' could begin to alter American 
     strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a 
     more stable Middle East.
       No task is more important to the well-being of the United 
     States. We face great peril in that troubled region, and 
     improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it 
     will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment 
     that the president's policy is based on illusions, not 
     realities. There never has been any right way to invade and 
     transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, 
     but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question:
       First, the assumption that the United States could create a 
     liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about 
     everything known by professional students of the topic. Of 
     the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, 
     fewer than 10 can be considered truly ``constitutional''--
     meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly 
     accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a 
     generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim 
     political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic 
     fissures like those in Iraq.
       Strangely, American political scientists whose business it 
     is to know these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the 
     lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators 
     shouted insults at anyone who dared to mention the many 
     findings of academic research on how democracies evolve. They 
     also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create 
     the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now 
     expected to create a constitutional order in a country with 
     no conditions favoring it.
       This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal 
     democrats. When they immigrate to the United States, many do 
     so quickly. But it is to say that Arab countries, as well as 
     a large majority of all countries, find creating a stable 
     constitutional democracy beyond their capacities.
       Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country 
     together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is 
     to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than 
     a century to get over its hostility toward British 
     occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored 
     supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. 
     occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity 
     toward the United States. Even supporters of an American 
     military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and 
     only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from 
     winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its 
     senior members and their families live within the heavily 
     guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and 
     military command.
       As Congress awakens to these realities--and a few members 
     have bravely pointed them out--will it act on them? Not 
     necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths 
     that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims. 
     Let us consider the most pernicious of them.
       (1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible 
     aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. 
     Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now 
     fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! 
     Undoubtedly we will leave a mess--the mess we created, which 
     has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers 
     gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next 
     breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, 
     a civil war, a terrorist haven, a ``failed state,'' or some 
     other horror. But this ``aftermath'' is already upon us; a 
     prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.
       (2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence 
     from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of 
     the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy 
     in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq 
     and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put 
     Shiite groups in power--groups supported by Iran since Saddam 
     Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of 
     Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now 
     supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war 
     inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will 
     confront this contradiction helps explain the administration 
     and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to 
     Iran.
       Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in 
     Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this 
     time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's 
     ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the 
     anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and 
     have more lasting consequences.
       (3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-
     Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened 
     Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have 
     remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its 
     strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. 
     After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing 
     role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the 
     Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive 
     in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to 
     question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-
     Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is 
     the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.
       (4) We must continue to fight in order to ``support the 
     troops.'' This argument effectively paralyzes almost all 
     members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a 
     litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid 
     pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting 
     we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has 
     anybody asked the troops?
       During their first tours, most may well have favored 
     ``staying the course''--whatever that meant to them--but now 
     in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing 
     their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories 
     about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups 
     are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. 
     Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to 
     reporters on the ground.
       But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing 
     the war is the implication that the troops are somehow 
     responsible for deciding to continue the president's course. 
     That political and moral responsibility belongs to the 
     president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S Truman 
     make it clear that ``the buck stops'' in the Oval Office? If 
     the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With 
     Congress?
       Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to 
     exercise its power of the purse to end the war and open the 
     way for a strategy that might actually bear fruit.
       The first and most critical step is to recognize that 
     fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way 
     to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition 
     for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away 
     the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy 
     our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to 
     collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.
       Second, we must recognize that the United States alone 
     cannot stabilize the Middle East.
       Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are 
     actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using 
     sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening 
     ``regime change,'' using the hysterical rhetoric of the 
     ``global war on terrorism''--all undermine the stability we 
     so desperately need in the Middle East.
       Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable 
     region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our 
     military operations so they enhance rather than undermine 
     stability. We can write off the war as a ``tactical draw'' 
     and make ``regional stability'' our measure of ``victory.'' 
     That single step would dramatically realign the opposing 
     forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even 
     many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities 
     against the United States want predictable order, albeit on 
     better social and economic terms than they now have.
       Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to 
     achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies 
     and gain us new and important allies. This cannot happen, 
     however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq. Why should 
     Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are 
     increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will 
     awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-
     led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood.
       If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical 
     legacy, he would seize the initiative to implement this kind 
     of strategy. He would eventually be held up as a leader 
     capable of reversing direction by turning an imminent, tragic 
     defeat into strategic recovery.
       If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress 
     the opportunity to earn the credit for such a turnaround. It 
     is already too late to wait for some presidential candidate 
     for 2008 to retrieve the situation. If Congress cannot act, 
     it, too, will live in infamy.

  Chaos, not democracy, has taken root in Iraq, and chaos will continue 
to take U.S. lives until we act in our best interest and order our 
people out of harm's way.
  News accounts continue to remind us that our soldiers don't even have 
the proper body and vehicle armor. We cannot adequately protect the 
soldiers already serving, but more were ordered in anyway. If you want 
the most basic reason to vote to oppose escalation, it is that we 
haven't properly equipped the troops already in Iraq, and we are not 
doing any better by the troops we are sending in now.
  Just being on the record against the President's escalation of this 
war is not enough. The only way to diffuse the violence in Iraq is to 
defund the war in Iraq. Congress has the power to control the funding, 
and we have the responsibility to exercise the power vested in us by 
the Constitution. That is what the American people elected us to do. We 
must exercise our constitutional power as a co-equal branch of 
government and do what the President is unwilling to do: bring our 
soldiers home.

[[Page H1509]]

  When appropriations for Iraq come to the floor, I intend to offer an 
amendment based on the 1970 Hatfield-McGovern appropriations amendment 
to end the war in Vietnam. It will be an amendment to provide funding 
to protect our soldiers as we bring them home in a planned, safe, and 
orderly way, and to prohibit taxpayers' monies from being used to 
continue or expand the war in Iraq. This will provide a transition for 
the Iraqi security forces using a benchmark that matters: the date when 
U.S. troops will be out of there.
  The Iraqis can't help themselves until we get out. Right now, almost 
anything constructive that Iraqis do is seen as collaborating with the 
United States occupiers. We have to get out of the way so the Iraqis 
can solve their own problems. We can't help; we just make good targets.
  So I want to encourage everyone in the House to vote for this 
resolution. I want to make it the biggest, strongest, clearest vote 
that we can get to let the President know for the second time, he 
ignored the election, that the Congress says ``no.''
  I know that many Members of the Republican Party are as distressed as 
I am about Iraq, and I admire their courage in standing up to their 
President. Every veteran, including myself, in this House and in this 
Nation is very proud of our soldiers. They have done what we have asked 
them to do. It is time for new orders to be issued. It is time to end 
the U.S. role in the Iraq civil war. It is not a war on terrorism; it 
is a civil war. And bring our soldiers home. We can begin to do it 
immediately. That is what I advocate and that is what the American 
people expect from us.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield such time as 
he may consume to Mr. Burton of Indiana, the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, and a long-time veteran on leading 
the fight against Islamic jihadists.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, those who don't profit from 
history are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again.
  When I knew this debate was going to take place, I went back and 
started having my staff go through all the newspapers they could find 
prior to World War II criticizing Winston Churchill for his stand 
against Hitler and the build-up in violation of the Treaty of 
Versailles of Nazi Germany, and nobody listened. And as a result of 
nobody listening, 62 million people died. Not 1,000, not 10,000; 62 
million people died. You ought to read these articles. They are very 
interesting. He was maligned; he was criticized. They said he should be 
run out of Parliament. And, of course, once the war started, he became 
Prime Minister and one of the greatest men of the 20th century.

                              {time}  1515

  We are in a world war now against terrorism. I know my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle said this isn't a world war, this is a 
civil war. But if you look at the record, since 1983, there have been 
numerous attacks, numerous attacks, on the West. There have been 
attacks at the World Trade Center in 1993. There was attacks in 1994; 
the Khobar Towers in 1996; the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 
1998; USS Cole in 2000; the September 11, 2001 attacks which brought 
this country into the war; the London bombings in 2005 and countless 
other attacks. This is not confined just to the Middle East. These 
people want to spread their venom throughout the world.
  Now, if we pull out of Iraq, what does that do? Everybody knows right 
now that the President of Iran wants to expand his sphere of influence. 
He is sending terrorists across the border from Iran into Iraq. He is 
helping Hezbollah in Lebanon.
  Let me read to you a quote from him. He said, ``Israel should be 
wiped off the map'' and that ``anybody who recognizes Israel,'' anybody 
who recognizes Israel, ``will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' 
fury.'' And they have been involved in terrorist attacks. They are 
trying to build a nuclear bomb right now, and they are watching us on 
television as we speak, make no mistake.
  Iran and the terrorists are watching, and they are thinking, my gosh, 
the will of the American people is waning, and we are going to turn 
tail and run. We are going to pull out.
  This isn't Vietnam. Vietnam was a country, Cambodia and Laos are 
countries in southeast Asia. This is a world war. They have attacked 
the United States of America. It was a worse tragedy than that which 
took place in Hawaii in 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, and now 
they are trying to develop a nuclear bomb.
  If we pull out of Iraq, you may rest assured that Iran's sphere of 
influence will grow, and the fear of Iran throughout the Middle East 
and the world will grow. They will not back down from their development 
of a nuclear weapon and a delivery system that can reach not only the 
Middle East and Europe, but the entire world.
  What I am trying to say now is if we start pulling out and looking 
like we are turning tail and running, we are likely to be in another 
huge war in the years to come. I don't know whether it will be 2 years, 
5 years or 10 years, or quicker than that. But if they develop a 
nuclear weapon, and they see that we are weak, and we are pulling out, 
they are going to push like they have been pushing, and they will push, 
and they will push, and they will push until we have to go into a war 
that is much greater than what we face today.
  There is a lot at stake right here, right now. My colleagues, I 
think, are being very myopic. They are not looking at the big picture. 
This is something that I think all of us ought to think about.
  You know, we all have kids, and we all have grandkids, and we all 
have friends who are fighting in Iraq right now. We know young men who 
have gone over there and sacrificed, lost their arms and legs and have 
died, and it is tragic, it is a horrible thing. World War II was 
horrible.
  Every war was horrible. When you see people dying, in combat, you can 
hardly stand it, because you know how their families and they feel, 
those who survive.
  War is hell. But sometimes it is necessary. If you don't stand up to 
a bully or a tyrant, then they will push, and they will push, and they 
will push until you have to fight. If you wait too long, the fight is 
so severe that you really get hurt. It is better to whip them at the 
beginning than to wait until later on when the cost is much, much 
higher.
  Lord Chamberlain went to Munich in 1938. He signed a peace agreement 
on Herr Hitler's terms, gave the Sudetenland to him and said, Hey, if 
you don't go into Poland or Czechoslovakia, we'll let you have it. All 
we want is peace, peace in our time.
  He came back, and he had given the green light to Adolf Hitler 
because he appeared weak, and the allied forces appeared weak, they 
were dismantling their weapons and their military, and he said, They're 
weak. We can do whatever we want. So he started World War II, and 62 
million people died.
  We are in the same situation today, in my opinion, with the radical 
terrorists and Iran. We need to let them know that we are going to be 
firm, and we are going to stand up to whatever they throw at us right 
now so that we don't face a major Holocaust down the road. I really 
believe this. I am not just saying this as a political speech. I am not 
saying any of my colleagues are just making political speeches now, 
today. I really believe what they are saying.
  But I am convinced after studying history and watching what happened 
in the past, that if we don't deal with this problem now, we will deal 
with it later, and the costs will be a heck of a lot more than it is 
today, and it may involve millions and millions of lives. Can you 
imagine what would happen if a nuclear weapon was launched in New York, 
California or someplace else in this country? Can you imagine?
  Can you imagine a Holocaust if a nuclear war broke out involving Iran 
throughout the world, not only in the Middle East? This is what I think 
we face right now. Deal with them now, let them know we are going to 
stand firm, Iraq is going to be a democracy. We are not going to let 
Iran or any of the terrorists prevail, and we are going to stop a 
Holocaust in the future.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) first and only Iraq war veteran to 
serve in this body, a Member of the 82nd Airborne Division, who 
received the Bronze Star and his unit received the Presidential Unit 
Citation.

[[Page H1510]]

  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate it.
  Mr. Speaker, I take to the floor today, not as a Democrat or a 
Republican, but as an Iraq war veteran who was a captain of the 82nd 
Airborne Division in Baghdad.
  I speak with a heavy heart for my fellow paratrooper Specialist Chad 
Keith, Specialist James Lambert and the 17 other brave men I served 
with who never made it home.
  I rise to give voice to hundreds of thousands of patriotic 
Pennsylvanians and veterans across the globe who are deeply troubled by 
the President's call to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq.
  I served in Baghdad from June of 2003 to January of 2004. Walking in 
my own combat boots, I saw firsthand this administration's failed 
policy in Iraq. I led convoys up and down Ambush Alley in a Humvee 
without doors, convoys that Americans still run today because too many 
Iraqis are still sitting on the sidelines.
  I served in al-Rashid, Baghdad, which, like Philadelphia, is home to 
1.5 million people. While there are 7,000 Philadelphia police officers 
serving, like my father in Philadelphia, protecting its citizens, there 
were only 3,500 of us in al-Rashid, Baghdad.
  Mr. Speaker, the time for more troops was 4 years ago, but this 
President ignored military experts like General Shinseki and General 
Zinni, who, in 2003, called for several hundred thousand troops to 
secure Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, our President, again, is ignoring military leaders, 
patriots like General Colin Powell, like General Abizaid and members of 
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group who oppose this escalation.
  But most importantly, Congresses in the past did not stand up to the 
President and his policies. But today I stand with my other military 
veterans, some who were just elected, like Sergeant Major Tim Walz, 
Admiral Joe Sestak and Commander Chris Carney. We stand together to 
tell this administration that we are against this escalation, and that 
Congress will no longer give the President a blank check.
  Mr. Speaker, close to my heart is a small park on the corner of 24th 
and Aspen Streets in Philadelphia. This is the Patrick Ward Memorial 
Park. Patrick Ward was a door gunner in the U.S. Army during Vietnam. 
He was killed serving the country that he loved. He was the type of guy 
that neighborhoods devote street corners to and parents name their 
children after him, including my parents, Marge and Jack Murphy.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask you, how many more street corner memorials are we 
going to have for this war? This is what the President's proposal does. 
It sends more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war. 
Just a month ago, Sergeant Jae Moon from my district in Levittown, 
Bucks County, was killed in Iraq.
  You know, a few blocks away from this great Chamber, when you walk in 
the snow, is the Vietnam Memorial, where half the soldiers listed on 
that wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not 
work. It was immoral then, and it would be immoral now to engage in the 
same delusion. That is why sending more troops in the civil war is the 
wrong strategy.
  We need to win the war on terror, and reasonable people may disagree 
on what to do, but most will agree that it is immoral to send young 
Americans to fight and die in a conflict without a real strategy for 
success. The President's current course is not resolute, it is 
reckless. That is why I will vote to send a message to our President 
that staying the course is no longer an option.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for a new direction in Iraq. From my time 
serving with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, it became clear that 
in order to succeed there, you must tell the Iraqis that we will not be 
there forever. Yet, 3 years now since I have been home, it is still 
Americans leading convoys up and down Ambush Alley and securing Iraqi 
street corners. We must make the Iraqis stand up for Iraq and set a 
timeline to start bringing our heroes home.
  That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor, with Senator 
Barack Obama and fellow paratrooper, Congressman Mike Thompson, of the 
Iraq De-escalation Act, a moderate and responsible plan to start 
bringing our troops home, mandating a surge in diplomacy and refocusing 
our efforts on the war on terror and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, our country needs a real plan to get our troops out of 
Iraq, to protect our homeland and to secure and refocus our efforts on 
capturing and killing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. There are over 
130,000 American servicemen and women serving bravely in Iraq. 
Unfortunately, thousands more are on the way. An open-ended strategy 
that ends in more faceless roadside bombs in Baghdad and more street-
corner memorials in America is not one that I will support.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to Mr. Pence, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the 
Middle East and South Asia, whose minority staff director, Greg 
McCarthy, setting up the posters, is an Iraq war veteran and a marine 
as well.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the concurrent resolution 
for the House, and I do so from a position of a humble public servant, 
one who has not served in Iraq in uniform, as our previous speaker did, 
and others have who are in this Chamber at my side, but as one who has 
been there. I rise as one who is charged with public responsibility as 
the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee.
  While this resolution before the Congress today and this week, while 
this resolution expresses support for our troops in Iraq, the heart of 
the resolution is a statement of disapproval of the President's so-
called surge of troops in Iraq, and I cannot support it.
  I see Iraq, as others have eloquently stated, as the central front in 
the war on terror. I rise today in opposition to this resolution out of 
a fundamental sense that we have a moral obligation to finish what we 
started, to confront the enemies of our way of life, and to support our 
duly elected Commander in Chief as he makes those decisions that he 
deems necessary and appropriate to achieve those ends.
  Let me say from the heart, for a moment, my reasons for supporting 
this troop surge. A few days before President Bush addressed the 
Nation, he invited a handful of Members of Congress down to the West 
Wing of the White House. I must tell you that I had my doubts about 
this troop surge. In all four of my trips to Iraq, I had heard 
consistently from our military commanders over the past several years 
that a large American footprint in Iraq was actually counterproductive 
to our goals.

                              {time}  1530

  But August and the aftermath of 2006 changed all of that. All of that 
advice predated an extraordinary increase in violence that commenced in 
the late summer of last year, when it became clear to all of us in this 
body, and to freedom-loving people around the world, that our strategy 
and tactics on the ground in Iraq were not working.
  Now, I took that skepticism and that counsel into the Cabinet room of 
the West Wing, and there I heard the President describe a new strategy 
and new tactics. For all of the world to have read the newspaper 
accounts, Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed the President was simply 
sending more troops for more troops' sake. But that was not the case.
  Despite what the previous speaker on this floor suggested, this is a 
new strategy. It is a new way forward. It is an effort on the part of 
the President to embrace an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad that 
was initially recommended by the Iraq Study Group, and more on that in 
a moment.
  But let me say that I believe this new way forward, this new approach 
ought to be given a chance to work. I believe to oppose the President's 
new strategy in Iraq is to accept the status quo. And the headlines of 
the last 24 hours should tell every man and woman of good will in this 
Congress that the status quo in Iraq is not acceptable.
  Now, earlier I mentioned that the approach of a troop surge in 
Baghdad was first recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I am quite 
struck, Mr. Speaker,

[[Page H1511]]

that the previous speaker who is a freshman Member of Congress from 
Pennsylvania spoke, as many have in the Democrat majority, quite 
glowingly of the report of the Iraq Study Group. And I admire this work 
product greatly.
  A bipartisan work authorized during the last Congress, James A. 
Baker, III, former Secretary of State, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a 
former chairman of the House International Relations Committee bringing 
together a bipartisan group of wise counselors developed the Iraq Study 
Group report.
  While I do not agree with every aspect of it, particularly those that 
talk about having a dialogue with terrorist states in the region, there 
is much that recommends the American people to the Iraq Study Group. 
And again I site in evidence the gentleman from Pennsylvania's glowing 
reference to that report just moments ago.
  Now, let's look, if we can, at what the Iraq Study Group has to say 
about the idea of a troop surge in Iraq. I would offer very humbly, and 
maybe startling to some who are looking in, Mr. Speaker, that the very 
words ``troop surge'' comes from the Iraq Study Group's 
recommendations.
  Allow me to quote from page 73 of the book that is available in book 
stores all over America. The Iraq Study Group said: ``We could, 
however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat 
forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping 
mission if the U.S. Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would 
be effective.''
  Let me emphasize that again. The Iraq Study Group that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and many in the majority have heralded as an 
important work that provides us with a vision for going forward says: 
``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment of surge of 
American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what President Bush called for in 
January. And it is precisely that which Congress this week is poised to 
reject in a nonbinding resolution. I submit to you today that if the 
Iraq Study Group is to be cited again and again by the majority as 
source authority, and a fount of wisdom, and I believe it is, then 
let's be clear about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.
  It is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that a short-term redeployment or 
surge of combat forces in Baghdad will solve the present crisis and 
impasse that we face. It simply is a strategy to quell violence with 
Iraqis in the lead, to create the conditions of stability whereby a 
long-term political solution can be achieved.
  Now let me say, Mr. Speaker, it was my great hope that the resolution 
before us today would have come to the floor under procedural rules 
that allowed for amendments. For my part I spent much of last evening 
offering an amendment, along with others, that would state that it is 
the sense of Congress that we should not take any action that would 
result in the elimination or reduction of funds for our troops.
  I rise today not to complain about procedure, but to say, Mr. 
Speaker, I regret that this newly minted majority could not do as the 
Democrat chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee appears 
prepared to act.
  My amendment that was offered, similar to others, has nearly 
identical language to a resolution being offered by the distinguished 
Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And both 
of us agree that Congress should affirmatively state that it will not 
cut funding to the troops.
  I deeply regret that we were not able to make that declarative 
statement today. And let me say with great respect to the chairman of 
this Armed Services Committee, who needs not to hear from me about the 
deep respect I have for him, that I have to believe that somewhere in 
his heart of hearts, knowing his extraordinary record of service to 
this country, that he may well have hoped for a stronger statement as 
well.
  While the Democrat resolution before us expresses the hope that 
Congress and all Americans will continue to support and protect our 
brave men and women serving in Iraq, it does not take the next step to 
show tangible support for our troops in the nature of funding. And let 
me say this with great sincerity: there is a fundamental difference 
between pledging to support and protect our troops and pledging not to 
cut off the funding for our war in Iraq.
  It is a specious distinction, and one that is not lost on our 
colleagues in the Senate. I would submit to you that words have 
consequences, and ``support'' and ``protect'' do not assure the 
American people that we will continue to fund our troops in the field.
  I believe the American people understand this point, Mr. Speaker. A 
poll cited this morning in USA Today shows that even though a majority 
of Americans are opposed to the surge of troops in Baghdad, a majority 
also oppose cutting off funding for the troops.
  The American people do not want Congress to defund this war in the 
majority, even if they are concerned about the course and direction the 
war is taking. And Congress should tell the troops and the American 
people that it will never use the power of the purse to accomplish 
policy ends in the field of battle.
  With this I close. Listening to this debate today and to the 
opposition to the surge being espoused by the Democrat majority, I have 
begun to wonder a very simple question: What if it works? I have made 
it clear that I support the surge and the President's new strategy.
  My good friends on the Democrat side of the aisle and, as has been 
said, some Republicans have made it clear that they oppose the surge of 
forces in Iraq. And that is their right, and if it is in their heart, 
it is their duty. And at this moment, it appears that a majority of 
Americans are with the majority in this Congress.
  But what if? What if they are wrong? What if you are wrong? What if 
the surge and the new leadership of General Petraeus and the courage 
and bravery of American men and women in uniform and the sacrifices of 
Iraqis in uniform succeed in the coming months?
  You know, it is a snow day back in Indiana today, Mr. Speaker. And my 
kids are even home watching this on TV. I give my kids some pretty 
basic advice sometimes. One of the pieces of advice I give my kids when 
they are facing challenges, I say to them, you know, people don't like 
losers, but they like quitters even less.
  And I think we ought to reflect on that old maxim as we come upon 
this decision today. If this new strategy in Iraq succeeds in the 
coming months, what will those who vote for this resolution say? The 
truth is, we must fight and win a victory for freedom in Iraq. The 
truth is we have no option but victory.
  In their hearts the American people know this, and the American 
people are willing to make the hard choices to choose victory. Courage. 
Courage is the key in this moment.
  C.S. Lewis wrote that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but 
the form of every virtue at the testing point. Courage then is the 
answer, not recrimination and retreat. We are at a moment when the 
American people and the Members of this body will take a stand. This is 
a moment for courage. Our brave men and women in Iraq exhibit courage 
and uncommon valor every day.
  It is my hope and prayer that we in this House might follow their 
lead and show them that such courage resides here as well. Let's vote 
down this resolution and find it within ourselves to lead the American 
people by bringing forward the resources and the support necessary to 
see freedom within Iraq.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution and to 
call upon my colleagues to make a commitment to protect our troops and 
to bring them home as quickly and safely as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people and Members of Congress were 
deceived. Every reason we were given for invading Iraq was false. 
Weapons of mass destruction, not there. Saddam Hussein working hand in 
glove with al Qaeda, not true.
  I ask you, if the President had gone to the American people and said, 
we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us and 
sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a

[[Page H1512]]

democratic government in Iraq, would we have assented? I think not.
  As the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely 
to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a 
sectarian civil war, should Congress continue to consent? I think not. 
We need to say enough already. Enough with the lies and the deceit and 
the evasions, enough with the useless bloodshed.
  We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in 
Iraq. But we must not send more troops there to intervene in a civil 
war whose outcome they cannot determine.
  And we should set a swift timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq 
and let the contending Iraqi factions know that we will not continue to 
expend American blood and treasure to referee their civil war.
  Only if faced with the reality of imminent withdrawal of American 
troops might the Iraqis strike a deal with each other and end the civil 
war. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the administration has botched the 
handling of this war. They stood by as Baghdad was looted, they failed 
to guard ammunition depots, they disbanded the Iraqi Army, they 
crippled the government by firing all of the competent civil servants 
in the name of debaathification, and they wasted countless billions of 
dollars on private contractors and on God only knows what with no 
accounting.
  And all this while they continued to deny resources to the real war 
on the real terrorists. They let Osama bin Laden escape.

                              {time}  1545

  They allowed the Taliban to recover and to reconquer. They allow our 
ports to remain unprotected from uninspected shipping containers, and 
they let loose nuclear materials remain unaccounted for, waiting to be 
smuggled to al Qaeda to be made into nuclear weapons.
  And why does the President want more troops in Iraq? To expand our 
role from fighting Sunni insurgents to fighting the Shiite militias 
also. Of course, when we attack the Shiite militias, they will respond 
by shifting their targets from Sunnis to American troops. American 
casualties will skyrocket, and we will be fighting two insurgencies 
instead of one.
  I believe the President has no real plan other than not to ``lose 
Iraq'' on his watch, and to hand over the whole mess to a successor in 
2 years. He will ignore anything we do that doesn't have the force of 
law. That is why this resolution must be only the first step.
  In the supplemental budget we will consider next month, we should 
exercise the only real power we have, the Congressional power of the 
purse. We will not cut off the funds and leave our troops defenseless 
before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply. But we should limit 
the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are 
in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We 
should provide funds to rebuild the Army and to raise our readiness 
levels. We should provide funds for diplomatic conferences in case 
there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war. 
And we should provide funds for economic reconstruction assistance. But 
above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to 
withdraw the troops from Iraq.
  We must use the power the people have entrusted to us. The best way 
to protect our troops is to withdraw them from the middle of a civil 
war they cannot win and that is not our fight.
  I know that if we withdraw the troops, the civil war may continue and 
could get worse. But this is probably inevitable no matter how long our 
troops remain. And if the Iraqis must fight a civil war, I would rather 
they fight it without 20,000 more Americans dying.
  Yes, the blindness of the administration is largely to blame for 
starting a civil war in Iraq, but we cannot end it. Only the Iraqis can 
settle their civil war. We can only make it worse and waste our blood 
and treasure pointlessly.
  So let us pass this resolution, and then let us lead this country out 
of the morass in Iraq so that we can devote our resources to protecting 
ourselves from the terrorists and to improving the lives of our people.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina, United States Army veteran, Mr. Etheridge.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, as you have heard, of the 
United States Army, myself, I strongly support our troops, our veterans 
and their families. Let me state at the outset that our troops have 
done everything that has been asked of them to do. They have done it 
well. Exceptionally well, I might say.
  More than 34,000 from North Carolina have been deployed on Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. And more than 5,000 are 
currently over there now. More are preparing to go back to the desert 
once again.
  I am tremendously proud of all the troops from North Carolina and 
across America who have laced up their boots, followed their orders, 
and done their duty. They are our heroes, and we salute them.
  Regardless if one terms the President's announced change in policy a 
surge or an escalation or an augmentation, the so-called new plan can 
be summed up in four words: more of the same.
  I myself have traveled to Iraq twice. And after I returned last year 
I said the administration must change from this failed policy. 
Specifically, I said that we need more burden-sharing support from 
other countries, more communities and countries in the region, because 
the whole world has a tremendous stake in a stable Iraq and a peaceful 
Middle East.
  This administration's arrogant disregard for our international 
partners has destroyed U.S. alliances that were decades in the making. 
Those alliances saw us through the darkest days of the cold war when 
the very existence of our country hung in the balance. Yet, this 
administration tossed them aside like yesterday's news.
  It is a sad tragedy to witness the forfeiture of America's moral 
standing in the world and the abandonment of diplomacy as an effective 
asset for America's interests.
  We need to bring all the parties to the table and discuss cooperative 
action to secure Iraq's long-term stability and a peaceful Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted to give the President the authority to topple 
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq because he said it presented a ``grave 
and gathering threat to America.''
  The President said Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass 
destruction and intended to use them against America.
  The President said Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden's al 
Qaeda terrorists. I took the President of the United States of America 
at his word. We have learned, to our great regret, what that was worth.
  Now the President wants to send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad. 
Republican Senator Arlen Specter called the new deployment ``a snowball 
in July.'' An outgoing commander of the Central Command, with 
responsibility for Iraq, told the Senate last November, and I quote, 
``I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution 
to the problem. I believe the troop levels need to stay about where 
they are.''
  And the former Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, John Warner, a decorated marine and former Secretary of the 
Navy, said last month, ``I feel very strongly that the American GI was 
not trained, not sent over there, certainly not by resolution of this 
institution, to be placed in the middle of a fight between Sunni and 
Shiia and the wanton and just incomprehensible killing that is going on 
at this time.''
  Mr. Speaker, I have voted for every defense bill and war funding 
legislation that Congress has passed for Iraq. I am very concerned 
about the state of readiness of our American Armed Forces.
  As the Representative for Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, I know 
that America's military and our military communities have many unmet 
needs, while the war in Iraq continues to consume more and more public 
dollars, with no end in sight.
  In conclusion, I rise in support of this resolution with no joy in my 
heart, but with solid conviction in my soul. The failure of this 
administration has gone unchecked and unchallenged by the Congress of 
the United States for far

[[Page H1513]]

too long. We need a new direction in Iraq.
  The question before Congress is this: Is more of the same in Iraq an 
acceptable policy? The answer is no.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to Mr. Royce, the ranking member of the International 
Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee, obviously an expert 
in this field.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lynch). The chair is trying to address 
an imbalance in the time for debate.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I very much agree, and we have been 
doing that approach. There are some time restraints from some of our 
Members, and so it necessitated this change, but we have been making 
sure that the Democrats could get their members in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. ROYCE. I will begin my remarks by saying that I hope that these 3 
days of debate, Mr. Speaker, are characterized by civility and respect. 
Without doubt, this is the most difficult issue that we will confront 
in this Congress.
  Iraq is terribly complex. The stakes for our national security are 
great, and the sacrifice in American lives and the loss of Iraqi lives 
have been very painful.
  This is a war unlike any other we have fought, and it has been 
vexing. All of us, supporters and opponents of this resolution alike, 
Republicans and Democrats, all Americans, have a vital interest in our 
Nation succeeding in helping to build a stable Iraq and defeating 
Islamist terrorism. That is the challenge of our time.
  As we have heard, mistakes have been made. There is no doubt about 
that. I have been dismayed by some of them: the lethargy in training 
Iraqi troops, the inability to meter oil and protect civilian 
infrastructure. But we can't allow this to cloud our strategic 
judgments.
  To my mind, this resolution, indeed our struggle in Iraq, can be 
boiled down to two questions: Are Iraq and the global struggle against 
Islamist terrorism separable? And is Iraq hopeless? The answer to both 
questions is no, which leads me to a ``no'' on this resolution.
  The rationale for this war has changed, whether we like it or not. We 
are now fighting for stability and moderation against the Islamist 
terrorism that is now host in Iraq.
  Our Civil War didn't start out as a battle against slavery. It was a 
fight to save the Union.
  We started out fighting Saddam and to stop what the majority of this 
House believed was his weapons of mass destruction program. We are now 
fighting Islamist terrorism. It is a different and more daunting fight, 
but the consequences of our success or failure are no less critical 
because the stakes of this battle have changed.
  Let there be no doubt about this: Defeat in Iraq will be a terrible 
blow to our national security. It will psychologically boost the 
Islamist terrorists who we are fighting there and elsewhere.
  The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reported Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to 
Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda. That 
declaration is more than words.
  While not all fighters in Iraq are jihadists, many are. Some have 
wrongly denied that here on the House floor today. Jihadists are coming 
from all over the world. The report reads, ``They will seek to expel 
the Americans and then spread the jihad wave to the secular countries 
neighboring Iraq.'' Chaos in Iraq will allow for more terrorist safe 
havens there.
  The 9/11 Commission stated that every policy decision we make needs 
to be seen through the lens of terrorist sanctuaries. My colleagues, I 
would ask if we are doing that.
  And that report stated that if Iraq becomes a failed state, it will 
go to the top of the list of places that are breeding grounds for 
attacks against Americans abroad.
  We saw what happened when Afghanistan descended into chaos. Al Qaeda 
emerged out of the ruin to strike America on 9/11. That is the type of 
threat we are facing today, which will be supercharged if Iraq fails.
  We have to confront the potential disaster scenario in the region 
that U.S. failure in Iraq could bring, which would be worsening strife 
which could engulf the entire region, sparking a wider war in this 
resource-rich area.
  Saudis have warned that they are prepared to aid Sunni militias. 
Jordan could move troops into Iraq's western desert to serve as a 
buffer. The Turks are increasingly worried about the independent 
Kurdish movement. Iran could move to secure the oil fields to the 
south.
  In describing the consequences of continued decline in Iraq, the Iraq 
Study Group wrote, ``Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a 
Pandora's box of problems, including the radicalization of populations, 
mass movement of populations, and regime changes that might take 
decades to play out.''
  This is the powder keg that is Iraq today. The status quo is nasty. 
But the consequences of failure, while unpredictable, is far worse.
  So to the second question: Is Iraq hopeless? I can understand why 
many Americans may feel that way. Every day there are horrific car 
bombings, the sectarian violence has intensified. We will hear many 
assessments that Iraq is hopeless in this debate.
  No one is going to argue that success is guaranteed. But arguments 
that we have no chance of bringing stability on the ground in Iraq are 
also extreme arguments.
  Are the forces of chaos so strong, and are the forces of stability 
and moderation so weak as to doom with certainty our efforts?
  But I have spoken with too many people in the field, people with some 
optimism, that I am not ready to conclude that with certainty. And I 
don't think this House should reach that conclusion.

                              {time}  1600

  And that is my read of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group which, while 
recognizing the grave challenges, spoke of improving the process for 
success. The fact that the consequences of our defeat would be so great 
also leads me to persist.
  Let's consider more about the implications of defeat. Look at 
neighboring Iran. Most Americans remember the 1979 Iranian takeover of 
our embassy in Tehran. That led to 444 days of captivity for our men 
and women. Unfortunately, relations with Iran have only worsened since. 
Iran today is a state sponsor of terrorism. It aids Hezbollah, and it 
backed this terrorist group's war on Israel this summer. With Iranian 
backing, Hezbollah is the A Team of terrorism, running highly 
sophisticated operatives worldwide, including here.
  Some terrorism experts consider Hezbollah to be a more challenging 
foe than al Qaeda. Iran is backing the insurgents fighting our men and 
women in Iraq. Iran is also storming ahead with a nuclear weapons 
program.
  The embassy takeover was a big morale boost for Islamist terrorists; 
some trace the beginning of Islamist terrorism to that embassy 
takeover. The shattering of the Iraqi state in our hands would be that 
1979 morale boost magnified. It would also prove the way for tremendous 
Iranian influence in the region.
  We must face our responsibility to the Iraqi people. Yes, we have 
given them 4 years to come together; it has been beyond frustration 
that they haven't. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died during this 
time. What happens if we leave or operate without the manpower our 
military leadership says it needs? I don't think anyone believes that 
the carnage won't be several times what we have seen.
  We often hear calls to intervene in countries for humanitarian 
reasons. Some would like our military to go to Darfur in Sudan. Maybe 
we should take decisive military actions to stop that genocide, but 
what about trying to finish a job where we have already made a huge 
military commitment, knowing full well that Iraq's withdrawal would 
lead to a brutal humanitarian crisis?
  We also often hear from some about how unpopular our country is 
worldwide. This is said to greatly harm our influence and interest. And 
there is truth to that. Just wait if our withdrawal precipitates a 
horrific scale of ethnic cleansing. Is that the Iraqi legacy we want? I 
am not ready to concede the inevitability of this.
  It is very important that our Nation be united. Our success depends 
upon it.

[[Page H1514]]

We need to be sowing discord among the enemy, not ourselves. We have 
had successes against Islamist terrorism worldwide.
  This resolution states that Congress disapproves of the January 
decision of the President to deploy more troops to Iraq. The bipartisan 
Iraq Study Group panel, but one month earlier, said it could support a 
short-term redeployment of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad. 
This resolution goes in the opposite direction.
  I have heard the argument about why this resolution isn't a retreat, 
but it is a nonbinding rebuke of the President's tactics, that it 
doesn't cut off funding. That may be the case on paper, but the 
symbolism is far greater. I don't see how opposing our professional 
military's call for more troops at this pivotal time is anything but a 
signal of permanent retreat. It is also congressional micromanagement.
  The war is horrible. The easy thing would be to just say out. But we 
can't wish away the Islamist terrorists will take great strength from 
our defeat. That is what they are saying. These individuals in groups 
are as persistent as they are brutal. They must be fought and defeated. 
So let's not give these forces a win on the floor of the U.S. House.
  I ask my colleagues to think through these implications and vote down 
this resolution
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca), former paratrooper with both the 101st and 82nd 
Airborne Divisions.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 63.
  I thank the Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr. Skelton, for 
carrying this legislation in support of our military troops and 
opposing the President's plan to send at least 21,500 more troops to 
Iraq.
  I speak today as a proud veteran who served in the United States 
armed service as a paratrooper in the 101st and 82nd Airborne Division.
  As a veteran and as a Congressman, I voted against this war in year 
2002 because no one could convince me why we had to be there in the 
first place. I was tormented with this decision. I talked to many of my 
constituents. I called the bishop in my area. I couldn't see what 
invading Iraq had to do with securing the homeland. No one in the 
administration could convince me that there were weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq. But we sent our troops there anyway, without 
proper training or proper equipment.
  This administration was in such a hurry to invade Iraq that we sent 
our military in there with defective body armor and Hummers that 
couldn't withstand the roadside bombs. In fact, before Congress made 
any appropriations for an Iraq invasion, the President took $600 
million from our troops in Afghanistan and sent it to Iraq.
  The administration has refused to listen to its own generals, to 
Congress or to the American people. They just do what they want.
  After September 11, I was willing to do anything to make our country 
safe, like all of us. We came together in a bipartisan way. I believed 
in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, but 
the current situation in Iraq proves what we have been saying all 
along, that the Iraq war has not and will not make America safer. 
Instead, it is costing the American taxpayers $200 million every day. 
The money that we spent in Iraq could have sent 17 million high school 
students to college. Can you imagine, 17 million students going on to 
college right now that we could have provided assistance to, or paid 
for 6 million new school teachers, reduced the student ratio, funded 
the No Child Left Behind Act, or help with Katrina. But more money has 
been spent on this war, and yet it is costing us money for those that 
are losing their lives right now.
  Over 3,000 men and women have given their lives for this war, and 
over 23,000 are coming home wounded or disabled. Mr. Speaker, over 
10,000 of these troops are so severely wounded that they will never be 
able to serve again. Let me tell you, and you have to look at them, 
never able to serve again.
  Now the President wants to send 21,500 more troops to the most 
dangerous part of Iraq. Why? Why are we sending our troops to fight in 
another country's civil war? Mr. Speaker, this isn't a strategy for 
success. This is a desperation attempt by the administration who can't 
admit that they made a mistake. They made a mistake, and they need to 
admit it. And the sooner we come to this realization, the better off 
this country will be. As a veteran, I understand that sometimes war is 
necessary, but as a veteran, I also know that war should always be the 
last resort because war means someone's sons and daughters won't come 
home. That means separating parents from their children, leaving their 
homes, someone making a sacrifice.
  In my home State of California alone, we have lost 325 men and women 
in Iraq. Back in my home district, we have lost 10 outstanding young 
men. It just breaks my heart. Mr. Speaker, you don't put the American 
families through this kind of pain unless you are sure, beyond any 
shadow of doubt, that there are no other options. The President had 
failed to convince me in 2002, and I am still not convinced to this 
day.
  I say let's support this resolution. Let's bring back our men.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 63.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, to my 
friend, my colleague, the gentleman from California, the chairman on 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lantos). I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Missouri for 
yielding.
  I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee, chairman of our Europe Subcommittee, my 
friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
  Mr. Speaker, today I stand with the American people in support of 
this resolution and in opposition to the President's escalation of the 
Iraq war. I stand in opposition to a President that failed the American 
people by initiating an ill-conceived war; an administration that 
misled the Nation, vulnerable after 9/11, into believing that Saddam 
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; an administration that 
invented links between Baghdad and al Qaeda; that ignored the views of 
the intelligence community, while convincing Americans that our brave 
soldiers would be greeted in Iraq as liberators; an administration that 
assured us that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction; and 
that through military force, rather than diplomacy, we would cultivate 
American values of freedom and democracy in Iraq.
  The American people know that they have been taken down a false path 
by this administration, down a spiraling path of war under false 
pretenses into a quagmire with a President who will not change course, 
even in the face of a growing civil war. This resolution sends the 
President an unequivocal message that he must change direction of this 
war.
  How did we arrive in this desperate situation? From the top down, the 
President, the Vice-President and the Secretary of State have 
manipulated evidence, broadcast half truths, and doctored intelligence 
through an orchestrated effort to smear and destroy those who have 
opposed their policies. Just last week, in a scathing report, the 
Defense Department's Inspector General concluded that the Pentagon took 
inappropriate action by advancing conclusions that were not backed up 
by the intelligence community.
  The American people have judged the actions of this President, they 
see this war for what it is, and they spoke clearly in November, 
stating loudly that we must end our disastrous Iraq policy. Yet this 
administration continues its defiant disregard of the views of the 
American people. Not the voice of the American people nor the 
conclusions of the Iraq Study Group have

[[Page H1515]]

budged this administration from its stubborn and misguided path. And 
now, the President is doubling down on a bad bet that risks the lives 
of thousands more American soldiers on a misguided plan that ignores 
the recommendations of our military commanders on the ground.

                              {time}  1615

  Unbelievably, President Bush has already tried twice the strategy of 
escalation. It failed both times. To try again is to act in blind 
faith, ignoring the facts, ignoring the experts, ignoring the will of 
the American people, and, worst of all, ignoring the terrible 
sacrifices that will undoubtedly be endured by our soldiers and their 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, our troops must be redeployed from Iraq. Instead of a 
surge of American troops entering Baghdad, there should be a surge of 
American soldiers back into every town and every city across our 
Nation. For our troops who have given so much in Iraq, for our military 
families whose lives have been shattered by this war, it is time to 
bring them home.
  How do we honor our brave men and women? How do we honor over the 
3,000 who died, and thousands more who have been maimed? Instead of an 
escalation, we should honor these soldiers by bringing them home and 
giving them the best health care, the best mental health support that 
they have justly earned.
  I applaud Congress for taking a stand on this war. I only wish we 
were voting on a binding resolution that mandates a redeployment of 
troops and cuts off funding for this tragic escalation. Each month we 
remain in Iraq, 100 more American soldiers die, hundreds more are 
maimed, and $5.5 billion is spent.
  Mr. Speaker, we have endured 4 years of a failed Iraq policy, longer 
than we were in World War II, longer than we were in the Korean War, 
and we can afford no more blank checks for this President.
  Today I stand with the American people, our soldiers in Iraq, with my 
fellow Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in strong 
opposition to the President's escalation in Iraq and in support of our 
redeploying our troops and reversing, most importantly, our Nation's 
failed strategy in Iraq.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this 
resolution. With all due respect to my colleagues across the aisle, 
this resolution does not outline a new strategy for how we move forward 
in Iraq and it will have absolutely no impact on the current strategy. 
Furthermore, it is the wrong signal to send to our allies in the region 
and the wrong signal to send to our troops, those brave, courageous men 
and women in uniform who have performed magnificently and done 
everything that we have asked them to do.
  This nonbinding resolution addresses a tactic, not an overall 
strategy; a tactic that the President of the United States as Commander 
in Chief has full constitutional authority to move with.
  Now, I respect my colleagues across the aisle, and I know we all want 
to see a disengagement of our troops from harm's way in Iraq. But I 
would submit that disengagement must be done under favorable 
circumstances in the interests of our national security. There is no 
other alternative.
  Let's look at what would happen with a failed policy in Iraq. Iraq is 
on the verge of anarchic fragmentation. There are 27 ethnic groups in 
Iraq. It is not as simple as a Sunni versus Shiia conflict. There are 
other splinter groups using violence for their own designs.
  Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq will lead to unprecedented violence, 
spilling over into neighboring countries such as Jordan, Kuwait and 
Saudi Arabia, and we will see Shiia uprisings in Lebanon and Bahrain, 
which have significant Shiia populations. Jordan is already facing 
massive numbers of refugees coming across the border, putting strain. 
And Iranian influence is growing. The regime is intent on gaining 
hegemony in the region, exerting its influence widely throughout the 
Middle East and controlling oil and gas reserves to use the money to 
further fuel terrorism. Al Qaeda will consolidate a base to work from 
in western Iraq to perpetrate further transnational terrorism, and 
Turkey will be compelled to cross borders to deal with separatist 
groups.
  America, dear America, will lose support of its vital allies in the 
region and our reputation will suffer immensely for a very long period 
of time, much longer than what we saw after the Vietnam conflict.
  It is clear to me that security and political reconciliation in Iraq 
run parallel, and without halting the spiral of violence, 
reconciliation within Iraq will not occur. Without halting the spiral 
of violence, our allies in the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East 
will be forced to deal with their own political disruption, rather than 
starting multilateral dialogue that is so essential for a longer 
standing peace throughout this entire region, whether we are talking 
about the Palestinian issues, Lebanon, Iraq or Iran. Our allies in the 
region, particularly, need political cover. I have heard this from 
numerous Arab Ambassadors whom I have had many conversations with.
  The ground must be laid for multilateral diplomacy. It will not occur 
during a spiral of violence. Our allies in the region have given 
commitment that they will help with Iraqi military training, police 
training, as well as rebuilding of Iraq and further resources, once the 
stage is set with security and a move toward reconciliation.
  So, if we are going to be responsible in this body, there are 
questions we really need to ask if we are going to formulate a strategy 
and work with this administration for a winning strategy in Iraq. The 
questions that need to be asked are these: What are the benchmarks for 
its Iraqi military? What are the benchmarks for the Iraqi Government, 
for reconciliation and for internal reform in Iraq? What are the rules 
of engagement for our troops who will be going over there to assist in 
this Baghdad security operation? What resources are available? What 
manpower and personnel are available to our State Department and USAID 
to help and assist in the reform and reconciliation process so that we 
can create the groundwork for diplomatic resolution? And as we look at 
a clear holding bill, who is going to do the holding? Who is going to 
do the building? These are questions that a responsible Congress should 
be asking, not whether or not to support this surge.
  The American people voted for change. This resolution offers nothing 
to shape a new strategy on how to move forward successfully in Iraq. 
The American people deserve more from Congress, and, by God, our troops 
deserve more from this Congress.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), a member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 to 3 days, Members of Congress will come 
to the well and they will talk about the Iraq resolution. They will 
talk about troop levels and spending and funding and security, 
training, strategy, a lot of different things in a lot of different 
ways, with valid arguments on both sides. But I want to boil it down to 
something simple, something that I understand, something that means 
more to me than some of the things I mentioned.
  There is a gentleman from my district, a Major Rick Simmons, a native 
of Pickens, South Carolina, an Eagle Scout, a Citadel grad. From time 
to time he has written me letters concerning different issues in Iraq. 
He is in Fallujah right now.
  He wrote me a letter dated 5 February, 2007. It is a rather lengthy 
letter, but I want to read you one sentence from this letter:
  ``This is not Bush's war, it is my war, and it is the war of every 
volunteer here because we know how high the stakes are for this 
country.'' ``My war.'' That is what he says. ``This is my war.''
  Rick, first to you and all your comrades over there, I say thank you 
and God bless you. I pray for you every day. But I want to tell you 
something, son; it is my war too. It is my war and my children's war 
and my children's children's war.
  This is our war, ladies and gentlemen. This is the greatest enemy 
that we have ever faced in my lifetime, Mr.

[[Page H1516]]

Speaker. And when I raised my right hand and put my left hand on the 
Bible, it was to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States against all enemies. And it was to protect the protectors, the 
protectors of liberty, the protectors of democracy, the protectors of 
freedom. And if it takes a troop surge and a funding stream that is 
guaranteed, I will do everything I can to ensure the protectors have 
everything they need.
  There is only one way out of Iraq, Mr. Speaker. There is only one way 
out of this war. Victory. Victory. I urge my colleagues to do the right 
thing and I urge them to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to a 
new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my neighbor from Northern 
California, Ms. Lynn Woolsey.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, I am a member of the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq 
Caucus, and I have been working to bring our troops home since before 
we sent them there.
  Mr. Speaker, the decision to send more brave Americans into the Iraq 
grinder is an act of staggering arrogance for the President. Nearly 
two-thirds of our people think this is a deeply flawed, tragically 
misguided policy. They get it, Mr. Speaker. They can see that more 
troops won't stop the sectarian violence, because it is our very 
military presence that ignited this sectarian violence in the first 
place.
  The human cost in Iraq has been devastating. By some estimates, 
several hundred thousand Iraq citizens have died, died for the cause of 
their own so-called liberation. No wonder a majority of Iraqis want the 
occupation to end.
  As the late columnist Molly Ivins put it, ``Iraq is clearly hubris 
carried to the point of insanity. It is damn hard to convince people 
you're killing them for their own good.''
  I hope that an overwhelming vote in favor of this resolution will 
compel the President to rethink his Iraq policy. But, if not, this body 
will have no choice but to take further steps. Ultimately we must do 
more than send a message. We must send a convoy of military planes to 
bring our troops home.
  Together with my colleagues, Congresswomen Lee and Waters, I have 
offered a plan to end the war once and for all. Our bill is H.R. 508, 
the Bring Our Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act. H.R. 
508 would complete a fully funded military withdrawal from Iraq within 
6 months of enactment, because our military and their families have 
given enough for this policy that is only increasing the terrorist 
threat and doing damage to our national security. The bill would 
accelerate the training of Iraqi Security Forces during that 6-month 
period. And because Iraq is not yet ready to defend its people against 
thugs, insurgents and militias, our bill calls for an international 
stabilization force to help keep the peace in Iraq. But it would stay 
only for 2 more years and would deploy only at the request of the Iraqi 
Government.
  Because we have already poured enough of the people's money down this 
sinkhole, H.R. 508 would prohibit any further funding to deploy U.S. 
troops, but would provide the resources for a safe withdrawal of all of 
our U.S. military personnel and contractors.
  The proposal would also provide for humanitarian aid and major 
investments to rebuild Iraq's physical and economic infrastructure, 
because taking our troops out of Iraq doesn't mean abandoning Iraq.

                              {time}  1630

  We can and we must go from military occupier to reconstruction 
partner.
  Our proposal expressly prohibits the construction of U.S. military 
bases in Iraq because it is that kind of permanent occupation that 
fuels the rage and anti-American jihadists in the Middle East.
  Iraq should belong to the Iraqis, and that includes Iraq's resources. 
So under the terms of our bill, the United States would forfeit any 
proprietary claim to Iraqi oil.
  Finally, H.R. 508 guarantees full health care funding, including 
mental health benefits, for U.S. veterans in military operations in 
Iraq and other conflicts. It is the least, the very least, we can do to 
express our gratitude and repay their sacrifices.
  Mr. Speaker, we must never, ever forget what war does to bodies, to 
minds, to families, to communities and to the human soul. The victims 
of war are not pieces to be moved around on a chess board. They are our 
fellow citizens in a global village that gets smaller every day. They 
are our brothers. They are our sisters. They are God's children and 
have as much right to human dignity as you or I.
  The one thing I desperately hope we have learned from the Iraq 
nightmare is that we must find more sensible, humane ways to keep 
America safe and resolve global conflict because, if we do not, given 
the kinds of weapons that are available today, I fear that we are 
putting the entire planet on a path toward destruction.
  I fear most of all for our children. ``War,'' said Martin Luther 
King, Jr., ``is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow.'' Mr. Speaker, 
tomorrow belongs to our children. So, for their sake, we must find 
alternatives to war. We must protect America by relying not on our 
basest impulses, but on the most honorable and humane of American 
values, our love of freedom, our desire for peace, our capacity for 
global leadership, and our compassion for the people of the world.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my 
friend from Georgia, a new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It is indeed 
an honor to stand before this House as a very proud member of our 
Foreign Affairs Committee under our distinguished Chairman Lantos and 
also to stand as our co-chair of our Democratic Group on National 
Security, as well as a voting member of the NATO parliament.
  I have been to Iraq. I have been to Afghanistan, been to Pakistan, 
been to Kuwait. I have been there with our soldiers and our generals, 
and what I am about to say is based upon my experience in this whole 
arena.
  Now, a lot has been said and I think it has been misguided, very 
unfortunate. So allow me, if I may, to state for the record exactly 
what this resolution does.
  There has been talk up here about this resolution is here to cut 
funds. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no Democrat in 
this Congress who would dare cut the funds from our soldiers who are in 
harm's way, and any Member that continues to say that is doing a 
disservice to this Congress and to the people of the United States.
  This resolution does not say we are pulling out troops. We know the 
situation in the Middle East. We know this region is vital to our 
interests. The issue here is not pulling out troops. The issue here is 
a vote, up or down, on a policy that says two things, 57 words. Allow 
me to read them to you.
  It says that the ``Congress and the American people will continue to 
support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who 
are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.''
  Then it says: ``Congress disapproves of the decision of President 
George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 
20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.''
  That is what it says. Those two things. Let us not mislead the 
American public anymore, certainly not on what we are going to vote on 
here today. I stand as a proud member who has cosponsored, who supports 
this resolution 100 percent because of four important reasons.
  The first reason is that this 21,500-man escalation, number one, is 
deceiving in and of itself, when we know from the CBO account that it 
is not 21,500. It is more like 48,000 when you put the support troops 
involved. I am here to tell you, this is a dangerous strain on an 
already overstrained military.
  Let me share with you what the National Security Advisory Group is 
saying. It says this: nearly all of the available combat units in the 
U.S. Army, Army National Guard, Marine Corps, have been used in the 
current operations. Every available combat brigade from the active duty 
Army has already been to Afghanistan or Iraq at least for a 12-month 
tour, and most are now in

[[Page H1517]]

their second or third tours of duty. There is a strain here, and some 
are on their fourth tours of duty.
  Approximately 95 percent of the Army National Guard's combat 
battalions and special operations units have been mobilized since 9/11, 
and there is very little available combat capacity remaining in the 
Army National Guard.
  All active duty Marine units are being used on a dangerously tight 
rotation schedule, but here is another.
  We often forget that these are soldiers with families, with mothers, 
with fathers who are out there, separated from their children. Listen 
to this. This is why we are against this 21,500, or 48,000, surge. 
Between 2001 and 2004, divorce rates among active duty Army officers 
have tripled, and rates among Army enlisted soldiers have gone up.
  Let me conclude by saying this: on the bleached bones of many great 
past nations and civilizations are written those pathetic words, ``too 
late.'' They moved too late. The American people are watching us and 
they are hoping and they are praying that we not move too late, and let 
us get our young men and women out of this crossfire of a civil war
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the Chair of the 
Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, Iraq is just one battlefield in this 
multigenerational struggle against radical Islamist jihadists, but it 
is a very important battlefield.
  This is the beginning stage of a multigenerational worldwide struggle 
that will last throughout our lives and likely our children's lives.
  It is hard to accept that the safety and security that most Americans 
felt in the 1980s and the 1990s was just a smokescreen while the 
Islamist extremists planned and carried out a one-sided war in other 
parts of the world.
  On September 11, we saw the unthinkable: airplanes flown into 
buildings, thousands of innocent people killed, and the killers 
claiming that this was done because God desired it. Some people still 
do not understand how anyone could rationalize such disgusting acts.
  For the past few years, and specifically in the past month, I have 
joined with some of my colleagues to learn about the true nature of the 
threat that we face from this jihadist ideology. This ideology is 
preached by the likes of Osama bin Laden, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hassan 
Nasrallah, and the ayatollahs in Iran.
  Our presence in Iraq did not make us vulnerable to these killers. 
There were many previous worldwide attacks before America was attacked 
on September 11 and before we entered Iraq.
  We face this threat because we refuse to succumb to live in a world 
where women cannot speak, as I speak now, without risk of death. We 
face this threat because we seek a world where people of all religions 
and races and sexes are entitled to the same rights. We cannot retreat.
  If we pull out, there is no doubt that Iraq will become a safe haven 
for al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups to plan and carry 
out attacks on unbelievers or infidels. How do I know this? Because 
they tell us. They told us before 9/11, but we did not pay attention. 
They tell us all the time that they will not stop until all lands from 
India to Morocco and Spain to Russia are governed by radical Islamic 
law.
  In 1938, Adolf Hitler told us what he was going to do, and we refused 
to pay attention. We cannot afford to repeat that historical mistake.
  This is not a Democrat and Republican issue. Our security is an 
American issue, and I hope we are going to start to act as Americans, 
like the American people expect us and want us to do.
  We must understand that we are fighting the first battles of a war 
against radical Islamist ideology that will be waged for the next 50, 
maybe 100 years.
  Mistakes have been made and more mistakes will be made in the future. 
War is never easy; nor is it predictable. But if the people of the 
United States understand the true nature of the threat that we all face 
and Congress realizes that this war against jihadism will be fought in 
various forms around the world for at least the next 50 years, then we 
can make informed policy decisions that will help us in the future.
  We must plan now for the future. We need to unite as a country behind 
this struggle against radical Islamic jihadists.
  It is downright irresponsible to tell our troops that we support you 
but do not support the mission that you are fighting. What message does 
that send to our troops? It may score political points, but it hurts 
our troops who are over there fighting to defend us and our right to be 
here and speak freely.
  This resolution does not deal with the larger problem of radical 
Islamic jihadists. So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. We must support 
our troops in the field by supporting their mission. I support our 
troops wholeheartedly and believe their mission is just and necessary 
for the security interests of our country.
  The world our children and grandchildren will inherit will be a 
better place because we had the courage to stand up today to fight 
these battles.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a senior member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee and a member of the Board of Visitors of the United States 
Naval Academy, I rise today to express my unwavering support for the 
men and women who wear the uniform of our proud Nation and to make 
clear my staunch opposition to putting more of these men and women in 
harm's way in Iraq.
  In the absence of a clear and meaningful strategy for success, it is 
time to extricate our troops out of this civil war and redeploy them 
out of the occupation of Iraq.
  Back in 2002, I joined my colleagues in the Congressional Black 
Caucus in formulating a brief and succinct statement of principles 
regarding the Iraq war. Within these principles we expressed our clear 
opposition to a unilateral first strike action in the absence of clear 
evidence of an imminent threat to the United States. We further stated 
that any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would 
be costly and would likely require a long-term commitment of our troops 
and treasure.
  Today, it is very clear that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has 
provoked sectarian divisions in the Iraqi society that are now 
expressed daily through violence on a staggering scale. It is also 
clear that our efforts to stabilize Iraq has, indeed, required the 
massive commitment of both lives and taxpayer dollars that we 
predicted.
  What was not clear then but is clear now is that this administration 
had no definite plan for achieving our stated objectives in Iraq.

                              {time}  1645

  The administration had lofty rhetoric, but no strategy for creating a 
stable democracy that could be our partner in the war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I raise these points to remind our Congress that from 
the beginning of this war there have been voices raised not in 
opposition to our President but in demand of a strategic approach to 
the growing threats we face, opposition and demand of an honest 
assessment of what could be accomplished with military force, and in 
demand of a clear purpose for why we send our troops into harm's way, 
our young men and women, the future of our Nation into situations where 
they may seriously be injured or killed. These are the very points that 
the resolution before us today demands.
  I have no illusions about the danger inherent in the growing number 
of nations that may soon have the capability to construct weapons of 
mass destruction. To the contrary, I am convinced that maintaining the 
peace in this increasingly dangerous world has become a precondition to 
our continued survival.
  The question is, given the situation in which we find ourselves in 
Iraq and given that our primary consideration must always be the 
security of our Nation, is sending additional troops into action most 
likely to stabilize that nation and the region? Is it the action most 
likely to cause Iraqis themselves to take the essentially political 
actions that only they can take to create a government capable of 
governing? Is

[[Page H1518]]

it the action likely to initiate the reconciliation between Sunni and 
Shiite, and the most recent National Intelligence Estimate says is 
critical to reducing the violence in Iraq?
  I have seen no compelling evidence that the answer to any of these 
questions is ``yes,'' and many of our top military commanders have 
testified that sending 21,500 more United States forces to Iraq will 
not create a path to success.
  Our forces have done all and more than we have asked them to do, and 
their families have been patiently sacrificing for 4 long years. The 
voters spoke in November, and we as Members of Congress of the United 
States do not have the right to remain silent. We cannot allow more to 
be asked of our soldiers now if their mission is not clear. The 
President has no plan likely to produce victory. And if, as the 
National Intelligence estimates suggest, the Iraqi forces and the 
government are not capable of being partners in their own 
reconstruction, I urge my colleagues to support our troops by 
supporting this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Dr. 
Weldon of Florida, a member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H. Con. Res. 63, disapproving of the 
decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007 to deploy 
20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
  This resolution essentially has, by my interpretation, three 
sections. It has the first section, which speaks in support of our 
troops; and then it has the second section, disapproving of the mission 
of 20,000 of the troops, which is a little bit of an inconsistency. We 
are saying we support the troops, but we don't support what you are 
trying to do.
  But the most important part of this resolution is the third section 
shown here in white. There is nothing there. No plan.
  So the authors of this resolution are essentially saying, we don't 
approve of the President's plan but we have no plan to deal with this 
challenge.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we won the war in Iraq. What we are struggling 
to win now is the peace, establishing a peaceful government that can 
run this country. And we have very determined opponents seeking to make 
sure that chaos reigns in that country and we do what this resolution 
is leading us to do, which is essentially to leave.
  Indeed, a senior member on that side of the aisle recently said in 
the press that, ``This is the bark, and the bite is coming.'' We 
supposedly support the troops, but what is next is no funding for the 
troops; that this Congress under this new leadership is going to 
exercise the power of the purse and cut off the flow of money.
  But, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, this is not Vietnam. The 
war in Iraq in not going to go away. It is going to continue to be a 
problem. If we do withdraw our troops, as many in this room want us to 
do, the war on terror will continue.
  We had a meeting today with the Ambassador from Jordan and the 
Ambassador from Egypt asking us not to withdraw; that we have to stay 
and persist and to try to establish a peaceful regime there. And they 
have their reasons, because they know this is a component of the war on 
terror. And the war on terror is a bad term; it is a war on radical 
fundamentalist jihadist Islam. And these jihadists are not going to 
stop coming at us. Indeed, since over the last 4 years, there have been 
attack after attack after attack in Bali, in Spain, in London, and they 
are going to keep coming after Western interests, because their goal 
and their agenda is to defeat the West, to defeat everything we stand 
for, and to ultimately establish a global fundamentalist Islamic 
regime.
  I oppose this resolution. I am going to vote against it, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the 
same. The President's plan was recommended to us in the Iraq Study 
Group. It is amazing, many of the people who are saying they are going 
to vote for this supported the Iraq Study Group, and the Iraq Study 
Group recommended many of the components that are in the President's 
plan. We need to give this time to work. I know the American people are 
losing patience in this conflict, but I also know the stakes in this 
conflict are huge. And if we fail, the consequences could be huge to 
the region, they will be huge to the world, they will be huge to the 
American people and our children and our grandchildren.
  So I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote on this resolution
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Meeks), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, there is a concept from the 
people of West Africa called Sankofa. Literally translated, it means, 
``It is not taboo to go back and fetch what you have forgot.''
  Today, I want to use the premise of Sankofa and go back to some of 
the things that have occurred in the recent past with regard to Iraq so 
that we can learn from those lessons. In order to know where we need to 
go in Iraq, we have to evaluate what missteps have been made. That is 
our responsibility.
  As we look at the last 5 years, the President has shown no accuracy 
on the challenges we face in Iraq. While our soldiers are courageously 
carrying out their orders, it has become apparent that military action 
to bring security to Iraq has reached its limitation, but our President 
insists on escalating military force.
  I recall over 4 years ago hearing the President and the 
administration push for war with talk about a smoking gun that would 
come in the form of a mushroom cloud. The administration pulled on the 
emotions of the public while our Nation was still in shock from 9/11. 
Our President pushed for war with arrogance. ``Bring it on,'' he said. 
Coalition of the willing. Deck of cards. Freedom on the march. Mission 
accomplished. A plan for victory. Those are just some of the promises 
that have been made, but the administration has not been able to make 
good on those promises. It is fair to say that the President has 
defaulted on a promissory note.
  Today, the question before us is can the President make good on the 
promise of security in Iraq with an escalation of the combat operation. 
All of the facts point to a strong ``no'' on that question.
  After reviewing all of the facts, I saw that increased troops did not 
work in the spring of 2004, when troop levels were raised by thousands, 
but this did nothing to prevent the continued uprising, and April of 
2004 was the second deadliest month for American forces. I have heard 
from generals, former Secretaries of State, and a bipartisan 
commission, all saying that escalation will not work. I am vehemently 
opposed to the escalation of the Iraq war and its open-ended commitment 
to a failing effort.
  The President only accepts the advice of those who agree with him. 
After months of threats and a long military build-up, the United States 
attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The administration cut short U.N. arms 
inspections after a war-sanctioned resolution failed by a wide margin 
to gain support in the U.N. Security Council. Because the President 
could not get the U.N. or the world public in support of an invasion, 
he developed his unilateral preemptive doctrine.
  The President has had generals tell him that this war should end and 
an escalation is not the answer; but when he gets advice he doesn't 
like, he simply fires the generals.
  He has had a commission of experts advise him that a diplomatic 
political effort with all of Iraq's neighbors would be the most 
effective way to enable the U.S. to move its combat forces out of Iraq 
responsibly. However, the President did not like that advice, so he has 
chosen to simply ignore it.
  When the President needed Congress to approve military action against 
Iraq, he cared about the perspective of the Congress then. As Congress 
begins to conduct oversight of the combat operation, the President 
wants to ignore the voices of dissent that come from this very body.
  The cameras of history are rolling, and I hope and pray that at the 
end of this debate history can record that this body, starting with 
this resolution as a first step, has taken the appropriate action to 
end a morally wrong war that threatens to irreversibly stain the fabric 
of Congress if we do not exercise our constitutional authority and our

[[Page H1519]]

patriotic responsibility to balance the President's power.
  To move forward and bring security to Iraq will require a bipartisan 
effort; it will require dialogue with Congress, dialogue between 
Congress and the administration, and dialogue and diplomacy between 
Iraq and all of its neighbors, as the Iraq Study Group wisely 
recommended. I am reaching across the aisle to my colleagues who also 
believe that military action has its limitations and a diplomatic 
offensive will bring a new and critical approach to secure Iraq.
  This war has created deep humanitarian crisis in Iraq and a deep 
political crisis in the international system. Based on all that has 
happened leading up to this war and since its commencement, I cannot in 
good conscience support any escalation of military force in Iraq. But I 
plan to move forward with a strong push for a diplomatic effort to a 
problem that military action simply has not been able to solve.
  Some ask what will happen in Iraq if we leave, but the more 
fundamental question is, what will happen to Iraq and the United States 
if we stay.
  Dr. King, when speaking on Vietnam once said, ``A time comes when 
silence is betrayal. That time has come for us in relation to 
Vietnam.'' I echo those sentiments today. If Congress is silent while 
the President escalates the war in Iraq, we betray the American people, 
we betray the American soldiers, and we betray our constitutional 
responsibility.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes 
to Mr. Wolf of Virginia, the ranking member of the State and Foreign 
Operations appropriations subcommittee.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we are a coequal branch of government. We do 
not work for the President or the administration; our job is to 
thoughtfully consider the issues before us, and to work with the 
President and with the administration. When we agree, it is our 
responsibility to work together for the best interests of our country; 
and where we cannot agree, however, we have an equal responsibility to 
make the case of why we disagree, and offer responsible and thoughtful 
alternatives. This resolution does not meet that test.
  Some may say that is what we are doing in the House this week, 
disagreeing with the President and offering alternatives to the plan. 
This resolution fails. There is no plan offered.
  Certainly the resolution before us includes a statement on which we 
all unequivocally agree: support for our brave men and women in the 
Armed Forces who are serving or who have served in Iraq.

                              {time}  1700

  Yet it also includes a statement of disapproval on the plan for Iraq 
offered by the President, a statement of disagreement to which, again, 
no alternative is offered. If we disagree with the President's plan, we 
should be offered reasoned, responsible alternatives. Instead of 
speaking today as Democrats or Republicans, we should come together, 
speaking as Americans who are seeking to answer the questions of how to 
move forward with success in Iraq.
  Under the process today, we have only one option from the other side 
of the aisle. Is that what the American people expect from this House? 
No. The American people expect more. What is so amazing to me and in 
this Congress, you voted, this Congress voted and passed legislation 
last year that set our country on a course to find our way forward in 
Iraq. We have to look no farther than the report of the bipartisan Iraq 
Study Group to find a way forward, a new approach for Iraq, an approach 
that can bring us victory.
  That is what we should be considering today. The recommendations of 
this distinguished group can bring us to a consensus and unite the 
Congress and the Nation on Iraq. I have been to Iraq three times, and 
since there, I continue to be deeply concerned.
  So when I came back from my third trip, I offered this idea of an 
independent bipartisan commission we called fresh eyes on the target, 
and many Members on your side have been hailing it, yet you would not 
permit this to come up for a vote. Why would the Rules Committee shut 
down something that many of you ask for over and over? And there are 
Members on my side who don't like it, but it is the only balanced plan.
  This legislation was set up, the 10 Members, bipartisan, five 
Republicans, five Democrats, Jim Baker, former Secretary of State; Lee 
Hamilton, who served here and has probably, quite frankly, forgotten 
more about this issue than any Members on your side or any Members on 
my side. A 10-0 decision, Leon Panetta, Ed Meese, whose son will serve 
with General Petraeus, they came up with this idea.
  Yet the Rules Committee has shut this down not to permit a vote. They 
worked for more than 8 months supported by expert working groups, and 
senior military advisors in the areas of the economy, reconstruction, 
military, security and political development. The study's report was 
issued on December 6 and was hailed, but yet it is not permitted to 
come up for a vote.
  Because of the importance of this group, I introduced a sense of 
Congress resolution in support of the recommendations. I asked the 
Rules Committee late last night to make my resolution in order to be 
considered during the debate. By doing so, I believe the House will be 
working to meet our responsibility as political leaders to seek a 
bipartisan consensus on the issue of war and peace.
  But the request, not on my behalf, but on behalf of the American 
people, was turned down by the Rules Committee. Believe me, just for a 
second, maybe our side at times treated you wrong; but, believe me, you 
are getting to be a fast learner, because every time you seem to speak 
over here, the Republican side of the aisle is shut down from offering 
anything. This is the major issue of war and peace. Can you imagine if 
this were 1937 or 1938 or 1939 in the House of Parliament, and it was a 
resolution like this with Nazi Germany pouring over Europe, there would 
be some resolution, and everyone else, Churchill would have been shut 
out because he wanted to offer something constructive to make a 
difference.
  Let me read from a letter penned by Jim Baker and Congressman 
Hamilton. There is no magic formula, they said, to solve the problem of 
Iraq. They basically say there are actions to take. The political 
leaders need to establish a bipartisan approach. They go on to make the 
report, the consensus report as to work that they have done. We 
recommend their report, and then they end by saying, ``Yet, U.S. 
foreign policy is doomed to failure--as is any course of action in 
Iraq--if not supported by a broad, sustained consensus.'' Then they go 
on to say how dangerous this is.
  I ask you, why? Why couldn't we get a vote? Why couldn't the American 
people get a vote on something that many on your side may not like, but 
most do, and some on my side may not like, but most do, and I ask, this 
body ought to be voting on the Iraq Study Group to show the American 
people that we can be successful
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Ackerman), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and 
chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the coalition of the willing no longer is. 
If those who are no longer with us are against us, then we have lost 
the support and the admiration of the entire world. Those of us who 
came of age in the sixties believing that war is the ultimate breakdown 
of civilized process have done the unthinkable. We trusted our 
leadership when we should have questioned more.
  We gave war a chance. We called upon our sons and daughters entering 
the prime of their young lives to step up, as had generations before 
them, to defend our freedom and our liberty against an Iraqi nuclear 
threat that did not exist. Our young people did not disappoint. They 
answered the call, have been fighting bravely and ferociously, putting 
their lives on the line every day for going on 4\1/2\ years.
  They followed the orders of their officers right up to the Commander 
in Chief, and a grateful Nation, indeed, can ask no more. They did not 
disappoint. But it is we who let them down, tragically. We are reminded 
that the President is the Commander in Chief, and, indeed, he is. He 
sent them to fight and die in a war based on a

[[Page H1520]]

faulty and tortuously shifting premise. That we, in our positions of 
great trust, were misled and then misplaced our trust, does not excuse 
us.
  He sent them to fight in a war without equipping them properly, and, 
as many generals believe initially, in insufficient numbers. With an 
abundance of prayers but inadequate plans, he sent them to fight 
international terrorists; but, instead, they are mired down, enmeshed, 
and are being slaughtered in someone else's sectarian and deadly civil 
war while the real terrorists prepare to retake Afghanistan.
  Six years ago I voted with the President. He is our President. I did 
not want him to fail. His failure is our country's failure, and that is 
not acceptable. But here is where we are. We have lost the support of 
even those in the region who wanted Saddam's demise. We have not found 
the real terrorist, Osama bin Laden.
  We have lost the support of the coalition of the willing. We have 
lost the support of our major allies. We have lost the prestige and 
admiration of the world. We have lost our credibility. We have lost the 
confidence of the American people. And we have lost over 3,000 precious 
lives of our bravest patriotic and promising young citizens. I voted 
with the President, and I was wrong, but I know I was wrong.
  Grown-ups know that not every story has a happy ending regardless of 
good intentions. I am afraid this is one such story. I am afraid we 
have been led into a dead-end chasm from which there is no easy escape. 
Under the administration's leadership, everything has gone wrong. So 
what do we do now? Do we compound the disaster?
  Perhaps we can learn from the great Iraqi poet, Omar Kyayyam, who in 
the Runaiyat wrote:
  ``The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
  Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit
  Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
  Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.''
  Mr. Speaker, sending 20,000 additional troops is not a change of 
plans, it is merely an escalation. About one out of every 40 people we 
send to Iraq comes home in a casket. As an old math teacher, I can tell 
you by extrapolation that sending 20,000 more brings home 500 more 
dead. Little else changes.
  This vote is, indeed, nonbinding. It is but the little boy in the 
crowd yelling, ``The emperor has no plan.'' Mr. Speaker, managing 
failure is unpleasant, but reinforcing it is criminal. Vote for the 
resolution so that we might help the President to avoid compounding 
this disaster.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield the 5 minutes to Mr. 
King of Iowa, I would like to yield 15 seconds to Dr. Gingrey of 
Georgia to make some remarks.
  Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to our articulate friend from the State of 
New York, in regard to his comment, we have given war a chance. I would 
just say to him, you have. We have given war a chance, and we have not 
given victory a chance. This is not the time to pull the rug out from 
under those who have given their lives for their country.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to 
Mr. King of Iowa for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady for yielding this time, and 
I appreciate very much the privilege to address you, Mr. Speaker, and 
the message that is coming, at least from our side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I take us back to how do we identify this enemy that we 
are fighting? So I looked back through some of the history. In 1783, we 
made peace with Great Britain. The Revolutionary War, for combat 
purposes, was over. 1784, American merchant marines were being attacked 
in the Mediterranean by Barbary pirates.
  In 1786, two diplomats, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, went over 
there to meet with them, and their idea was, we will be able to talk 
them into peace. Well, they talked to them all right, and the 
representative of the Barbary pirates, Mr. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, 
responded to them, and this is in the Congressional Record from Thomas 
Jefferson's report.
  He asked him, why do you fight us, why do you attack us, why do you 
kill us? We have done nothing hostile towards you. His answer was, It 
is founded on the laws of our Prophet. It was written in the Koran. All 
nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, 
that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they 
could be found and to make slaves of all they could not take as 
prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure 
to go to Paradise.
  I take you back to today. We call our marines leathernecks. The 
reason for that is they wore a heavy leather collar to diminish the 
odds that they would be beheaded by this enemy who has, to this day, at 
least fairly recently, is still beheading marines. That is how this 
started.
  Now, we are in a war. Von Clauswitz wrote that the object of war is 
to destroy the enemy's will and ability to conduct war. That means take 
away their munitions, take care of their armies, destroy them if you 
can. But in the end, whatever you might do doesn't break their will. 
You have to destroy their will. There is nothing going on on this side 
of the aisle that is diminishing the will of our enemy.
  I will tell you, they will interpret it as encouraging the will of 
the enemy. I would point out this quote from Moqtada al Sadr. I heard 
this over al Jazeera TV when I was in the Middle East, actually in 
Kuwait City, waiting to go into Iraq the following morning, June 11, 
2004. He said, ``If we keep attacking Americans, they will leave Iraq 
the same way they left Vietnam, the same way they left Lebanon, the 
same way they left Mogadishu.''
  June 11. Where does he get this from? Well, he gets part of it from 
General Jeaps' book in Vietnam, the successful general there. They 
understand, as I heard to my own shock and sorrow, a World War II 
veteran said to me on one of the days we were honoring him, We haven't 
really won a war since World War II.
  Think about what that means. Think about what that means to our 
enemies who are encouraged by this kind of debate and this kind of 
behavior. We must have the resolve. I point out also our casualties. We 
have lost 2,534 brave, patriotic Americans in hostile action. We have 
lost 591 to accidents within that theater.
  The loss in American lives as a price to be ready between Desert 
Storm 1 and the beginnings of Operation Iraqi Freedom, that 10 years, 
was a little over 5,000, averaging 505 a year. There is a price to be 
ready, and they pay that price. Those lost lives are every bit as 
precious to us.
  I listened to the debate over on this side of the aisle. A brave 
American, former admiral from Pennsylvania, stated that he believes his 
job now is to come in and help manage a successful conclusion to the 
war.
  Well, I want to compliment Judge Louie Gohmert, who had the urge from 
the bench, to legislate from the bench, and realized that his 
constitutional responsibility, if he wants to legislate, is to run for 
Congress. So now we have Representative Gohmert in Congress actually 
legislating instead of legislating from the bench.
  I would submit my question to the gentleman from Pennsylvania: Do you 
really think your job is to come here and micromanage the war? Do you 
really think that is constitutional? Regardless of that question, do 
you think it is wise?
  How would you like it if Congress made a decision that you really 
only needed one destroyer in your task force, or you get along without 
the submarine or maybe you only needed half the supplies on your supply 
ship?

                              {time}  1715

  That would be micromanagement that I think he would raise a powerful 
objection to. And so I would point out that here on the floor of this 
Congress when we had Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, 
speaking from that very podium behind me, July 26, 2006, a short half a 
year ago, he said, ``The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should 
democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, 
then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.''
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here and to be part of this debate. 
I wanted

[[Page H1521]]

to congratulate the bipartisan way in which this resolution was brought 
before this House with two Members of the Armed Services Committee, the 
chairman, Ike Skelton from Missouri, and Republican Member Jones from 
North Carolina, and also Chairman Lantos of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee. I congratulate them in their leadership.
  At a recent send-off of troops being redeployed from my home district 
in Missouri, I told the families that I would work in Congress to bring 
their loved ones home safe, sound and soon. However, this proposed 
military escalation flies in the face of that intention.
  As we enter the fifth year of this mismanaged war in Iraq, with an 
ill-defined plan, it is irresponsible to think that an escalation is in 
the best interests of our troops. The Bush escalation plan is yet 
another indication that the President has failed to listen to the 
American public, military experts, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and 
Democrat and Republican Members in this Congress.
  Even General Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, said, I am 
not persuaded that any surge of troops in Baghdad for the purposes of 
suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war will work.
  It is my solemn responsibility to act on behalf of Missouri 
constituents and their overwhelming desire for change. I am proud to 
see the new Congress has begun to systematically analyze the 
President's proposal regarding the war in Iraq.
  Since the beginning of the year, we have already held 52 hearings in 
this Congress about the war in Iraq. Evidence this new Democratic-led 
Congress is exercising real oversight and demanding accountability on 
the Iraq war. We will continue to ask the tough questions about the 
President's plan, continue to insist on a new direction while always 
putting our troops first.
  We have the best military in the world, and we owe our troops a clear 
mission. Our men and women in uniform have done their job two and three 
times over, and our civilian leadership must provide a clear, 
achievable objective so they can come home soon.
  This Congress has a grave duty to listen and take action. Recently, 
the mother of a young soldier being deployed back to Iraq told me, 
Congressman Carnahan, I am one of those mothers who is against the war 
in Iraq, but my son volunteered to serve his country. Please be sure 
they get the support and equipment they need to come home quickly and 
safely.
  That mother's heartfelt request is a powerful example of our national 
unity and resolve to support our troops and oppose this escalation 
policy that is not making the Iraq Government more self-reliant. In 
fact, it is using us further as a crutch.
  It is not making the Middle East region more stable. In fact, many of 
our military leaders say our very presence there is fueling the 
insurgency, and it is not making our country safer. Today, the House 
begins a detailed deliberation on House Concurrent Resolution 63, which 
is only the beginning of this Congress's oversight of the President's 
strategy in Iraq.
  This straight-forward resolution plainly expresses our support for 
the brave men and women who are currently serving or who have served in 
the Armed Forces. In my home State of Missouri, over 27,000 men and 
women have been deployed to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraq Freedom since September 2001.
  It is our duty as Members of Congress to ensure they have the 
necessary training, equipment, resources and support while in harm's 
way and when they return home.
  When debate concludes this week, it is my firm hope that the result 
will be a bipartisan vote reflecting both our unwavering support of our 
troops and the reality that a fourth U.S. escalation is the wrong 
direction for our country.
  As the new majority, we have the opportunity to develop a 
comprehensive and commonsense solution to enable us to protect our 
troops, maintain our obligation, and end this conflict as quickly as 
possible. We stand ready to provide real peace of mind for the American 
people by securing our homeland and changing course in Iraq.
  Great change is possible when this Congress acts in unison with the 
American public. In the weeks and months ahead, this Congress will act 
in a bipartisan way to carefully and thoroughly examine the President's 
proposals and pass decisions through hearings, debate and oversight 
using all tools available to change the direction of this war.
  Most importantly, we will continue to support our troops in hopes of 
de-escalation of the war and escalation of the political solution for 
Iraq. Working together, Mr. Speaker, great change is possible.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a member of the Anti-Terrorism 
Caucus.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 63, the resolution 
that calls on us to disapprove of the increase in troops in Iraq. I 
rise to oppose it, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to carefully reflect on what we are doing.
  This debate may benefit the American people. This resolution will 
undoubtedly harm America and harm our troops. Every American wants our 
troops home. Every American wants this war over. But it is not that 
easy. You cannot just wish this war would end and believe it will go 
away as a problem for America. Life is never that easy.
  Let us begin with the text of the resolution. Make no mistake about 
it, it is very brief, and all of us should have read it. It is two 
sentences long. It essentially says: stay the course. A resolution 
which says, we oppose increasing troops, but we support our current 
troops is a resolution that says, stay the course.
  It is not a resolution that says withdraw. That might be a morally 
defensible position, because perhaps we should withdraw, at least some 
believe. It is not a resolution that says, put in more troops. It is a 
resolution that says, adding more troops is wrong, but we support those 
that are there.
  That is a resolution to stay the course. I would suggest no American 
believes we should stay the course. I would suggest that the RAND study 
and the Army's manual on counterinsurgency both suggest that staying 
the course is wrong. Indeed, it is a recipe for failure. Both RAND and 
our own counterinsurgency manual say, if anything, we should have 
between 400,000 and 450,000 troops there.
  So why would we support staying the course? Now, we all know that 
many of us, and I included, wanted a change in strategy in Iraq. My 
colleagues on the other side called for a change in strategy. This 
surge is the change in strategy.
  Indeed, and I am mystified, and I am glad some of my colleagues today 
have made the point, this is the change in strategy, at least one of 
them, recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I thought my colleagues on 
the other side supported that. It seems to me that there is also an 
important flaw in this debate.
  My colleagues say that this is a nonbinding resolution. I would 
suggest to you that when you are at war, and when the United States 
Congress acts with regard to that war, it is not nonbinding. The world 
is watching. The world is watching every word that is said on this 
floor.
  I believe we have a moral duty to finish what we began. Earlier on 
the floor, my colleagues have mentioned that many leaders in the 
region, in the Middle East, have begged us not to leave. They have 
begged us to stay at least long enough to stand up the Iraqi Government 
so that it can defend itself. They have implored us not to leave.
  Let me give you their words. They have said, because they opposed our 
originally going in, the coalition came uninvited, it should not leave 
uninvited. They are making the point that we have a duty to finish this 
effort. They have talked about analogies. They pointed out that a heart 
surgeon who begins a heart surgery is not entitled, halfway through the 
surgery, to say, you know what, I am tired, I want to leave.
  On the other side of the aisle many of my colleagues have said this 
is hard. Indeed, it is hard. But that is not a justification for 
leaving. The best analogy I heard was one that said, this is like 
stepping on a land mine, where you put your foot on it, but you know 
that if

[[Page H1522]]

you lift your foot off it will blow up. We have put our foot on a land 
mine in Iraq. But if we lift our foot off before the Iraqi Government 
can defend itself, it will blow us up, and it will blow them up.
  You cannot wish this war away. And so I would suggest this resolution 
is binding. The world is watching. Our allies, if we abandon Iraq, will 
never trust us again. But why do they want a nonbinding resolution? 
Because they do not want to accept responsibility.
  The President does not have that choice. He has responsibility. Those 
who oppose this war have a duty to take a stand, one side or the other. 
If you oppose the war, then seek withdrawal. If you do not, then do not 
undermine our troops. Because make no mistake, this nonbinding 
resolution hurts our troops.
  Let me just conclude with this point. In the midst of an ongoing war, 
it is impossible to support the troops and oppose the mission. Let me 
make that clear. The world is watching. Our enemies, al Qaeda, and the 
radical jihadists who hate us and want to kill us are watching. If we 
tell them we oppose the mission, we are encouraging them. They have 
guns, rockets, and missiles pointed at our troops. This resolution is a 
grave error. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and chairman of the Higher Education Committee.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
63. The State of Texas has a proud history of military service. 
Thousands of Texans have fought with distinction in every conflict this 
country has entered.
  Hundreds of my constituents are currently serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. They are willing to leave behind their families and 
friends to risk their lives in service to their country. Many will 
never return home. Many will come home maimed and injured.
  I want to read the names of the young people from the 15th District 
of Texas who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan: Darrell 
Shipp, Benito Ramirez, Javier Marin, Julio Alvarez, Gary Moore, Tomas 
Garces, Mark Anthony Zapata, Juan Calderon, Christopher Ramirez, Dustin 
Sekula, Juan Garza, James Kesinger, Mitchell Mutz, John Russell, 
Quinton Gertson, Christopher Kilpatrick, Tina Priest, and Daniel 
Galvan.
  I know how much their families and friends have grieved at their 
loss. I have spoken to their parents and spouses and have attended many 
of their funerals. We are all so very proud of their military service 
and know they did their very best.
  However, as an elected Representative of the United States 
Government, I have a responsibility to make sure that the sacrifices of 
these brave men and women were not in vain.

                              {time}  1730

  I have a responsibility to see that more Americans will not be 
sacrificed unnecessarily. I have supported the funding to give our 
military the body armor, the equipment and training they need, and I 
will continue to see that they have whatever they need. But I will not 
support an administration policy that puts more troops in harm's way, 
with no apparent end in sight and with no clear goals on how to win the 
fight.
  In 2002, I stood in this well and I spoke on that resolution giving 
the President permission to go to war, and I voted against going to war 
with Iraq because I didn't believe we had all the information we needed 
on Iraq's nuclear capabilities and weapons of mass destruction and its 
support for terrorism. I was concerned that the President had not 
convinced the 39 countries who had supported us in the previous war 
with Iraq. I was disappointed that the President did not have an exit 
plan after we defeated Iraq. And I was disappointed that the President 
would not put in the budget what we were going to spend on that war.
  No one denies that Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator who brutally 
oppressed his people, and I am glad that the Iraqis are free of this 
tyranny. But the Bush administration did not have accurate information 
then, and I don't believe they have an accurate picture of the 
situation today.
  Our troops are now caught in the middle of a civil war between 
religious groups that have hated each other for centuries. There is no 
defined enemy and no clear battle lines.
  The task of imposing and growing democracy in a place where it has 
never been is not the job of our military. It must come from the 
political will of the Iraqi people. Only the Iraqis can decide whether 
they want to put aside centuries of discord and come together to create 
a stable, democratic country where the rights of every group is 
recognized. The Iraqi Government must take responsibility for its own 
future.
  After more than 4 years, the U.S. is not safer because of our efforts 
in Iraq. By dividing our resources, we have allowed the Taliban to 
reemerge in Afghanistan and have given al Qaeda a strong foothold that 
it never had before in Iraq. Syria and Iran have gained influence 
throughout the entire region.
  We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars at the expense of 
critical programs at home like education, health care and homeland 
security. Our military is severely strained with troops on their third 
and fourth tours of Iraq. Units are being deployed, either understaffed 
or with new personnel, that has decreased unit cohesiveness, 
proficiency and morale. Equipment is worn out and our readiness to deal 
with an additional crisis is in jeopardy.
  Unfortunately, most of his generals disagree. The distinguished 
members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group disagree, and more 
importantly, the American people disagree.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 63 and 
opposing the President's decision to send more troops to Iraq.
  We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars at the expense of 
critical programs at home like education, health care and Homeland 
Security. Our military is severely strained with troops on their third 
and fourth tours of Iraq. Units are being deployed either understaffed 
or with new personnel that has decreased unit cohesiveness, 
proficiency, and morale. Equipment is worn out and our readiness to 
deal with an additional crisis is in jeopardy.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, before I turn over our segment of the 
debate to Mr. Hoekstra of the Intelligence Committee, I would like to 
recognize our last speaker for our segment, Mr. Shuster of 
Pennsylvania, a member of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus, for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, ``So they go on in strange paradox, decided 
only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, 
solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.'' The words of Winston 
Churchill on the eve of World War II ring true today as clearly as they 
did decades ago describing our state of affairs.
  I am disappointed with my colleagues in the majority. They spent the 
time and effort solidifying their caucus against the war in Iraq. They 
devised a number of plans to withdraw our troops. They made Iraq the 
focus of their agenda in November and not staying the course their 
slogan. However, they stand today, as Churchill said, resolved to be 
irresolute in their position on Iraq.
  The resolution we debate in the House today is based on flawed logic. 
The resolution states that Congress supports the efforts of our troops 
in mind but not in body. The fact is, this resolution is framed upon 
the idea that the current state of affairs in Iraq is beyond recovery 
and should be abandoned.
  Instead of offering any real alternatives, the Democrats have drafted 
a nonbinding resolution that rejects the President's plan to reinforce 
our troops and give the Iraqi Security Forces the assistance they need. 
This resolution does not bring us one step closer to victory. This 
resolution does nothing more than reinforce the status quo.
  This resolution does show the American people that yet again, the 
Democrats, for all of their rhetoric, have no plan, no alternative to 
fight the threat of Islamic jihad. They instead have chosen, amazingly, 
to simply stay the course.
  I will be the first to admit that, despite the outstanding jobs that 
our troops on the ground have done, progress in the war is slow and 
frustrating. We overthrew a violent despot, only to see a new and 
dangerous threat emerge. But we can not be fooled into thinking that by 
leaving Iraq this threat will melt away.
  By the very admission of the Islamic fundamentalists we fight, this 
war is

[[Page H1523]]

only part of a larger power play to consolidate power and form a 
jihadist Islamic state in the center of the Middle East.
  In a speech released this month, Ahman Zawahiri praised al Qaeda's 
master plan for Iraq. He asked Allah to consolidate Iraq so that it 
unites all our Muslim brothers in Iraq and sets up an Islamic state 
which will proceed to liberate Jerusalem and take steps towards 
reestablishment of the Caliphate.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is a grave mistake for us to not take our 
enemy at their word. The jihadists do not want peace. They want 
capitulation. We ignored their threats in the 1980s and they bombed our 
Marine barracks in Beirut. We ignored their rhetoric in the nineties 
and they bombed the World Trade Center and our embassies in Africa. We 
ignored their threats in the days leading up to September 11, and our 
world was changed forever.
  Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards described this 
resolution best when he compared it to a child standing in a corner, 
stomping his feet. This resolution may draw headlines, but it will not 
change a thing.
  We have one Commander in Chief, not 435 separate executives. What the 
Congress does have is the power of the purse and the ability to cut off 
the funding for the war. Let's be honest. This resolution is the first 
step in that direction.
  If cutting off funding is the Democrats' plan, and I believe it is, 
then let them state it openly. They are no longer the voice of the 
opposition in Congress. They are the majority, and they have an 
obligation to govern. It is time for them to create a plan, a real 
course of success. The American people are waiting.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
Representative from California, Diane Watson, senior member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the escalation of the conflict in Iraq is an 
exercise in futility. It has been 3 years now since the President 
declared that our original mission was accomplished in Iraq.
  And then the President let victory escape from our grasp. He confused 
the toppling of Saddam Hussein with accomplishing the mission.
  But there is a more important question being raised here on the House 
floor. It is an issue which has confused our mission in Iraq from the 
beginning. And it is the preposterous argument that Iraq is part of the 
war against al Qaeda.
  The al Qaeda attack on America killed almost 3,000 innocent Americans 
in New York, at the Pentagon, and in a field outside of Shanksville, 
Pennsylvania. We pursued al Qaeda into Afghanistan, dislodged the 
Taliban and cornered Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. We had al Qaeda on 
the run. We had the world united against terror and in favor of freedom 
and democracy.
  But then the President switched his focus at a critical time. He 
dismissed the factors which had brought success in Afghanistan, a just 
cause, clear evidence, and a community of nations, and instead pursued 
his Iraqi adventure based on faulty intelligence and employing a 
strategy rejected by his own Army Chief of Staff and numerous other 
generals.
  Thus, the President gave al Qaeda breathing room; he let them 
regroup, because he lost focus on the war on al Qaeda, to wage war on 
Iraq. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouped.
  Iraq is not the central front in the war on al Qaeda. Iraq is a 
distraction from the war on al Qaeda. Each day we spend in Iraq is a 
day we are not working to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.
  Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden? Why aren't we looking for him?
  We have a direct connection to 9/11. The families of those who 
perished on 9/11 are still waiting for an answer.
  This escalation is an appalling display of our weakness. We are 
sending only 21,000 combat troops to Iraq because, after stretching our 
military thin for 4 years, that is all the troops we have available at 
the moment.
  The President cannot tell us what victory is or when he hopes to 
achieve it. What is really our goal in Iraq? What are we trying to 
achieve? And are we going to leave this mess for the next President?
  Today, Iraq is consumed by civil war. Her neighbors, including our 
allies, Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, are overwhelmed with refugees, and 
Iran is strengthened and emboldened. If that is not already 
destabilized, then the word truly has no meaning.
  The occupation itself is what is destabilizing Iraq. The occupation 
is placing Americans on the killing fields. The occupation undermines 
American prestige and authority, and the occupation in Iraq makes it 
harder to defeat al Qaeda.
  The military battle is over. Our only hope is to change course, to 
acknowledge the reality that we have lost the military struggle in 
Iraq. Only then can we reengage with a strategy to give us a political 
victory.
  We must remove our forces and move forward with a political and 
diplomatic strategy to engage both our allies and our adversaries in 
the region. This will mean talking to Iran, not capitulating to Iran. 
Even at the height of the Cold War, Reagan was willing to talk to 
Moscow. Until we are willing to engage with Iran, our friends in the 
Middle East, who fear Iranian dominance as much as we do, will not 
believe we are serious about confronting the Iranian threats.
  Last, and most appalling, is the desperation accusation that we are 
going to cut off funds for our troops. Simply not true.
  This attack is especially galling when it has been a Republican 
Congress and a Republican President who, for 4 years, left our troops 
vulnerable, without proper equipment, without proper armor, and in an 
effort to fight this war on the cheap.
  I will never vote to leave our troops without the support they need. 
But neither will I vote to continue down a path that is putting them at 
needless risk.
  Vote for this bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 6 minutes to my 
colleague from Alabama, who recognizes the danger of believing that we 
can negotiate with al Qaeda and bin Laden, Mr. Everett.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the 
Intelligence Committee, my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 63, 
the Democrats' nonbinding resolution that does nothing to improve the 
outcome of the war, but does much to hurt the war against terrorism.
  The resolution claims they support the troops. However, regardless of 
what the previous speaker said, they refuse to protect the money our 
troops must have while they are in harm's way.

                              {time}  1745

  If we wanted to have a meaningful debate on the real issues facing 
this country, we would take up Congressman Sam Johnson's bill that 
opposes any effort to cut off or restrict funding for our military.
  But that is not the debate we are having today. Instead, we are 
debating a nonbinding resolution that, in my mind, can only hurt our 
troops who are on the battlefield as we speak, and this resolution can 
only give comfort to those who wish to kill Americans.
  Making Iraq a secure place is difficult because of deep-seated 
religious and ethnic divisions. This is highlighted by the murderous 
acts of Saddam's dictatorship that killed so many thousands. In 
addition, al Qaeda and local terrorists along with hostile foreign 
governments, including Iran, have both encouraged and funded the 
current violence in the hopes that Iraq will not follow the path to 
democracy. They must not be allowed to succeed.
  Any American lives lost in the defense of our Nation is one too many. 
Yet we must not turn from our task of defeating terrorism before the 
job is done. President Bush is the Commander in Chief and intends to 
reinforce American troop strength by 21,000 soldiers to help Iraq's new 
government finally control violence and restore order. While I believe 
the decision to increase troop strength in Iraq could have been made 
much sooner and in greater numbers, it today presents the only viable 
option to bringing order to the country and laying the foundation for 
Iraqi Government control of that nation's security.
  Iraq's government is taking new steps to control the violence from 
all ethnic groups and made it clear that

[[Page H1524]]

our abandoning them at this stage would guarantee failure for democracy 
in Iraq. And it would ensure a tremendous setback in America's battle 
to deny terrorism a foothold and give them more chances to continue to 
kill Americans. Pulling back now with no viable plan to stabilize Iraq 
would be a disastrous action. This sentiment was expressed in the most 
recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the NIE is the intelligence community's 
most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and is 
designed to help us develop policies to protect U.S. national security 
interests. Specifically, this report states: ``Coalition capabilities, 
including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential 
stabilizing element in Iraq.'' In addition, it goes on to say: ``If 
coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this 
estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a 
significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in 
Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have 
adverse consequences for national reconciliation.''
  While America must not be in Iraq indefinitely, we should not leave 
without ensuring that the terrorists that are there are put down. To do 
otherwise would be terribly shortsighted and would ultimately embolden 
our terrorist enemies who have made no secret of their desire to 
continue to kill Americans.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Intelligence 
Committee, I have monitored the developments in the war on terrorism, 
including those in Iraq. I met with President Bush in the White House 
to discuss the military mission in Iraq shortly after he outlined his 
strategy for Iraq in early January. We explored what would happen in 
Iraq, the Middle East, and America if we withdrew from the fight before 
Iraq's democratic government is strong enough to maintain the peace. 
Our conclusion was that Iraq would become a sanctuary for terrorists 
and a base from which they could launch future attacks against 
Americans.
  Some Members have tried to claim that the war in Iraq has nothing to 
do with the war on terrorism. That is the only way they can justify 
this nonbinding resolution, and that is pure nonsense.
  We have the greatest military on the face of the Earth, one that no 
other military dare stand before lest they be destroyed. The only thing 
that can defeat us is the lack of will. And may God help us if we lose 
the will to defend this great Nation against terrorism.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, Hilda Solis, member of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
and Vice Chair of the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 63.
  I am a strong supporter of our service men and women and strongly 
committed to finding a reasonable and responsible resolution which 
includes a redeployment of our troops. However, a responsible 
resolution does not include the deployment of more of our brave service 
men and women to Iraq. Sixty-six percent of Americans oppose the 
President's escalation plan to send additional troops to Iraq. They 
believe, as I do, without a new policy to secure the peace and 
stabilize Iraq, further escalation will do nothing but unnecessarily 
risk the lives of more U.S. service men and women.
  There are currently 135,000 U.S. troops courageously serving in Iraq. 
At the direction of our government, they left their fathers, mothers, 
brothers, children, and wives. This war is having, as you know, a 
significant impact on their families and our communities.
  In the district that I represent, the 32nd Congressional District of 
California, we have lost 13 sons to combat. Note the photograph that I 
have here on display. This includes Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez 
from the city of Duarte in the San Gabriel Valley, who bravely served 
our country despite not even being a U.S. citizen. I was able to meet 
his parents. They were very humble individuals who spoke only Spanish 
and proudly stated that their son served their country with honor. It 
breaks my heart to think that this was only one servicemember, only one 
of the more than 3,000 families that have been through this since the 
war started almost 4 years ago.
  The past 3 months, as you know, have been the deadliest months in the 
war in over 2 years. While Latinos make up 12 percent of the U.S. 
population, they make up 17 percent of the service men and women in 
combat in Iraq, and 11 percent of those have already been killed. U.S. 
casualties are now more than 3,100 and more than 23,400 service men and 
women have been wounded in action, and nearly half of those wounded 
will not be able to lead a normal life because of severe injuries, 
permanent disabilities, and post-traumatic stress syndrome. Yet many of 
these service men and women will return to Iraq for a second, third, 
and maybe even a fourth tour.
  The President's proposal to escalate ignores the real needs of our 
troops and the grave reality of this situation. Three times in the past 
2 years the number of U.S. troop levels have increased in Iraq. Three 
times this approach has failed. And during Operation Together Forward, 
additional troops were sent into Baghdad because of an increase in 
sectarian violence. U.S. military spokesman General William Caldwell 
stated that the increase was a failure and had ``not met our overall 
expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.'' 
Even the commander of the U.S. Central Command in Iraq has testified 
that top military commanders in Iraq do not believe that increasing the 
number of troops is the right approach. He stated, ``I do not believe 
that more American troops right now is the solution to this problem. I 
believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are.''
  Increasing the number of U.S. troops is not a solution. The increase 
does nothing to improve long-term security and end sectarian violence. 
Our country needs a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq and one that 
constructively engages in diplomacy and partners with our neighboring 
countries and the region to create a stable and peaceful nation, not a 
blank check to send more men and women into harm's way. We need a 
policy and a plan to put the welfare of our service men and women first 
so they can come home, rejoin their families, and receive the care they 
deserve. They should include adequate services for returning service 
men and women, including culturally competent care, mental health care 
for veterans, housing and education.
  We need a plan to ensure that U.S. tax dollars are not going to war 
profiteering and fraud, such as the $1.4 billion that has been somehow 
charged by Halliburton. I strongly believe that this is possible, but 
it will require courage, cooperation, and leadership on the part of all 
my colleagues. Let me say to my colleagues that I support our troops 
and the war on terror. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is not the war on 
terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to support and protect our sons and 
daughters who are serving, as these young people have served us so 
well. I will do so by voting for this resolution and by supporting 
their redeployment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 5 minutes to my 
colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the co-Chairs of the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary 
of State James Baker and former House Foreign Affairs Chairman Lee 
Hamilton, wrote late last year: ``There is no magic formula to solve 
the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to 
improve the situation and protect American interests.
  ``Many Americans are dissatisfied,'' they go on to say, ``not just 
with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate 
regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach 
to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly 
war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric 
and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President 
and Congress,'' Baker and Hamilton go on to say, ``must work 
together.''
  ``The President and Congress must work together.'' ``Our country 
deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric.'' Good advice, 
especially when we are in the middle of a war to

[[Page H1525]]

help a suffering people living in a tortured land striving to 
matriculate from dictatorship to democracy.
  Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I too have serious questions about 
this war, especially its cost in human life. I too am impatient and 
want our men and women brought safely home as quickly as possible.
  But with so many Americans and Iraqis and coalition forces at risk, 
it is important to ask what message a nonbinding surge disapproval 
resolution with no force of law might have on a troop surge already 
under way and what message do we send to our troops, our allies, and 
our enemies. Will it demoralize even a little, maybe a lot, those brave 
Americans who have put their lives on the line so that others may be 
free? Will it undermine the resolve, commitment, and solidarity of 
those nations that have stood with us against the hate and murder of 
the extremists? And how will our enemies regard passage of this 
resolution? With celebration? Will they step up their already far too 
robust campaign of terrorism, murder, and suicide bombing?
  If the Democratic leadership wants to stop the surge or the war 
itself, bring a measure to the floor to defund it. The debate on 
defunding the war and, most certainly, the vote would have predictable 
clear-cut consequences. The President can't spend money on a war he 
doesn't first get from Congress. But by offering what is essentially a 
sense of the House resolution, the weakest, least effective way of 
driving home a point because it compels nothing, I am concerned that 
the House this week may, unwittingly, significantly hurt the morale of 
our warfighters while empowering the hate mongers. Surely no one in 
this Chamber wants that.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green), member of the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee and Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Health.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
allowing me to speak.
  I rise today in support of this resolution. The President's 
escalation, or surge, as he calls it, is not a strategy that will quell 
the violence in Iraq.
  We have heard for too long that change in Iraq is just around the 
corner, and we continue to spend billions of dollars and have taken 
thousands of U.S. casualties.
  I supported our goals to bring democracy to Iraq, voted for the Iraq 
resolution, and voted for the billions of dollars to support that 
effort. And I will not vote to cut funding for our troops while they 
are in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1800

  They are doing their best with a very flawed plan, and that doesn't 
come from just Gene Green saying it. I heard it less than a year after 
we went there, from e-mails that parents forwarded me.
  Our goals were great in Iraq. The plan was not. The administration's 
plan has not worked since the first year. It is time we send a strong 
message to the President that we no longer support the administration's 
strategy.
  President Bush addressed the Nation on January 10 of this year to 
announce his plans to send an additional 21,500 soldiers and marines to 
Iraq. This move ignores advice from the military and has been tried 
before without success.
  General John Abizaid, former commander of the Central Command, 
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 15, 
2006, that he and General George Casey, the Corps Commander, and 
Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey all agreed that more troops were not 
needed. The White House is continuing with the same flawed strategy to 
pacify the country that has not worked, and adding another 20,000 
troops will not make it work.
  March 19 of this year will mark 4 years since we went into Iraq. May 
1 will mark 4 years since the President declared ``mission 
accomplished.'' But we turn on the news today and still see headlines, 
``Car Bombers Kill 60 in Baghdad,'' ``Four More American Soldiers 
Killed in Gunfight With Militia.''
  We have made great strides in Iraq, but we are now trying to police a 
war between sectarian armies. Our troops have performed all that has 
been asked of them, and according to the National Security Council's 
analysis, we have achieved many of our initial objectives: removing 
Saddam Hussein from power, assisting Iraq with a constitution and free 
elections, and helping establish democratic institutions.
  It is time for the Iraqis to take control of their own country and 
that we begin bringing our troops home. This is in the best interests 
of our military, the Iraqis and our national security.
  Our forces cannot indefinitely sustain the demands we currently are 
placing on them. Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace acknowledged last 
week when testifying before the House Armed Services Committee that 
nondeployed U.S. forces are not sufficiently equipped, echoing similar 
concerns expressed recently by Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker and 
Lieutenant General Steven Blum, chief of the Pentagon's National Guard 
Bureau.
  The Guard, nationwide, is only equipped to about 30 percent of their 
needs. Units are taking equipment with them into theatre and being 
forced to leave much of it for other units to use when they come home. 
It will cost about $25 billion to reequip the National Guard and 
Reserves to pre-Iraqi war levels.
  We cannot continue to send troops to Iraq for 12-month deployments 
every other year and expect to maintain a well-equipped and experienced 
fighting force with high morale.
  This resolution expresses the beliefs of many Members of this House 
that sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq is not in our Nation's 
interests and not a solution for the violence in Iraq. The solution is 
for the Iraqi Government, the elected government, to do what they need 
to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Intelligence Committee
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 
be modified at page 1, line 6, after the word ``Iraq'' to include 
``personnel from the United States Intelligence Community who are 
serving or who have served bravely and honorably worldwide to counter 
radical jihadists.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). The previous question has been 
ordered without amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, does that mean that unanimous consent cannot 
be offered?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question has been ordered, to 
adoption of the concurrent resolution without intervening motion.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, further point of inquiry. My understanding 
is that a unanimous consent request is always in order separate from 
the rule. Is that not correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not correct. Under the present 
circumstances the Chair is constrained not to entertain an amendment to 
the resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, that makes it very clear that in fact even if there is 
no objection to including the brave men and women who operate, often 
without weapons, who operate behind enemy lines, who in fact are part 
of our Intelligence Community, they cannot be included in this 
resolution. It is a sad day when democracy does not even include that 
which there is no objection to from being considered.
  Notwithstanding that, Madam Speaker, I think it is extremely 
important that we deal with the limited strict language we have been 
offered, and, in the spirit of that strict language, I must oppose it. 
I must oppose it because in fact on a strict basis this resolution, if 
heeded by the administration, says stay a failed course of action.
  Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the election very clearly told us 
in November that the American people were not comfortable with the 
conduct of this war; that in fact on both sides of the aisle, people 
were calling for a bolder vision, a vision that was more aggressive 
diplomatically and militarily. In fact, two Presidential candidates, 
Senator Hillary Clinton and,

[[Page H1526]]

in fact, Senator McCain, are and have been saying we should have had 
more troops early, we should have more troops now. It is amazing that 
in fact the one thing this resolution is saying is stay the course, 
make no changes.
  Further, regardless of what my Democrat colleagues would say today, 
the next step after ``Mr. President, we will not send more troops,'' 
is, ``Mr. President, we will not send more tanks; Mr. President, we 
will not send further personnel and intellectual gatherers to 
understand our enemy; Mr. President, we won't send more translators; 
Mr. President, we cannot and will not support more body armor; Mr. 
President, we will not support this war on terror throughout the 
region.''
  Those are the next steps, because you can't simply say, as this 
resolution tries to, stay the course. Do nothing. No increases, no 
decreases. Support the troops, but send them no more.
  That makes as much sense as telling the people at the Alamo, stay the 
course. That wasn't the right solution at the Alamo. At the Alamo they 
should have either increased their forces so that they could have 
sustained the bombardment, or withdrawn.
  We, in fact, are in a position where the President has made a 
multitude of new initiatives, one of which includes additional troops 
to help relieve those tired troops, to help bring the force level up to 
a level similar to exactly what Presidential candidates on both sides 
of the aisle were clamoring for just a few weeks ago and throughout the 
election.
  Madam Speaker, one of the other things that just amazes me, today I 
took a little time and I checked out how many Members of Congress 
served in the military. It turns out it is less than one-third. I 
checked out how many Members went to Iraq in the previous Congress. It 
turns out less than one-third.
  The fact is that we are considering a resolution as though we were 
General Petraeus, a man who was unanimously confirmed in the Senate 
just a few days ago, and deployed to support and defend our troops and 
this effort, who is solidly convinced that we have to do more and do it 
better and who is there to do it and was unanimously confirmed.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, only here, with less than one-third of the 
Members having gone and seen what is going on in Iraq, less than one-
third having served in the military, even at a minor level of 
lieutenant or captain or private, have the hubris to say that we have 
to not add, not subtract, just keep the exact same number that we and 
the American people believe is not getting the job done. That is 
exactly what this resolution is claiming to do. We are not given an 
alternative in any way, shape or form.
  So, Madam Speaker, there is no choice on either side of the aisle. 
Whether you believe we should have more or we should have less, nobody 
believes that we should stay the exact course with no change, and that 
is what this is asking for.
  So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to realize that 
in fact this resolution calls for the one thing that the American 
people most object to, and that is unchanged staying the course at this 
level. The American people called on us in November to do something 
bolder, to bring peace in the region, and I call on you to vote down 
this resolution just exactly to do that
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, this debate marks the beginning of the end of the ill-
conceived, mismanaged and ultimately failed war in Iraq. The war in 
Iraq was launched on the basis of false and misleading intelligence 
about a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. When the inspectors looked 
for nuclear weapons in all the most likely places, there was nothing 
there. When they looked in all the unlikely places, there was nothing 
there. When this was reported to the world, the world said ``don't 
invade.'' But when this was reported to the President of the United 
States, he chose to invade Iraq. In other words, the President did the 
opposite of what the evidence would dictate.
  Here we are, 4 years after the invasion. The American people looked 
at the facts on the ground in Iraq and voted in November to de-
escalate. The generals looked at the situation and said de-escalate. 
The Iraq Study Group analyzed our options and said we should de-
escalate.
  So what has the President of the United States decided? After all the 
evidence, he has chosen to escalate the war. Once again, our President 
is doing the opposite of what the evidence and common sense dictates.
  Our troops continue to fight heroically to prevent Iraq from sliding 
into anarchy, but they are losing ground to a deep emotional cycle of 
religious strife and revenge that goes back 14 centuries. Our soldiers 
cannot be beaten on the military battlefield, but neither should they 
be faulted for failing to drain a political swamp.
  The American people are now speaking out with one clear voice, in 
frustration and in anger, demanding change, demanding a new direction 
in Iraq. But the President isn't giving us a new direction. All he has 
to offer is more of the same, an escalation of our troop presence in 
Iraq. And this escalation ignores the recommendation of the bipartisan 
Iraq Study Group, which said that all combat brigades not necessary for 
force protection could be out of Iraq by the beginning of 2008.
  This week, we have a choice: We can say no to the President's failed 
war in Iraq, we can say no to the President's escalation, and we can 
say no to the unnecessary loss of another American soldier, marine or 
airman; or we can once again vote to stay the course and to continue on 
with this failed policy.
  Many Americans have expressed frustration that the resolution we vote 
on this week is a nonbinding resolution, and I understand that 
frustration. On January 9, Senator Kennedy and I introduced companion 
bills in the Senate and House to block President Bush's new plan to 
escalate troop levels in Iraq. Our legislation would prevent the 
obligation or expenditure of a single dollar to increase the number of 
troops in Iraq unless Congress affirmatively voted to do so.
  But I would not dismiss this resolution's importance simply because 
it is nonbinding. Twenty-four years ago, this House took up another 
nonbinding resolution when it first debated my nuclear freeze 
resolution. We passed the nuclear freeze on the floor of the House. It 
was nonbinding and it never passed the Senate. But it nevertheless 
changed the course of this Nation's nuclear weapons policy. It did so 
because of the pressure it put on the White House to change, and it was 
followed by binding legislation that halted tests of anti-satellite 
weapons, cut funding for Star Wars and cut in half the plan size of the 
MX missile force.
  That is why I fully understand why some Republican Members have 
simultaneously denounced this resolution as silly and unserious, and, 
at the same time, have tried to prevent its passage. Why are they 
afraid of a nonbinding resolution? Because this resolution exposes the 
lack of support in the Congress for the President's escalation scheme.
  The administration's failed strategy has already ended any chance of 
a successful short-term outcome. The just-released, deeply pessimistic 
National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq simply confirms this situation.
  We are in the middle of a sectarian religious civil war in Iraq, and 
the presence of our troops is preventing the Iraqi people from taking 
responsibility for their own security and for their own political 
solution that must follow.
  This war should never have been fought, period. It was a mistake, the 
American people know it was a mistake, our military leaders know it was 
a mistake and a bipartisan majority in the United States Congress know 
it was a mistake.

                              {time}  1815

  Let's pass this resolution and send a strong signal to the Bush 
administration that it is time to stop the escalation, bring this war 
to an end, and bring our troops home. I urge adoption of this 
resolution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). Please state your parliamentary 
inquiry.

[[Page H1527]]

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Does this resolution include any provisions expressing 
support for the members of the United States intelligence community 
serving inside of Iraq?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the pending 
measure.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. When would it be appropriate to ask for unanimous 
consent to correct this oversight in this resolution that only 
addresses support for our armed services, but as the ranking member of 
the Intelligence Committee, I feel that it does a great injustice to 
the hundreds of people in the intelligence community who are not 
recognized for their service in Iraq?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would look to the majority manager 
of the concurrent resolution for any proposal to alter it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Would it be appropriate at any time during the debate 
on this resolution to ask for unanimous consent to modify this 
resolution to address the significant oversight in the underlying 
resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would only entertain such a 
request at the instance of the majority manager of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Chair
  With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from the 
State of Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be a member of the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our chairman, Mr. Lantos, has 
scheduled for March a hearing to discuss the different proposals 
relating to the handling of the war in Iraq. He has promised a lot of 
time for debate on all the different bills introduced in the House of 
Representatives, ranging from those that call for us to pull out of 
Iraq immediately, to those that demonstrate our presence there as part 
of a larger war, not against a nation, but against a movement, Islamic 
jihadis. They are everywhere and are responsible for attacks in India, 
Jordan, Israel, England, Egypt, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, 
Spain, Turkey, the Gaza, Morocco, Pakistan and in the United States and 
Iraq.
  Chairman Lantos wants to make sure that all sides are heard, that all 
possible alternatives are given an airing. But that is what is missing 
in the bill that the Democratic majority has given us this evening: it 
can't be amended. Can you imagine three days of debate without the 
opportunity to amend a bill? That implies the Democratic leadership 
believes they have a monopoly on truth and fear input from other 
Members of Congress.
  The bill we are debating today condemns the infusion of up to 21,000 
more troops in Iraq. However, at a time when we should be excited about 
a new proposal calling for a major shift in our policy on Iraq, the 
bill we are debating condemns it. This proposal taps as its new leader 
Lieutenant General David Patraeus, who should be given an opportunity 
to succeed. Confirmed unanimously by the Senate, he has extensive 
knowledge of other wars and military conflicts and has resolved that 
America can achieve a favorable result in Iraq.
  The new policy is a shift in the rules of engagement and calls upon 
the Iraqis themselves to step up in responsibility and achievement. A 
Washington Post story dated January 12 of this year with the byline, 
``Withdrawals could start if Iraq plan works: Gates,'' repeats the 
words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testifying before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee on January 11, Gates said: ``If these 
operations actually work, you can begin to see a lessening of the U.S. 
footprint both in Baghdad and Iraq itself. Then you could have a 
situation later this year where you could actually begin withdrawing.''
  Isn't that what Americans want, a plan of action with a new focus, 
stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home? But that plan is not 
being debated today, and that is why I am going to vote against this 
resolution.
  We live in extremely dangerous times. We know Iran is developing 
atomic weaponry. We also know that six other Arab nations are actively 
seeking atomic technology, according to the International Atomic Energy 
Agency. The stakes are onerous. That is why America's men and women in 
uniform not only deserve our support in the field, but also here in the 
House of Representatives, by allowing their opinions to be voiced 
through their Members of Congress. It is the least we can do for them.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California, Maxine Waters, Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise as Chair of the 76-member Out of 
Iraq Caucus, and I will be followed by many other members during this 
hour. I rise in support of our troops and in support of this resolution 
opposing the President's escalation of this war.
  Madam Speaker, I support this resolution, hoping this will be a first 
step in ending this war and reuniting our troops with their families 
and loved ones. This is an unbinding resolution. The real test for this 
Congress is going to be whether or not we will continue to fund this 
war.
  For nearly 4 years, our troops have served bravely and admirably in 
Iraq. Unfortunately, the President and his administration have decided 
to pursue a political agenda when it decided to push for an invasion of 
Iraq. The President ignored the advice of dozens of experts inside and 
outside the government about invading Iraq. For example, the 
administration ignored the intelligence community's opinions about the 
status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The 
administration also ignored recommendations about the number of troops 
needed to secure Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein. In 
addition, the President and the administration ignored warnings about 
the difficulty and danger of occupying Iraq and that Iraq would likely 
break down into sectarian violence.
  In short, the administration ignored everything that conflicted with 
its plan to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, no one has borne the burdens of 
the administration's Iraq narrow agenda more than our troops and their 
families. The decision to escalate the war, to send more than 21,000 
additional troops to Iraq, will only increase the burden on our troops. 
Many of the troops serving in Iraq have served two, three, even four 
tours of duty. And of course the failed Iraq policy has resulted in the 
death of 3,109 U.S. troops, including 325 from my own State of 
California, and injury of more than 23,000 others.
  Madam Speaker, many experts believe that the President's latest plan 
will not work, and early indications support that conclusion. About 
5,000 troops have arrived in Baghdad since the President announced the 
plan in January, yet the violence and devastation in Iraq is 
increasing. It is estimated that more than 2,276 Iraqi civilians have 
died so far this year and that more than 1,000 Iraqi security forces 
and 33 U.S. servicemen have died in just the past week. We are sending 
thousands more troops to Iraq in what is now known to be a civil war. 
Sending more troops to Iraq is not the answer. The key to stabilization 
is bringing our troops home and renewing our commitment to diplomacy.
  This resolution is the first step in reining in this President and 
his misguided policies. However, as many have noted, this is, again, an 
unbinding resolution. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
the war, spending bills that will be considered in the coming months to 
enact meaningful changes to this failed policy and to finally bring our 
troops home. The future of the entire Middle East is at stake.
  The President does not appear to understand or appreciate the 
situation in Iraq is deteriorating each day. We are losing; however, we 
can win. And we will win by using leadership to engage and unite rather 
than attempting to overpower and conquer. Who are we fighting? The 
Sunnis, the Kurds, the Shias? Who are the insurgents? Some Sunnis, some 
Shias, some Kurds? Who are the terrorists? Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, 
Syrians, Iranians? Who are we fighting? I don't think our soldiers 
know, and I am not so sure this administration has really given the 
kind of deep thought and consideration as to who we are really 
fighting.

[[Page H1528]]

  Diplomacy is the only answer. Today, we must oppose this escalation. 
However, I have no choice but in the final analysis to oppose continued 
funding of the American taxpayers' dollars to the war giant whose 
appetite cannot be satisfied, but in the interest of peace, must be 
denied.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I think we need to ask 
ourselves several questions: Does this resolution make America safer? 
Does this resolution send a message to our allies that draws them 
closer to us? Does this resolution encourage our troops, or does it 
discourage our troops?
  We heard about de-escalation and when that might be appropriate, when 
it may not be. But I can tell you that this resolution does not 
accomplish de-escalation. In fact, it does not even support the troops 
on their way as we speak. It only supports the troops who have served 
or are currently serving.
  Madam Speaker, in my conversations with constituents, with soldiers, 
with those closest to the situation, they see hope, they see hope in a 
change of strategy. We know that the status quo is not what we need to 
do, and that is why a change in strategy is certainly in order.
  I don't pretend to be General Patraeus, and I hope that none of us 
pretend to know more about the situation than General Patraeus.
  I am concerned when we hear that this resolution is the first step 
for cutting funding. Why don't we just put that resolution up right 
now? We can save a lot of time; we can send a more direct message. Is 
that the appropriate thing to do? I hope that you will join me in 
voting ``no'' on this resolution because I support our troops and their 
mission.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Jose 
Serrano, member of the House Appropriations Committee.
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. This is, indeed, a very solemn occasion; and anyone 
watching this debate, either on television or in the gallery, should 
understand that we take very seriously what we say here today. We may 
disagree on what the final outcome should be, but we do take it very 
seriously.
  And I take it seriously as I recall a funeral I attended, it seems a 
long time ago, for a member of the Armed Forces, Luis Moreno, who was 
killed in Iraq. I remember that rainy morning, leaving the church on 
the way to the cemetery, the pain and the sadness that took place in 
the whole community, the pain and the sadness that engulfed a family 
and everyone who was there.
  We took seriously the loss of that life, and we honor every day the 
fact that he was sent to that battlefield and he gave his life for that 
particular cause, which we discuss today.
  We are here in his honor to say that we have to make sure that we no 
longer continue to escalate this war which was presented to us, it 
seems again, a long time ago based on, at the minimum, false 
information, and at most, sadly, lies presented to this Congress.

                              {time}  1830

  We have to make sure that no further loss of life takes place. So 
much has been said today about supporting our troops. Well, I know of 
no greater support than to bring them home tomorrow morning.
  I know a lot of people will say, if you bring them home, Iraq will 
become a mess. Well, has anyone noticed that Iraq is a mess?
  Well, if you bring them home now, Iraq will become a country in a 
civil war. Has anyone noticed that Iraq is involved in a civil war?
  The question is, will we wait for more Americans to lose their lives 
and more to be wounded?
  When I say that we were given bad information or possibly lied to, we 
were told at that time, I remember, how the weapons of mass destruction 
were stored in Iraq and that we had to get them before they got us, and 
how there was a link between al Qaeda and September 11 and Saddam 
Hussein. And now, even the administration and its ardent supporters 
agree that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11, 
there was no link between al Qaeda, there was no link between any of 
that that we were told; and we still haven't found the weapons of mass 
destruction. It was simply a desire to take us to where we shouldn't 
be. And in the process, we really blew it.
  I was in New York City on September 11; I was not with my colleagues 
here. It was election day in New York, primary day, and I was there in 
New York on that day for some local elections. I lived through that 
moment, and I know how painful that was. But beginning with September 
12, the world was with us. Every country was supportive of what we were 
going through. It always amazed me that countries that live with 
terrorism on a daily basis thought that, for some reason, the attack on 
us was in many ways even bigger than the attacks on their own country, 
and they supported us. We could have taken that goodwill and used it 
for positive things throughout the world. What did we do? We totally 
lost the goodwill by going and invading a country that had nothing to 
do with September 11. And so now, the same people who supported us no 
longer support us.
  What we are doing here today is exerting a constitutional right. This 
is not a political exercise, this is not a legislative exercise, this 
is Members of Congress saying that it is our right to oversee the 
President and to stop him whenever we can when we know that any 
President, any administration is making a mistake.
  Now, how has this administration been able to keep us supportive in 
some ways up to now? By doing something which is really sad, by 
questioning our patriotism. And so tonight and tomorrow and for the 
next couple of days more will question our patriotism. But I ask you, 
isn't a true patriot he or she who is not holding back to question the 
actions of his country even during wartime? Isn't that the true patriot 
who is willing to say, even during wartime, stop it now, stop the 
madness before it goes any further and before we lose more of our young 
people?
  And so we gather here after 3,109 losses, after 23,000 wounded 
soldiers saying we have to stop it now, and we have to vote for this 
resolution.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this point in time, I would like to yield 5\1/2\ 
minutes to a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also a member 
of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, when I left home this week for 
Washington, my 6-year-old Kathryn became very sad. See, she has big, 
beautiful brown eyes and they welled up with tears at the prospect of 
my leaving again for Washington. And she said to me, Daddy, why do you 
have to be a Congressman? And I thought of the words of the 
Revolutionary War author Thomas Paine when he said, ``I prefer peace; 
but if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children 
can have peace.''
  Madam Speaker, this is a pivotal moment for our Nation and a very 
grave, solemn policy debate. We cannot afford to allow the ups and 
downs of the daily news cycle set the course for our deliberations. The 
stakes in Iraq are simply too high.
  During last year's debate on Iraq, I emphasized that this war is 
different from wars of the past. There is no front, no lines of 
demarcation, no clear enemy in distinct uniforms. This is a war that 
invades tranquil time and space without warning, carried out by those 
who hide among populations seeking to exploit the vulnerable for 
ruthless, ideological purposes.
  We have never before waged a war in an era of globalization, in an 
age when technology eviscerates the concept of distance, magnifies our 
losses, trivializes our accomplishments, and places our adversaries in 
a far better position to leverage our freedoms, particularly the 
freedom of speech, against us. These are the complexities we face now.
  Madam Speaker, I submit that our choices now stand to determine not 
only the future of the Middle East but the very future of civilization. 
We can point fingers and blame each other, or we can think 
constructively together.
  So what are our choices? The National Intelligence Estimate 
categorically rejects an arbitrary or precipitous U.S. troop 
withdrawal. The result

[[Page H1529]]

would be horrific chaos, a humanitarian disaster, destabilizing the 
entire Middle East, emboldening the geopolitical aims of Iran, and 
leading to a much less peaceful world in very short order.
  The conflict in Iraq is dangerous, risky, and complex. And we can all 
agree that our troops are doing an outstanding job, and so are their 
families who bear the biggest burden in their absence.
  I submit that our time and energy as leaders of this Nation should be 
focused on new, clear military and geopolitical strategies.
  First, Iraqis must fight for their own country now. They must lead in 
the battle for Baghdad now.
  Over the past several months I joined colleagues in urging the 
President to deploy trained Iraqi troops into the heart of the battle 
for Baghdad, and I am pleased to see that this recommendation is now 
under way. However, I remain concerned about exposing our forces to 
unnecessary danger in the sectarian violence of Baghdad. As best we 
can, our troops should remain in support and training roles. I also 
believe that it is prudent to send reinforcements to our marines in 
Anbar province who are achieving good success against al Qaeda elements 
in collaboration with Sunni tribal leadership.
  Second, we must engage responsible members of the international 
community, particularly the pan-Arab world, to assume a unified and 
decisive role in neutralizing the forces of chaos and helping secure 
stability and peace throughout the Middle East.
  Third, we must provide meaningful congressional oversight. And I 
commend Chairman Lantos for taking this lead in the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee and for his commitment to a substantive and reasoned 
debate in this regard.
  I would have liked to have had the opportunity to support a 
constructive bipartisan initiative drawing upon the substantive 
resources like the Iraqi Study Group to enhance congressional oversight 
and set out meaningful benchmarks to measure progress toward the 
stabilization of Iraq and the drawdown of our troops.
  While it would be politically easier for me to vote for this 
resolution, I cannot. I see no useful purpose in supporting a 
nonbinding resolution that may have the unintentional consequence of 
undermining our efforts while our troops remain in harm's way.
  Madam Speaker, this resolution, while wrapped in the mantle of 
supporting our troops, does not point to a credible way forward in 
Iraq. I believe I would make the same decision if a Democratic 
administration were struggling with similarly arduous challenges. If we 
flinch now, regardless of the goodwill behind our motivations, if we 
are perceived as weak and divided and eager to throw up our hands in 
frustration, we will pay a heavy price. And every nation that counts 
upon us as a friend and ally will also pay a very heavy price. None of 
us wants to see the repeat of the last helicopter out of Saigon.
  I urge my colleagues, let's find constructive ways to get the job 
done
  Mr. SKELTON. May I make an inquiry, Madam Speaker, of how much time 
has been consumed and how much time remains on each side, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 2 hours, 28 
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 hours, 15\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The great Chinese strategist and thinker once wrote that war should 
not be begun unless the end is in sight. Sadly, that admonition of Sun 
Tzu was not adhered to in this war in Iraq.
  Let me bring us back to what we are all about today. We have been 
hearing discussions ranging from both ends of the football field. This 
is a very simple, straightforward resolution.
  The first part of it is: We fully support the American troops. And I 
am going to say, Madam Speaker, we are so proud of them. They are 
volunteers, they are professionals, they understand the word duty.
  And, secondly: We do not agree with the troop increase of 21,500, for 
the simple reason it has not worked in the past, for the simple reason 
it is going to cause somewhere between 2,500 and 13,000 support troops 
to support that effort. And, consequently, it is not a well-thought-out 
tactic. And despite the fact that some wish to call it a strategy, it 
is a tactic, and there is a large difference between the two.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the Budget Committee, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution supporting 
our troops and disapproving the President's plan to escalate the war in 
Iraq.
  More than 4 years ago, the resolution to support a war in Iraq came 
before this House. After careful consideration of the evidence and 
arguments put forth for a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq, I 
decided I could not in good conscience vote for that resolution.
  My ``no'' vote against the President's plan for war in Iraq is one of 
my proudest moments in Congress. I didn't believe the case where war 
had been made. There was no real evidence of weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq. The administration's arguments about al Qaeda 
connections with Iraq were specious, and its attempt to link Iraq with 
the tragedy of 9/11 was shameful.
  I was deeply concerned about the effects of preemptive war on 
America's standing in the world, and equally worried about the 
ramifications for the greater Middle East, a region of great importance 
and even greater fragility. And I had strong concerns about the 
administration's preparation for the aftermath of a war in Iraq. The 
administration was completely focused on waging war and not on winning 
the peace.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, all of those concerns have been borne 
out. There were no WMDs, no al Qaeda connections, no 9/11 link. It was 
all trumped up evidence by an administration consumed with toppling the 
dictator in Iraq. Today, Iraq is in civil war, the Middle East is even 
more unsettled, and our standing in the world is at a low point. The 
international support given to America after 9/11 was squandered and 
will take years to repair the damage. And, as a Nation, we are even 
less secure today than we were the day we invaded Iraq. I point this 
out only because it is critically important to know where we have been 
if we want to know where we should be going.
  This resolution gives voice to the deep, deep opposition here in the 
Congress and throughout the country to the President's plan for 
escalating the war in Iraq.

                              {time}  1845

  I speak for the vast majority of my constituents on the central coast 
of California when I state my unequivocal opposition to this 
escalation. The administration's plan looks like more of the same 
failed policies that got us here in the first place. It is a plan based 
more on hope than on fact, buttressed by hysterical rhetoric. It is a 
plan opposed by numerous military leaders and experts. It is, quite 
frankly, simply not believable.
  The recent National Intelligence Estimate makes it perfectly clear 
that the President's grand plan is just never going to work. The 
resolution here before us puts Congress on record against the 
proposition that success will come only after more troops are thrown 
into battle.
  The other objective of this resolution is to remind everyone that 
opposing the war in Iraq, and especially opposing the President's 
escalation, is consistent with supporting our troops. Our men and women 
in uniform have done everything we have asked them to do and so much 
more. Over 3,000 have made the ultimate sacrifice. More than 20,000 
others have been injured, so very many of them seriously.
  Let no one doubt the bravery of our troops and the support that I and 
my colleagues who are opposed to this war have for them. I am eternally 
grateful for the sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their 
families are willing to make every single day. They continue the long 
distinguished line of soldiers, sailors and airmen that have kept our 
country and so many others free from tyranny and oppression, but their 
service is due more than heartfelt appreciation and flowery words from 
politicians.

[[Page H1530]]

  Their sacrifice, their service, is owed responsible leadership from 
those civilian leaders with whom power ultimately rests, and that is 
where our soldiers have been let down. This administration has taken 
arrogance, stubbornness and incompetence to new heights. It ignored the 
advice of military experts leading up to and throughout this war.
  It stocked reconstruction teams with political hacks, and it brushed 
off the indisputable reality of Iraq in a meltdown. It dismissed the 
considered opinion of the Iraq Study Group, the Congress, most 
importantly, the American people.
  Make no mistake, the failure of the war in Iraq lies at the highest 
levels of the White House and at the desks of the Pentagon's civilian 
leadership, and the cost of that failure is borne by our troops, their 
families and the Iraqi people. It is time for the administration to 
stop obfuscating the conditions on the ground in Iraq, stop the charade 
about so-called new plans that will finally bring success in Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the war in Iraq. Support the 
troops. Indeed, bring them home.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize 
my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today tens of thousands of our young men and women are 
serving in uniform heading for Iraq. More are headed there as we speak. 
They will do what American soldiers do. They will serve our Nation with 
courage and pride, and for that they deserve our deep gratitude.
  Today in the House we are engaging in a debate on a resolution that 
declares their military and humanitarian missions failed. I have seen 
this resolution described in the press as symbolic, toothless and 
meaningless. I couldn't disagree more. Our consideration of this 
resolution, the words spoken on this floor, carry great meaning and 
weight.
  The actions of this body have consequences. When Members speak, the 
world listens: our friends, our allies, our rivals, our enemies and 
future enemies alike. What are they hearing?
  I remember just 2 weeks ago, during the Super Bowl, seeing the video 
of our troops in Baghdad watching the game. Our soldiers watched that 
game. Every Member on this floor should know with certainty that our 
soldiers surely are watching this debate, and so are their families, 
and so are our enemies and so are the loved ones of those who made the 
ultimate sacrifice in their service to our Nation.
  Instead of showcasing the best partisan rhetoric and working for 
political advantage, we should be working together with our Commander 
in Chief to honor their service and commitment, to find a way forward 
in Iraq that protects our Nation and results in a stable Iraq that can 
govern and protect itself.
  I know that none of us are happy with the progress of the war. I know 
that the American people are struggling with this war. I struggle too. 
I am reminded that we have been sent here by our constituents to 
exercise our best judgment and to bring our experience to bear on the 
most pressing issue facing our Nation, the global threat of a radical 
Islamic fundamentalism.
  Last week in the House Appropriations Committee on Defense, on which 
I serve, I asked the chiefs of staff of the Army about the consequences 
of failure in Iraq. I was reprimanded for getting off topic. But that 
is the topic. That is the point. Withdrawal from Iraq will have 
consequences, both immediate and in the seeds of future conflicts.
  What will Congress do if we leave Iraq to flounder and descend into 
chaos, and how will we handle the next challenge laid before us, for 
there will be others. Do any of us doubt the determination of forces 
who are counting on our failure, on our resolve? This is the most 
fundamental question that confronts us, not solely the question of 
troop reinforcement that is already under way. Our answer to this 
question will be the legacy, not just of this President, but of all of 
us in this Chamber.
  Over 35 years ago I served with the Army in Vietnam. While I never 
much advertised this fact, I was proud to serve, even as my father, 
then a Member of Congress himself, was subject to many personal attacks 
on the home front from those who opposed the Vietnam War.
  Like many soldiers then, I wanted to do my time and come back safely. 
I promised myself one day that if I had the chance, I would be a better 
person, a better elected official, for that military experience. I 
promised myself that I would never let our soldiers down wherever they 
might be.
  Madam Speaker, we are Americans first, and as Republicans and 
Democrats, we need to come together to work on solutions in Iraq and 
the Middle East. We are a Nation at war, lives are on the line, and we 
could do much better than this resolution.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Northern Virginia, a member of the Appropriations Committee, 
Congressman Jim Moran
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would like to paraphrase a 
poem that Rudyard Kipling wrote upon the death of his son in World War 
I that seems particularly apt to the war in Iraq:
  When they ask why the young men died
  Tell them it's because the old men lied.
  Madam Speaker, when the White House announced 4 years ago the U.S. 
military would attack Iraq under the guise of the global war on 
terrorism, there wasn't one single uniformed military officer who 
believed that Iraq was part of a global war on terrorism. Saddam had 
had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.
  Saddam wasn't harboring any al Qaeda cells that did attack us. In 
fact, they understood that starting a new war would distract us and 
limit us from accomplishing our immediate need to eliminate Osama bin 
Laden. Saddam was a vicious, secular, despotic dictator, but he saw al 
Qaeda as a threat to his control, and al Qaeda viewed Saddam as an 
enemy of their religious extremist world vision.
  The U.S. Intelligence Community knew that there was no clear evidence 
that Saddam was a threat to the United States. There was no failure of 
our professional Intelligence Community, but there was an abysmal 
failure of our political leadership.
  So how did we get to this point? First we were scared with the threat 
of Saddam's arsenals or weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda training 
camps, an Iraqi meeting with the 9/11 hijacker, mobile labs, aluminum 
tubing, yellow cake uranium. But there were no weapons of mass 
destruction, Madam Speaker.
  The training camps didn't exist. Mohamed Atta never met an Iraqi 
agent in Prague. The White House knew, before they informed us about 
the mobile labs, that our experts had determined that they were not in 
any way related to chemical or biological weapons. Likewise, the 
aluminum tubing was bogus information. Well before the so-called yellow 
cake uranium from Niger was cited as evidence at an attempt at nuclear 
armament, our Intelligence Community had informed the White House that 
it was a hoax.
  Yet we were told repeatedly by the President and the Vice President 
that Saddam was a threat to global stability, that there was a direct 
connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and September 11. We were told in 
the buildup to the war that our troops would be greeted by the Iraqis 
as liberators, being offered flowers in the streets. This was 
propaganda that the State Department warned the White House not to 
believe, but they nonetheless peddled it to the Congress and to the 
American people.
  We were told that to liberate Iraq was to spread freedom and 
democracy, to keep oil out of the hands of potential terrorist-
controlled states. We were told that the war would pay for itself with 
Iraqi oil revenues. Yet all we have done is to finance our enemies, the 
insurgents and Iranian Shiia interests.
  After Baghdad fell, we were told that America had prevailed, that the 
mission was accomplished, that the resistance was in its last throes, 
that more troops were not needed. As things went from bad to worse, we 
were told of turning point after turning point, the fall of Baghdad, 
the death of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a 
provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, 
an Iraqi Government, elections,

[[Page H1531]]

purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam, all excuses for 
triumphant rhetoric while the reality on the ground continued to 
worsen.
  We were told, as they stand up, we would stand down. We would stay 
the course. Now we are told that there is a new course, but it is in 
the same misguided direction. Falsehood after falsehood unravels each 
day, with the morning paper reporting even more deaths.
  Now the American people are being asked to put 20,000 more sons and 
daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives into the line of 
fire, and into the dead zone between the sectarian sides of a civil 
war. A message was sent to President Bush on November 7, 2006. This 
surge of more troops into Iraq defies the will of the American people.
  But this is a new Congress. We will no longer be cowed by leaders 
using 9/11 as a political ploy against sensible people who oppose the 
administration's failed Iraq policy. Today for the first time since the 
war began, Congress will go on record opposing the President's failed 
Iraq policy. Some will argue that it is a nonbinding resolution, that 
it will not have the impact of a law, that it will not stop a roadside 
bomb or bring a single soldier home to their family. But the President 
understands what this resolution means. It is the beginning of the end 
of this wrong war of choice
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from 
New York, a member of the Intelligence Committee, roughly 1 minute for 
every foot of snow that his community has recently received.
  Mr. McHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very roughly, you owe me a few.
  Madam Speaker, listening to this debate tonight, it becomes obvious 
that kind of like life itself, those of us in Congress have moments of 
high drama and great importance, and by any measure, the date this 
evening and tomorrow and the days that follow and, most importantly, 
the vote that will attend it, is just such a moment.
  I would observe, Madam Speaker, in the now nearly 231 years that this 
great Union has endured, this House has encountered few sessions 
demanding greater honesty, greater selflessness, and greater wisdom 
than that of occasions of war. And as I said, this is such a time.
  But this debate really does stand alone. It is unique over the more 
than two centuries and three decades of our history, because from my 
study at no time in this Nation's history has the Congress considered 
the matter before us this week. The question of shall we resolve, in a 
nonbinding resolution, that this House disagree with a mission, duly 
designated by the constitutional authority vested in the President, as 
Commander in Chief, in the conduct of the war, that this same Congress, 
in an earlier session has, in fact, expressly endorsed.
  I have listened today with great interest. I have enormous respect 
for all Members on both sides of the aisle. But I have heard about how 
wherever they are, many Members tonight will go to the well when they 
ultimately vote and try to send the President a message, try to signify 
to the administration that this war has not been conducted in the 
appropriate way. It has not achieved the objectives that we all felt 
were possible, in fact, absolutely necessary at its outset.

                              {time}  1900

  I would say, Madam Speaker, I understand that perspective; not only 
understand it, in many ways I strongly share that perspective. But I 
have to argue the fact of the matter is, for all of the good intentions 
we have here tonight, the negative aspect of such an action is going to 
far outweigh, far outweigh whatever good it might attempt to achieve.
  The reality is, if this message is heard at all at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, it is going to speak in whispers. Whispers. But in 
other lands, in other continents, in other cities, far, far away, when 
this resolution comes before us, and if it is passed, it is going to 
crash like thunder. In places like Ramadi and Basra, from Baghdad and 
beyond, friend and foe alike are going to hear something far different 
than what we intend.
  They are going to hear that through this vote we have abandoned the 
Iraqi people. They are going to hear that America has forsaken this 
struggle. They will hear that we disavow our military objective in 
Baghdad really before it has meaningfully begun, and most importantly 
in the shadows where our enemies lurk, in places like Tehran and 
Damascus, the message will fail where its authors intend, but it will 
succeed very, very mightily where they wish it would not.
  Madam Speaker, for all of the good intent embodied in this proposal, 
it will not bring a single soldier home sooner. This vote, no matter 
what the tally, no matter what this board shows as to green and red at 
the end of the day, will not shorten this conflict by a single month, 
not by a week, not by a day. It will not change the course of a single 
battle. It will not even alter a pebble that lies on the battlefields 
in which those struggles will be fought.
  It will, however, say to the insurgents, the Saddamists, the radical 
Islamic militants and their patrons that time is on their side. It will 
say that America has no stomach for this fight. And somewhere in a cave 
in Afghanistan, or in a hut on the Afghan-Pakistan border, Osama bin 
Laden is going to smile.
  His words of a failure of America will be that much closer to 
reality. As he has said: ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the 
seat of the caliphate rule.'' They keep reiterating that ``success in 
Baghdad will be success for the United States, failure in Iraq the 
failure of the U.S. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their 
wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist crusader tide 
against us.''
  Those are bad messages, Madam Speaker. But I would suggest 
respectfully to all of my colleagues for all the wrong messages this 
resolution will send to our enemies, nothing it contains will be more 
devastating than what it says to our troops, to our military, those 
brave men and women in uniform who answered the call to arms, issued 
not by some ephemeral entity, but by us, by this Congress.
  And how do we say through the resolution we are considering here 
today, we support your needs, but we reject your mission? We allow for 
your deployment but we shun the premise of your departure? And what do 
we say to the wife or husband? How do we respond to the father or the 
mother or the loved one of the next warrior lost in battle who asks, 
why did you oppose through that resolution the job they were sent to 
pursue but did absolutely nothing from preventing them from going from 
the outset?
  That is the tyranny, and I have to say it, Madam Speaker, that is the 
folly of the resolution before us for all its lack of practical result, 
for the fact that this resolution will do absolutely nothing. Never has 
this Congress in its history of war considered an action of such 
dramatic consequence.
  Now, it is said during the Civil War that the great Southern general, 
Robert E. Lee, was really tired, and I think we can all relate to this, 
of the criticism, the second-guessing that was directed at his 
leadership through the major newspapers of his time.
  And he observed, Apparently all my best generals had become 
journalists. Today, tonight, I think it can be fairly said of some, 
apparently all of our best generals have become Congressmen. My 
colleagues, we are not generals. The Constitution of this great Nation 
does not provide for 535 Commanders in Chief, yet that is the reality 
lost in the proposal that we are considering this night in this week.
  But I would suggest, instead of being diminished by that fact, 
instead of being lessened by what we are not, we need to be empowered 
by what we are. And I say to my colleagues tonight on both sides of the 
aisle, we indeed have a grave responsibility in this matter. But it 
does not lie in nonbinding resolutions that send wrong messages to our 
troops and absolutely wrong messages to our enemies. It rests in the 
authorities vested in us by the Constitution of this great land, the 
power to fund or not all matters of government, especially war.
  Like all of us here tonight, I want this war to conclude. I represent 
the 10th Mountain Division, the most deployed division in the United 
States Army. I was there 3 weeks ago. I know the pain. I know the 
suffering. And like all of you, I am frustrated by the path we have 
traveled to this point, and I am troubled by the course that apparently 
lies ahead.

[[Page H1532]]

  And we can, we must have, a different approach, one that especially 
places responsibility for success where it rightfully lies, and I have 
heard my colleagues tonight speak about that, with the Iraqi people. I 
propose an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that will 
just do that, require the Iraqis to step forward, to stand up, to stop 
the talking, and to begin to act.
  It will fully fund the needs of our troops and provide for us, the 
Congress, the rightful role and expedite an opportunity to review the 
Iraqis effort and to judge the progress of this new mission in Baghdad. 
These things have to be done. But this resolution, in my judgment, in 
my judgment, is what must decidedly not.
  This weekend I took the time to reread John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer 
Prize-winning work ``Profiles in Courage.'' And in those pages our 
martyred President spoke: ``In no other occupation but politics is it 
expected that a man will sacrifice honor, prestige, and his chosen 
career on a single issue.''
  My friends, this is such a moment. I accuse nobody in this Chamber, 
Madam Speaker, of any kind of transgression, honorable people, good 
people. We will disagree, as I expect they will on this and other days, 
but I do plead that every Member in this House vote on this resolution, 
not for themselves, not for gain or posture through politics, not 
because of their alleged attention to public opinion, because it is 
right.
  We can do better. We must. But this resolution is not the path to 
that objective.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My friend from New York, a fellow member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. McHugh, a good friend, I must agree with him on one 
comment that he made when he said, I am troubled by the course that 
lies ahead.
  Madam Speaker, I am very troubled about the course that lies ahead. 
That is what we are about this evening. We have seen an irretrievable 
strategic mistake made in Iraq that put us where we are. And 
consequently it brings us to this point where we express our concern 
and disagreement with the increase in troops in this crucial time in 
Iraq and allows us the opportunity to say thank you. We are proud of 
you, each of you who wears the American uniform.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rush), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, I raise today to voice my support for this 
resolution. For too long now, under a Republican-controlled Congress 
and a Republican-controlled Senate, the President has been given a free 
hand and a blank check to conduct this war in Iraq, for far too long 
without any oversight, for far too long without any accountability from 
this the equal branch of government, this U.S. Congress. Madam Speaker, 
and because of the Republicans' unwillingness and the Democrats' 
inability to question the President or his administration about the 
conduct of this war, we now find ourselves embroiled in a civil war on 
a foreign soil.
  We are not seen as liberators. We are seen as an occupying force on a 
foreign land. We are seen as an occupying army by the Iraqi people. 
Madam Speaker, we are trapped in a deadly situation where American 
soldiers and Iraqi citizens are targeted for murder, mayhem and 
maiming.
  Many of our top generals and experts in this field have testified 
that the American troop presence is the biggest, largest, most 
provocative catalyst to the violence in Iraq. The Iraqi people are very 
suspicious of this administration and the motives of this President. 
And they do not view foreign soldiers in their cities, in their towns, 
in their homes as something that they desire.
  So if the Iraqi people no longer want us in their country, and if the 
military objective, which was supposed to be the toppling of Saddam 
Hussein has been achieved, then why do we still have hundreds of 
thousands of our troops there?
  Why on Earth are we sending more troops to this unstable and volatile 
area when it is obvious that the solution to this problem is not a 
military one, but a political one?
  Madam Speaker, if we want to get out of this hole, then we must first 
stop digging. It is well past time for this President to finally 
understand that he cannot solve the world's problems with brute force, 
the American military, and our boys' and girls' lives. We must begin a 
serious and political and diplomatic effort in this region to hold the 
Iraq Government responsible for protecting its own people and to 
solicit comments from Iraq's neighbors as well as our friends and 
allies around the world to help stabilize Iraq and to rebuild that 
devastated country.
  The Iraqi people do not want to see more American troops coming into 
their homes and into their cities. They want their chosen, duly elected 
leaders to step up to the plate and to protect them as they were 
elected to do. And they want their foreign occupiers to leave their 
homeland.
  Madam Speaker, this is not hard to comprehend. Would we not want the 
same thing if a foreign military came and occupied our cities, our 
States, our Nation, our homes?
  This war is draining American resources and stretching our military 
to the point where we will be unable to protect ourselves against any 
real threat to our national security. We know that to date over 3,000 
American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq, and more than $500 
billion has been appropriated for this unjust and this misguided war.
  Yet dispute these costs, neither the American people nor this 
Congress has been given a reasonable explanation or reasonable grounds 
for keeping American troops in Iraq to do the job that Iraqi soldiers 
should be doing for themselves.

                              {time}  1915

  Madam Speaker, because of our grave missteps, our enormous 
miscalculation, the situation in Iraq has steadily declined. And there 
is no evidence that increasing the number of American soldiers at this 
point will do anything other than provide more targets to the Iraqi 
insurgents and make the situation in Iraq even more volatile.
  Madam Speaker, after being wrong on so many counts time and time 
again, I believe the stakes in this war are too high for us to continue 
to put blind trust in this administration. The world in which we live 
deserves more
  Madam Speaker, I am against this troop surge because the American 
people and the Iraqi people want truth surge. They want strategy, not 
more of the same.
  It is the job and the responsibility of this Congress to reflect the 
will of the people who have put us here, and demand that the 
Administration bring an end to this ill-fated war, not escalate it.
  Believe me, Madam Speaker, it brings me no pleasure to have this 
debate and publicly disagree with the President, but my solemn oath to 
my constituents, as well as my conscience and integrity prevent me from 
doing anything less.
  It is time for us to end our occupation in Iraq. I urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 63.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Hinchey, the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, as a veteran of the United States Navy, I 
am very, very honored to be a Member of this House of Representatives. 
And today I am very proud and pleased to stand here in support of this 
very important resolution, which needs to be adopted as the final first 
step of this Congress in dealing with this unjust, illegal, unnecessary 
invasion of Iraq and the subsequent disastrous occupation.
  In October of 2002, when the resolution authorizing this invasion 
came to the floor, 133 Members voted against it. 127 Democrats and six 
Republicans voted against it. Most of us voted against it because we 
knew that the so-called logic or rationale that had been presented by 
the administration was untrue, that there was no connection between 
Iraq and the attack of September 11, that there was no evidence that 
there were chemical or biological weapons left in Iraq, even though we 
know that previous administrations of this country had supplied those 
weapons.
  We knew that the rationale presented for the development of a nuclear 
weapon in Iraq was completely falsified. The documents were forged.

[[Page H1533]]

  On the 19th of March, this administration carried out an illegal, 
unnecessary, unjustified invasion of Iraq. We will soon mark the fourth 
year of that action. In all of that time, this Congress has done 
nothing significant or substantial to stand in the way of the illegal, 
unjustified actions of this administration, in spite of the fact that 
they have caused the death of now more than 3,000 American servicemen 
and women, more than 23,000 physically injured, unknown numbers 
psychologically injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians 
killed.
  In spite of all of that, and in spite of the fact that, increasingly, 
every Member of this Congress has begun to understand with greater and 
greater clarity, how the information was falsified, how what the 
Intelligence Committees told the White House, the Department, the State 
Department, and others in this administration, had been twisted and 
distorted and turned around purposely and specifically to carry out 
this disastrous invasion and subsequent occupation, nothing has been 
done.
  The previous leadership of this Congress failed to step forward and 
take any kind of action against this administration. And we hear people 
on this side of the aisle, tonight, speaking against this resolution 
saying it doesn't do anything significant. It doesn't do enough.
  Well, let me tell you something. This is the first step of a new 
majority in this Congress taking the right kind of action on the basis 
of our obligations and responsibilities under the Constitution to stand 
up to the actions of this administration and to put this country back 
on the right track. Not just in the case of what is going on in Iraq, 
even though that is so terribly disastrous, but the consequences here 
in our own country, the intimidation of people, the internal spying, 
the elimination of habeas corpus, all of the impingements on the 
American Constitution, based upon the culture of fear cultivated 
purposely by this administration for their own personal and political 
objectives. No one in the previous leadership, no one in the previous 
majority, stood up to this administration in any kind of a constructive 
way.
  So, if you want to correct the failures that have existed in this 
Congress since that resolution came to the floor and since the 19th of 
March in 2003, when this administration carried out that illegal, 
unnecessary and unjustified invasion, then you will support this 
resolution, recognizing that it is the first important step taken by a 
new majority here in this Congress to deal with the consequences of all 
of that falsehood.
  If you fail to do so, you will continue to leave the door open for 
further violations of law and constitutional principles by this 
administration, perhaps next in Iran, because that may be the next 
illegal step of this administration.
  If you want to make up for what you failed to do, if you want to do 
the right thing for this country, for our people, and for our military 
personnel, please, support this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). The Chair would like to 
announce that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 2 hours, 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra) has 2 hours, 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlelady from California, who is a member of the Armed 
Services Committee and chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, 
Mrs. Tauscher. I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control 
the time from this moment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman 
of the House Armed Services Committee for yielding time.
  At this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, as we debate this nonbinding resolution 
on Iraq, the administration is preparing for the next war in Iran. We 
are losing our democracy to war, massive debt, fear and fraud. The 
American people need Congress to surge towards the Constitution, surge 
towards the truth.
  Now, some call this resolution a first step. I would like to believe 
that Congress will respond to the will of the American people expressed 
in the November election. They expect us to take real action to assert 
our constitutional power, to take America out of Iraq by refusing to 
provide any more funding for the war. That is our right. That is our 
duty. We have a duty to restrain an administration which is conducting 
an illegal war. We have a duty to hold to a constitutional accounting a 
President and a Vice President who led us into a war based on lies.
  I led the effort against the Iraq war resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I ask to include into the Record an analysis of the 
President's war resolution which was given to Members of Congress back 
in October of 2002. It pointed out that there is no proof that Iraq had 
weapons of mass destruction, anything to do with 9/11, anything to do 
with al Qaeda's role in 9/11. It is not as if Congress had no idea the 
war was based on untruths.
  Now we must tell the truth, not just about the escalation, but about 
the occupation. We are illegally occupying Iraq. We attacked a nation 
which did not attack us. We must recognize the wrong that has been done 
and move to right it.
  Instead of debating the end of the war, Congress is ironically 
preparing to give the war a new beginning. Some have made it clear long 
before this particular resolution that they will continue to fund the 
war by approving the upcoming supplemental appropriation, even though 
money exists to bring the troops home now.
  When we equate funding the war with supporting the troops, we are 
dooming thousands of young Americans who are valiantly following the 
orders of their Commander in Chief. If we truly cared about the troops, 
we would not leave them in the middle of a civil war. If we truly cared 
about the troops, we would not leave them in a conflict for which there 
is no military solution.
  The war is binding. The resolution is not. This resolution will not 
end the war. It will not bring our beloved troops home. It will not 
even stop the administration from sending more troops. That is because 
this resolution is nonbinding.
  The war is binding. The resolution is not; 3,100 U.S. troops are 
bound in death; 650,000 innocent Iraqi civilians are bound in death.
  The war is binding. The resolution is not. American taxpayers are 
bound in debt. The war could cost $2 trillion. We are borrowing money 
from Beijing to fight a war in Baghdad. Worse, each and every time 
Congress votes to fund the war, it votes to reauthorize the war. There 
were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but there are weapons of 
mass destruction at home. Poverty is a weapon of mass disruption. Lack 
of education is a weapon of mass destruction. Poor health care is a 
weapon of mass destruction. We must find and disarm those weapons of 
mass destruction which threaten the security of our own Nation. But 
Congress must first take responsibility.
  The Federal Court has made it abundantly clear that once a war is 
well underway, Congress' real power is to cut off funds. Funding the 
war is approval of the war.
  The American people are waiting for us to provide real leadership to 
show the way out of Iraq. My 12-point plan responds to that demand. 
This plan, drafted with the help of experts in international 
peacekeeping, specialists with U.N. experience and veteran military 
advisors, creates a peace process which will enable our troops to come 
home and stabilize Iraq.
  Here are the elements of the Kucinich plan.
  First, Congress must deny any more funds for the war.
  Second, the President will have to call the troops home, close the 
bases and end the occupation.
  Third, a parallel peace process which brings in international 
peacekeepers must begin. That is third.
  Fourth, move in the international peacekeeping and security force and 
move out U.S. troops. Peacekeepers will stay until the Iraqis are able 
to handle their own security.
  Fifth, order U.S. contractors out of Iraq.
  Sixth, fund an honest process of reconstruction.
  Seventh, protect the economic position of the Iraqi people by 
stabilizing

[[Page H1534]]

prices in Iraq, including those for food and energy.
  Eighth, create a process which gives the Iraqi people control over 
their economic destiny without the structural adjustment policies of 
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
  Ninth, give the Iraqi people full control over their oil assets, with 
no mandatory privatization.
  Tenth, fund a process of reconciliation between the Sunnis, Shiites 
and Kurds.
  Eleventh, the U.S. must refrain from any more covert operations in 
Iraq.
  And twelfth, the U.S. must begin a process of truth and 
reconciliation between our Nation and the people of Iraq.
  There is a way out. Congress should stand for that. And we will have 
an opportunity to do it once again in about 6 weeks

                  Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq

                        (By Dennis J. Kucinich)

       Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression 
     against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States 
     forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its 
     people in order to defend the national security of the United 
     States and enforce United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions relating to Iraq;
       Key Issue: In the Persian Gulf war there was an 
     international coalition. World support was for protecting 
     Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.
       Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq 
     entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement 
     pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other 
     things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical 
     weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, 
     and to end its support for international terrorism;
       Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, 
     United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led 
     to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical 
     weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and 
     that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program 
     that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than 
     intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
       Key Issue: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed 
     nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said 
     that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were 
     destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a 
     published report in the Washington Post, the Central 
     Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on 
     Iraq's WMD capabilities.
       Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the 
     cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons 
     inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which 
     finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on 
     October 31, 1998;
       Key Issues: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors 
     always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United 
     States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the 
     United States then launched a cruise missile attack against 
     Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a 
     military strike, the U.S. continues to thwart (the 
     Administration's word) weapons inspections.
       Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing 
     weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United 
     States interests and international peace and security, 
     declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of 
     its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to 
     take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution 
     and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into 
     compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law 
     105-235);
       Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national 
     security of the United States and international peace and 
     security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material 
     and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, 
     among other things, continuing to possess and develop a 
     significant chemical and biological weapons capability, 
     actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting 
     and harboring terrorist organizations;
       Key Issues: There is no proof that Iraq represents an 
     imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A 
     ``continuing'' threat does not constitute a sufficient cause 
     for war. The Administration has refused to provide the 
     Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is 
     a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to 
     possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear 
     weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence 
     connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.
       Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the 
     United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in 
     brutal repression of its civilian population thereby 
     threatening international peace and security in the region, 
     by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi 
     citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American 
     serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully 
     seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
       Key Issue: This language is so broad that it would allow 
     the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there 
     is no material threat to the United States. Since this 
     resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related 
     violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since 
     the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi 
     prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to 
     attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or 
     may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with 
     all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. 
     Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to 
     bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating 
     to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force 
     resolution enables the President to commit U.S. troops to 
     recover Kuwaiti property.
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction 
     against other nations and its own people;
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the 
     United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate 
     former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of 
     occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged 
     in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security 
     Council;
       Key Issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it 
     have the capability to attack the United States. The ``no 
     fly'' zone was not the result of a UN Security Council 
     directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, 
     Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned 
     by any Security Council resolution.
       Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing 
     responsibility for attacks on the United States, its 
     citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred 
     on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
       Key Issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects 
     Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those 
     events by assisting Al Qaida.
       Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other 
     international terrorist organizations, including 
     organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American 
     citizens;
       Key Issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist 
     groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great 
     resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the 
     Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to 
     launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.
       Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 
     2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the 
     acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international 
     terrorist organizations;
       Key Issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the 
     events of 9/11.
       Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to 
     use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current 
     Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a 
     surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces 
     or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, 
     and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the 
     United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine 
     to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
       Key Issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq 
     possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has 
     successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 
     1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the 
     capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In 
     the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of 
     biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the 
     willingness to use them against the United States Armed 
     Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible 
     information which proves that Iraq has provided international 
     terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent 
     relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain 
     activities that threaten international peace and security, 
     including the development of weapons of mass destruction and 
     refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections 
     in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     687, repression of its civilian population in violation of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and 
     threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in 
     Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 949;
       Key Issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, 
     including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN 
     resolutions.
       Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has 
     authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces 
     pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council 
     Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 
     and 677'';
       Key Issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, 
     including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN 
     resolutions with military force.
       Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that 
     it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the 
     goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as 
     being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq

[[Page H1535]]

     Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of 
     its civilian population violates United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat 
     to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf 
     region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all 
     necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 688'';
       Key Issue: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology 
     of the international process, and contrasts the current march 
     to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution 
     asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries 
     authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition 
     to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking 
     Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN 
     Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN 
     resolutions.
       Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) 
     expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy 
     of the United States to support efforts to remove from power 
     the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a 
     democratic government to replace that regime;
       Key Issue: This ``Sense of Congress'' resolution was not 
     binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic 
     means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse 
     the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it 
     endorse assassination as a policy.
       Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the 
     United States to ``work with the United Nations Security 
     Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to 
     ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making 
     clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be 
     enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be 
     met, or action will be unavoidable'';
       Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the 
     war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international 
     terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of 
     mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under 
     the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions make clear that it is in the national security 
     interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war 
     on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of 
     force if necessary;
       Key Issue: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the 
     United States the support of the world community, adversely 
     affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence 
     exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those 
     terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the 
     United States does not have the authority to unilaterally 
     order military action to enforce U.N. Security Council 
     resolutions.
       Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the 
     war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and 
     funding requested by the President to take the necessary 
     actions against international terrorists and terrorist 
     organizations, including those nations, organizations or 
     persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 
     terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or 
     harbored such persons or organizations;
       Key Issue: The Administration has not provided Congress 
     with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the 
     events of 9/11.
       Whereas the President and Congress are determined to 
     continue to take all appropriate actions against 
     international terrorists and terrorist organizations, 
     including those nations, organizations or persons who 
     planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks 
     that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons 
     or organizations;
       Key Issue: The Administration has not provided Congress 
     with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the 
     events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence 
     that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for 
     planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.
       Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution 
     to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of 
     international terrorism against the United States, as 
     Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
       Key Issue: This resolution was specific to 
     9/11. It was limited to a response to 9/11.
       Whereas it is in the national security of the United States 
     to restore international peace and security to the Persian 
     Gulf region;
       Key Issue: If by the ``national security interests'' of the 
     United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to 
     communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq 
     by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the 
     region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the 
     world.
       Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization 
     for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

       The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by 
     the President to--
       (a) Strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
     Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable 
     to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
       (b) Obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
     Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
     evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
     with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
       Key Issue: Congress can and should support this clause. 
     However Section 3 (which follows) undermines the 
     effectiveness of this section. Any peaceful settlement 
     requires Iraq compliance. The totality of this resolution 
     indicates the Administration will wage war against Iraq no 
     matter what. This undermines negotiations.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

       Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the 
     Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate in order to--
       (1) Defend the national security of the United States 
     against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
       (2) Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions regarding Iraq.
       Key Issue: This clause is substantially similar to the 
     authorization that the President originally sought.
       It gives authority to the President to act prior to and 
     even without a U.N. resolution, and it authorizes the 
     President to use U.S. troops to enforce U.N. resolutions even 
     without U.N. request for it. This is a violation of Chapter 
     VII of the U.N. Charter, which reserves the ability to 
     authorize force for that purpose to the Security Council, 
     alone.
       Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 
     ``The Security Council shall determine the existence of any 
     threat to the peace . . . and shall make recommendations to 
     maintain or restore international peace and security.'' 
     (Article 39). Only the Security Council can decide that 
     military force would be necessary, ``The Security Council may 
     decide what measures . . . are to be employed to give effect 
     to its decisions (Article 41) . . . [and] it may take such 
     action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to 
     maintain or restore international peace and security.'' 
     (Article 43). Furthermore, the resolution authorizes use of 
     force illegally, since the U.N. Security Council has not 
     requested it. According to the U.N. Charter, members of the 
     U.N., such as the U.S., are required to ``make available to 
     the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a 
     special agreement or agreements, armed forces . . .'' 
     (Article 43, emphasis added). The U.N. Security Council has 
     not called upon its members to use military force against 
     Iraq at the current time.
       Furthermore, changes to the language of the previous use-
     of-force resolution, drafted by the White House and objected 
     to by many members of Congress, are cosmetic:
       In section (1), the word ``continuing'' was added to ``the 
     threat posed by Iraq''.
       In section (2), the word ``relevant'' is added to ``United 
     Nations Security Council Resolutions'' and the words 
     ``regarding Iraq'' were added to the end.
       While these changes are represented as a compromise or a 
     new material development, the effects of this resolution are 
     largely the same as the previous White House proposal.
       The U.N. resolutions, which could be cited by the President 
     to justify sending U.S. troops to Iraq, go far beyond 
     addressing weapons of mass destruction. These could include, 
     at the President's discretion, such ``relevant'' resolutions 
     ``regarding Iraq'' including resolutions to enforce human 
     rights and the recovery of Kuwaiti property.
       Presidential Determination.--
       In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in 
     subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to 
     such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but 
     no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make 
     available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
     the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination 
     that--
       (1) Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or 
     other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
     protect the national security of the United States against 
     the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to 
     lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
       (2) Acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with 
     the United States and other countries continuing to take the 
     necessary actions against international terrorists and 
     terrorist organizations, including those nations, 
     organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed 
     or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 
     11, 2001.
       (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
       (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with 
     section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
     declares that this section is intended to constitute specific 
     statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
     the War Powers Resolution.
       (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers 
     Resolution.

     SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, 
     submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this 
     joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the 
     exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of 
     planning for efforts that are expected to be required after 
     such actions are

[[Page H1536]]

     completed, including those actions described in section 7 of 
     Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
       (b) To the extent that the submission of any report 
     described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of 
     any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution 
     otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War 
     Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a 
     single consolidated report to the Congress.
       (c) To the extent that the information required by section 
     3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by 
     this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the 
     requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Do any of us really believe that the resolution in front of us today 
is a serious piece of legislation?
  Does it discuss or force a debate on the really tough issue of how 
big this conflict is?
  Who is it that hates America and others so much that they are willing 
to kill innocent men, women and children?
  Again, it does not do that. There are people who hate us enough to 
want to kill. I speak of militant Islam's hate for America, a hate that 
extends to others as well, including Muslims. And these militant 
Islamists kill. They kill violently and indiscriminately.
  Who are they?
  What should America's response to this threat that we and others face 
on a global basis be?
  What is America's response to jihadism?
  How will America win this war against this calculating enemy?
  How will America lead the world, once again, in the face of such a 
ruthless threat?
  What is a jihadist, other than someone or some group so full of hate 
that they are willing to kill?

                              {time}  1930

  I have a passion for understanding this threat. These Islamic 
jihadists are a fringe element of Islam who have very specific ideas 
about how to revive Islam, return Muslims to world power, and how to 
deal with their enemies. They are committed to a violent overthrow of 
the existing international system and to its replacement by an all-
encompassing Islamic state, the caliphate, as it is called.
  This is more than just about Iraq. It is a much bigger problem. It is 
also clear that this jihad is about them, their god, their religion 
before it becomes anything about anyone or anything else. That is 
right, it is about them before it is about us. And that is why this 
resolution comes up so short because it does not address all of these 
issues.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague from California 
(Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  You are right. A big problem, big issues, and this resolution doesn't 
address them.
  What does it do? It basically says that the military leaders have a 
suggestion that we have reinforcements that they believe may improve 
the situation, help us get a victory in Iraq. Now, they can't guarantee 
that. The President can't guarantee it. Nobody can guarantee it. But 
what does this say? It says we are not going to do that. Okay, fine. 
But what are you going to do instead?
  This resolution, by rejecting the only plan on the table, basically 
is saying stay the course, keep the status quo.
  I don't think the status quo has been working. I think we know we 
have to make some changes in strategy and whatever. We have to make 
something work. But this basically says we will take the only plan that 
is out there and reject it. We won't do it.
  So my question would be what do you do instead? What do you do to 
ensure that we don't have a genocide in Iraq on the scale of what is 
going on in Darfur? If you don't want to do this plan, what do you do 
to ensure that terrorism does not grow and flourish in Iraq and that 
then they come to attack us on our soil again, which they haven't done 
for 5 years? What do you do to protect our troops?
  I think these are a lot of questions that we have, Mr. Hoekstra, 
which is why just saying no to the only plan that is on the table won't 
do it. It is kind of like a football game: the coach and quarterback 
call a play, and they are in there, and then someone runs into huddle 
and says, No, we are not going to run this play.
  What play are we going to call?
  We don't have a play.
  So the quarterback gets under the center. The center snaps the ball, 
and nobody goes anywhere. Nobody knows what to do because there is no 
play, there is no plan. That will fail.
  This simple status quo resolution is not the solution.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman. I think he has made some very good points about what we 
don't see in this resolution. We don't see a discussion of what the 
global threat is from these jihadists who hate democracy, who hate 
other heretic Muslim states, who want to establish this caliphate that 
spreads throughout the Middle East, spreads into Europe, across Africa, 
into Asia. It lacks the concept of putting it into a bigger picture.
  There is no alternative plan. Really, if you vote for this 
resolution, what you are voting for is you are voting for stay the 
course. Support the troops; don't try a new strategy or tactic. Just 
stay the course. And it also does not deal with what the potential 
consequences may be of that failed strategy.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague from Arizona
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I have listened to his eloquent words today about the radical 
threat we face.
  I have a fundamental question for the other side. I thought our 
colleague from New York did a superb job of acknowledging the good 
intentions of every Member of Congress involved in this debate and the 
good intentions of the majority. I share his frustration with the 
progress of the war to date. I share the comments made by my colleagues 
on the other side who are unhappy at how we got here. But I think that 
misses what I believe is the essential question we confront now, and 
that is, where do we go from here? What will this resolution do? And I 
would suggest that that is a question that has not been examined in 
this debate. I would suggest that many would like to wish this war 
would go away, that many would like to believe that if the United 
States withdrew its troops from Baghdad and withdrew its troops from 
Iraq that somehow Iraq as a problem would go away.
  But, Mr. Chairman, you have made the point over and over and over 
again today: this isn't about Iraq.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side can they name a single 
jihadi leader, a single radical Islamist, who has said if they prevail 
in Iraq, if we will just leave Iraq, that this will end, that they will 
no longer desire to conquer the world, that they will back away from 
all of their rhetoric about attacking all Westerners everywhere? And I 
suggest you can't name anyone like that.
  Let me read you just a few quotes to make this point. Ayman al 
Zawahiri, we all know who he is, a well-known jihadi leader: ``It is a 
jihad for the sake of God and will last until our religion prevails.'' 
Not until we abandon Iraq, but until their religion prevails.
  ``The entire world is an open battlefield for us,'' he goes on to 
say. ``We will attack everywhere until Islam reigns.'' Ayman al 
Zawahiri does not say we will attack until the war in Iraq ends, we 
will attack until Americans pull out of Baghdad, we will attack until 
they are no longer in the nation of Iraq. He says, ``We will attack 
everywhere until Islam reigns.''
  Again al Zawahiri: ``The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental 
goals. The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.'' Note that that 
is only the first stage. ``The second stage: establish an Islamic 
authority or emirate. The third stage: extend the jihad wave to the 
secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' It will not end.
  If your resolution, if a resolution tonight, could end this war and 
bring our boys home and our girls home and make the world safe, I would 
be the first to vote for it. But it won't.
  Osama bin Laden says it clearly: ``Hostility toward America is a 
religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . I am 
confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called 
superpower that is America.''

[[Page H1537]]

  We are on notice. I think we have to take them at their word. It 
isn't about Iraq. It is about our confrontation, a historic 
confrontation, with radical jihadists who seek to kill us
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the 
gentleman from Arizona stated it very well. When we talk about the 
jihadists, they believe that the modern world has forsaken that pure 
religious life. They believe only in a caliphate governed by shiria law 
and that is the way to return to that pure life. That is the world they 
now want to recreate. And as they recreate it, they want to force it on 
the rest of us.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to now yield to my colleague, Mr. Saxton.
  Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Hoekstra for yielding.
  I would just like to build on something that Mr. Shadegg said. He 
said, in essence, that this subject is so important because it goes so 
much further than Iraq. And as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, I try to keep close tabs on where our soldiers and sailors 
and marines and airmen are deployed. And it may surprise some on the 
other side of the aisle, but perhaps not, to know that we have troops 
deployed in Southwest Asia in five countries; we have troops deployed 
in Europe in quite a few countries, several countries; in Central Asia 
we have troops in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan; in 
Southeast Asia we have troops deployed in the Philippines, Thailand, 
and Indonesia; in South America in Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, 
Paraguay, and Guantanamo Bay; and in 19 countries in Africa, all in 
support of the war on terror.
  And as Mr. Shadegg mentioned a few minutes ago, it has been clearly 
stated that Iraq is the first battleground chosen to make their stand 
and clearly stated that all of these other places where we have sent 
troops, not because we have extra troops to send somewhere, not because 
we have extra taxpayer dollars that we are trying to get rid of or 
spend, but because every one of those countries exhibits a piece of 
geography where there is a threat related to the global war on terror.
  So a vote for this resolution is a vote, perhaps, of goodwill on the 
part of those who will eventually in a few days vote for it, but it 
won't end this war. It won't end the desire of the Islamists to take 
advantage of various situations and, as Mr. Hoekstra mentioned, achieve 
their goals.
  And so this is a broad war. This is a war where it will be years and 
perhaps decades to bring to a conclusion. And the worst thing we can do 
is to send messages that we are not serious about carrying out our 
duties in defense of this generation and, as I will point out later, 
future generations of Americans.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, with that I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself 20 
minutes. And at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good 
friend and neighbor in California, the gentlewoman from Oakland, 
Representative Barbara Lee of the Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership, for yielding, for her deep commitment to our troops and to 
our country.
  As a daughter of a proud veteran of two wars, I know personally that 
we have a moral obligation to support and protect our brave men and 
women on the ground in Iraq. However, there is no reason for us to 
stand behind the President's plan to escalate his failed policy in 
Iraq. In fact, Madam Speaker, the American people are way ahead of us.
  A USA Today/Gallup poll released just today shows that 60 percent 
oppose this escalation, 63 percent favor bringing our troops home by 
the end of 2008, and last November the American people soundly rejected 
the President's failed policy in Iraq at the voting booth. You would 
think that the President understood what all this meant. After the 
election he continued his listening tour on options for Iraq, but it 
seems that he wasn't hearing what the American people were saying.
  The Iraq Study Group actually indicated and said very clearly that 
there was no military solution to this mess. And rather than heed the 
call of military experts, advisers, and the American people, the 
President offered an even worse plan: put more troops in harm's way in 
Iraq. This just doesn't make any sense.
  That is why this no-confidence resolution puts the administration on 
notice: end the occupation and bring our troops home. However, if the 
President doesn't change course, we must go further. This war has 
undermined our credibility and standing in the world. It has cost too 
many lives and injured too many of our troops. This war has cost too 
many Iraqi lives. This war has cost us nearly half a trillion dollars, 
and the costs keep mounting. The chaos in Iraq that the President set 
in motion has further destabilized an already precarious balance in the 
Middle East.
  We must take steps to use the upcoming supplemental appropriations 
bill to set in motion an end to this terrible and misguided war and 
bring our troops home from Iraq.
  To that end I support fully funding the safe withdrawal of our troops 
from Iraq over a 6-month period, and I will work with my colleagues to 
do this. Additionally, along with Congresswomen Woolsey and Waters, we 
have introduced H.R. 508, the Bring our Troops Home and Sovereignty of 
Iraq Restoration Act.

                              {time}  1945

  This bill would completely fully fund military withdrawal from Iraq 
within 6 months, while ensuring that our troops and contractors leave 
safely, and accelerate the training of Iraqi Security Forces. And we 
would make certain that our veterans, who have given us so much, 
receive the health and mental health benefits that they deserve.
  Our bill would remove the specter of an endless, and that is what 
this is right now, it is an endless occupation, by preventing the 
establishment of permanent military bases. Our very presence in Iraq is 
fueling the insurgency, and our troops have been the targets of this 
civil war.
  Madam Speaker, these are the best and the safest ways to end this 
occupation. But it really didn't have to be this way. Imagine for a 
moment what would have happened had Congress adopted my substitute 
amendment to the authorization to use force against Iraq in October 
2002. We would have allowed the United Nations inspectors to finish 
their job. We would have discovered what we all know now as fact, that 
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and, as then, there 
was no connection between the horrific events of 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq 
did not attack us, as many are trying to continue to convince the 
American public that it did. Iraq did not attack us 5 years ago.
  The bottom line is that Iraq also would not be a war-torn country as 
it is today, and, again, the world is less safe. And if this wasn't 
enough, over the last several months the President has been saber-
rattling on the issue of Iran. We must not go down the same path and 
end up in another unnecessary, dangerous, costly and disastrous 
preemptive war with Iran. This notion of the ``axis of evil'' and 
preemptive war is very, very dangerous.
  Madam Speaker, the stakes are too high. We need to stop digging 
ourselves deeper into this hole. Escalating this war and expanding this 
war does nothing in terms of our national security. It puts us more at 
risk. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists as it is now. Again, Iraq, 
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, there was no connection, and we have to 
dispel that notion so the American people know the truth.
  So, rather than end this war today, we are saying let's just for 
today at least take one step and stop the escalation and expansion, and 
we will be back to talk about how we are going to begin to bring our 
troops home, and bring them home within 6 months
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. I 
rise today in strong support of this resolution.
  Recently at a town hall meeting that I had, a man approached me, 
pulled out a picture of his son, said that he had just died in Iraq 6 
months ago. His wife won't come out of the home. He said, ``I want you 
to promise me that when you go to Washington, you will do everything 
you can to make sure that this never happens to another family.''

[[Page H1538]]

  Three days later, I called the family of Senior Airman Daniel Miller 
of Galesburg, Illinois, who lost their son to a roadside bomb explosion 
outside of Baghdad 2 weeks prior to when he was supposed to be coming 
home. I hope and pray I don't ever have to make another phone call to 
another grieving family. That is why I come to the floor this evening 
in strong opposition to the President's decision to deploy 21,500 
additional troops in Iraq, and I strongly support this resolution.
  The current situation in Iraq is grave, and it is rapidly 
deteriorating. The sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to 
stability in Iraq, and caught in the middle of this civil war are 
approximately 140,000 of our bravest troops. Over 3,000 troops have 
already lost their lives, while over 22,000 have been wounded.
  Our current strategy has not made significant impact on reducing the 
violence. In fact, December 2006 was the third deadliest month since 
the war began. The cost of this war, both in the number of lives lost 
and the amount of dollars spent, has had a profound effect on Illinois 
and my congressional district. Out of the 3,128 deaths, 95 have been 
from Illinois, and eight soldiers from the 17th District.
  But not only will an increase in troop levels not solve the 
fundamental cause of violence, it places us at a great disadvantage 
here at home. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the troop 
surge could require as many as 48,000 troops and as much as $27 
billion, which is five times the amount of the President's request of 
$5.6 billion. Also the U.S. military will be forced to deploy many 
combat units for their second, third, and even fourth deployments in 
Iraq, and extend the redeployment of others.
  Currently as we sit in debate on this resolution, 16,000 single 
mothers are serving in Iraq. This troop surge would only extend the 
time their children are left at home alone, with their mother or their 
father.
  Since the military is already short thousands of vehicles, armor kits 
and other protective equipment, a troop surge threatens the readiness 
of our forces. In fact, if you saw the paper recently, a soldier was 
quoted saying he had to go to the junkyards to dig up pieces of rusted 
scrap missile and ballistic glass so they could armor the vehicles and 
make them combat ready.
  While only a first step, this resolution is a good start. It does not 
give up on our troops or declare defeat in Iraq, but offers a new 
forward direction towards a nonpartisan goal of bringing our troops 
home safely, quickly, and securing stability in the region.
  Already, this Democratic-led Congress has had 52 oversight hearings 
on various issues related to this war, and many of my colleagues have 
introduced several bipartisan measures that promote political and 
diplomatic engagements.
  A person this evening said, Where do we go from here? I would 
strongly suggest that this administration try something it hasn't tried 
yet: diplomacy. It can work. You just have to have the courage to try.
  In the coming weeks, I am hopeful that Congress will consider a 
comprehensive measure such as H.R. 787, the Iraq War De-escalation Act, 
of which I am a cosponsor. In addition to requiring the responsible 
redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq and allowing basic force 
protection, it launches a comprehensive regional and international 
diplomatic initiative. I am thoroughly convinced that the only way we 
will attain peace in this region, in Iraq, is through diplomatic 
initiatives.
  This legislation also makes the Iraqi Government responsible for 
their own destiny by establishing benchmarks concerning Iraqi military 
readiness to police their own country without United States assistance.
  Finally, as a veteran myself, I also hope as we move forward we will 
adequately prepare for the return of thousands of new veterans. Our 
number one priority should be to fully fund the cost of veterans health 
care and PTSD benefits.
  This administration's budget calls for cutting prosthetics by $2 
million and severely cuts funds to the VA at a time when it is 
proposing an increase in troop levels. Without full funding for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, our veterans are left without the 
services they were promised when they pledged to defend this Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this resolution as the first of many steps towards 
bringing our troops home and securing our success in Iraq. As I told 
the gentleman at my town meeting, I promised him I would do everything 
I could so this would never happen again. That journey begins this 
evening
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank 
Speaker Pelosi for providing what we never had in the last session, and 
that is ample opportunity to fully discuss Iraq, where we are and what 
we ought to be doing about it.
  I have always been told that when you start with a faulty premise, 
you will inevitably reach a faulty conclusion. And the rationale given 
for entering the war was faulty. There were no weapons of mass 
destruction, no connection to 9/11. Therefore, we never should have 
invaded Iraq in the first place.
  But then after the invasion, the occupation of Iraq has been 
tragically mismanaged. Civilian military leadership ignored the advice 
of senior commanders on requirements for preventing chaos in the 
aftermath of the invasion. As a result, our extended presence in Iraq 
continues to worsen the situation, not only in Iraq, but in the entire 
region.
  Terrorist incidents continue to flare up around the world, from 
England to Spain, from Indonesia to Jordan. Chaos and intolerance in 
the form of civil war now has secured a deadly grip on Iraq. The policy 
of escalation has failed, and failed again, to loosen that horrendous 
grip. The Iraqi people want us to leave, and so do the American people, 
especially those in my congressional district, and especially those 
that I encounter at churches, schools, synagogues, town hall meetings 
and on the street.
  Madam Speaker, democracy and self-government cannot be imposed on 
Iraq by any foreign power, including us, the United States of America. 
Our troops have done everything we have asked of them, even when we 
have failed to equip and protect them. The problem does not lie with 
our troops, but with the distorted world view of this administration 
and the military and diplomatic doctrine of preemptive war as a 
solution to global political problems.
  We must do everything possible to protect our troops and we must do 
everything in our power to take care of them when they return home.
  It is impossible, Madam Speaker, to build a coalition against 
terrorism by attempting to unilaterally impose these doctrines on the 
international community. We cannot undo the many mistakes which have 
been made in Iraq. And when our national interests have been so 
distorted, when we have so lost our direction, it is the historical, 
moral, and constitutional responsibility of this Congress to set us 
back on course and on the right track.
  It is time to recognize that we are enmeshed in an unending, vicious 
circle of escalating violence, rather than a force for peace, and that 
is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 508, which would bring the force of law 
to end this war.
  Today we have before us a nonbinding resolution, most likely 
insufficient to end the occupation. But it can help to move us in the 
right direction and set us on the right path. Therefore, I support this 
resolution, because it reflects the will and interests of the American 
people, and I trust that this administration will abandon demagogic 
calls for constantly changing notions of success and victory and awaken 
to the world of reality.
  Madam Speaker, it is time, it is past time, to bring our troops home. 
I am told that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over 
again and expecting different results. This resolution sets us on the 
right course, gives us the right direction. I urge its passage.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my 
neighbor and colleague from California (Mr. Honda).

[[Page H1539]]

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Northern California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Like so many of my colleagues, I stand here today in opposition to 
President Bush's surge in Iraq.
  We should not have attacked Iraq in the first place, and we 
definitely should not escalate things further. The initial evidence for 
the war was flimsy at best, and realizing that, I voted against the 
authorization for war.
  The most recent evidence that the President has presented in support 
of this surge is even less credible, and I urge my colleagues to 
prevent the President from throwing more gasoline onto a fire that is 
already burning out of control.
  When I speak to veterans of the Iraq war, I become infuriated by 
their tales of the destruction that this President's policies have 
wrought in that country. Nor can they fathom why their Commander in 
Chief insists on squandering the strength of the greatest fighting 
force in the history of the world.
  While Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule was a rogue state and an 
affront to American values, today Iraqi citizens are forced to endure 
even more severe and deadlier situations.
  There is no indication that Iraq was a center for international 
terrorism prior to President Bush's adventure there. Now, as a result 
of his irresponsible actions, it undeniably is.
  Over 3,000 brave American service men and women have lost their lives 
in Iraq in addition to the 100,000 or more Iraqis who have been killed; 
25,000 American soldiers have been injured.
  For what, Mr. President? For what? You have yet to answer this simple 
question, and I suspect this is because you do not have an answer. 
There is not, nor can there be, a credible answer to this utter folly.
  Each Member of this House has tales of constituents whose lives will 
never be the same because of the Iraq war.
  In the aftermath of 9/11, one of my constituents joined the Army out 
of a deep sense of patriotism. One day while on patrol in Iraq, his 
tank drove over an explosive device, sending the vehicle 10 feet in the 
air. He survived but suffered severe brain and spinal injuries. For his 
bravery, he was awarded the Purple Heart, multiple commendations and 
other medals.
  After completing a service to his country, he returned home to resume 
his life with his wife and newly born triplets.
  Upon returning to work, however, he found that he had difficulty 
concentrating as a result of his head injury. He was diagnosed with 
traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.
  As a result of the strain that the President's policies are placing 
on the Veterans Administration, he, like so many of my constituents, 
was unable to receive a change in his benefit allowance in a timely 
manner. So that he could continue to live in dignity, local officials 
and media had to put out a call for donations to pick up where his 
government failed him.
  This brave man expected that his sacrifices would be repaid with the 
generosity that America promises to our veterans. Instead, he 
encountered a system that is overextended and ill equipped to help him 
when he needed it. Other constituents have told me that when they try 
to call the Veterans Administration they have to wait on hold for over 
2 hours before they can talk to a human being.
  Is this how we should treat those who put their lives on the line for 
our country? The Veterans Administration recently testified that it 
needs a 13 percent increase in funding to address rising costs and 
increased demand, but the President's budget proposes less than half of 
that.
  And now the President wants to further escalate the strain on our 
already over-extended system by sending more soldiers off to Iraq? I am 
outraged and I cannot mince my words. This is a national shame. This is 
not how America repays its valiant heroes.
  Madam Speaker, we must stop this madness. This surge, this escalation 
will fail just as past surges have.
  This conflict requires the diplomatic and political solution, not 
just simply sending more troops into the fight. We cannot allow this 
President to shatter the lives of more of our best and brightest. It is 
time to bring our troops home.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Al Green of Texas). Members are reminded 
to direct their remarks to the Chair
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I understand we have until 12 o'clock to 
complete this part of the debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in my office I keep a photo of about a dozen Kurdish 
mothers whose bodies are strewn across the hillside in northern Iraq, 
holding their babies, killed in mid-stride where they were gassed to 
death by Saddam Hussein. As I listened to some folks in this debate 
talk about what they consider to be an immoral war, an illegal war, an 
occupation that is not consistent with morality, I harken back to that 
picture and the thousands of people that it represents, and I harken 
back also to the exhuming of mass graves with, again, mothers shot in 
the back of the head with a .45-caliber pistol by Saddam Hussein's 
executioners and with their little babies similarly with holes in the 
back of their skulls.
  Mr. Speaker, this operation in Iraq is indeed a moral operation. It 
represents the goodness of the American people.
  I am also reminded of something that lots of folks and the Vice 
President talked about, and that is the goodness that we have brought 
with the 3 million-plus babies who have been vaccinated, with the 
hundreds of schools and hospitals that have been built, and with all 
those expectant mothers that were given prenatal care by the Americans 
so that their children would be born in a healthy fashion.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I recall that in 1984 Ronald Reagan very eloquently 
asked the American people to support him in bringing freedom to the 
people of El Salvador. I remember his speech; and in his speech, he 
harkened back to another American who had appealed to us in bringing 
freedom to another part of the world, which was at that time 
endangered, and that was Greece in 1947.
  The communists were very close to victory in Greece, and Harry Truman 
appealed to the American people in a joint session of Congress. He said 
the free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining 
their freedoms. If we falter, we may endanger the peace of the world, 
and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this Nation.
  Now, we have no guarantee of victory in Iraq. There is no battle plan 
that comes with a guarantee of victory, but I will tell one thing that 
is very clear: what is happening in Iraq and our efforts in Iraq are 
connected and are watched by every terrorist in the world, and that 
connection is established and travels as fast as the speed of electrons 
in this age of television and technology and high-paced, fast media and 
the Internet. They see what we are doing.
  And that connection, Mr. Speaker, was made when the Beirut bombings 
occurred against the Marines in the Marine barracks in Beirut. In fact, 
I think Mr. Skelton was with me. We were over there very shortly before 
those bombings occurred.
  They are connected and the terrorist world watched very closely when 
there was no response to that. They watched very closely when there was 
no response in the Khobar Towers, with respect to the Cole and 
extremely anemic response with respect to the bombings in the embassies 
in Africa.
  Now we are undertaking an important and difficult mission; and, Mr. 
Speaker, I pointed out before that at least one brigade of the 82nd 
Airborne is already in place in Baghdad, now engaged in the operation, 
and we have a brigade of the Big Red One moving now toward the theater. 
I believe we have right at 4,000 members of the 82nd Airborne now in 
country in Iraq, and we have Iraqi soldiers and Americans engaged in 
the nine sectors of the city already undertaking this operation and 
this plan that has been developed by our warfighting commanders.
  The idea that we are here, poised to retroactively condemn an 
operation that our soldiers are already carrying out, is, to my mind, 
remarkable. There is not going to be any force in effect with respect 
to this vote that will take place shortly that will do anything but 
send the wrong message to America's

[[Page H1540]]

allies, and I think you have seen comments by some of our allies over 
the last several weeks with respect to the message that we send out. We 
are interesting people are we not, Mr. Speaker. We send out messages 
with all the electronic gadgets in the world to convey the messages to 
the entire world, and then we say, you know, we really did not mean 
what you take our statements to mean and we really did not intend to 
give anybody the wrong message that we still support the troops.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we have got a number of great members of the Armed 
Services Committee that I want to yield to, and I want to come back 
later and talk a little bit later about this war against terror and the 
centerpiece that is Iraq and the centerpiece of that which is as 
planned.
  You know, I was thinking there was a statement once that in a little 
hut in Central America when we were standing up to the Communists and 
we were providing a shield for El Salvador, while that fragile 
democracy stood up, there was a hut in El Salvador which reportedly had 
the writing on it, Thank God for Ronald Reagan. I am wondering if some 
trooper in the 82nd Airborne, in the 2nd brigade of the 82nd Airborne 
may write on a wall in Baghdad, maybe on Friday when we take this vote, 
This is the day in which the American Congress condemned the mission 
that we are carrying out today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lend my strong support to this 
bipartisan resolution supporting our men and women in uniform and 
opposing the President's decision to send more troops into Iraq.
  Last year, Congress united across party lines to say loudly and 
clearly, the year of 2006 must be a year of significant transition in 
Iraq. Rather than chart a new course, the President is proposing more 
of the same. His actions will only deepen America's involvement in 
Iraq's civil war.
  Instead of acknowledging the facts on the ground, instead of 
listening to the combatant commanders and the Iraq Study Group and 
instead of hearing the American people's call for change, the President 
has once again chosen to stick to his failed policies, and now he has 
raised the risk by insisting more U.S. troops head to Iraq.
  It has been 4 years, Mr. President. The American people have every 
right to expect a change of course in Iraq, and it is your 
responsibility to them and our men and women in uniform to stop 
fighting Iraq's civil war.
  As General Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency 
under President Reagan, wrote this weekend, unless Congress speaks up, 
and I quote, we may be doomed to 2 more years of chasing a mirage in 
Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. We cannot let that happen. 
Sending more U.S. troops to Iraq will not stabilize it or the region as 
a whole. As the latest National Intelligence Estimate makes clear, Iraq 
is becoming more polarized and violent, not less. Sending more American 
troops to Iraq without stronger Iraqi leadership will only lead to 
further chaos.
  My consistent opposition to this troop surge is built upon years of 
hearings in the House Armed Services Committee, congressional briefings 
and five trips to the region, including three to Iraq, witnessing the 
war firsthand and speaking with our troops and commanders on the 
ground.
  I have watched the President plead his case to the American people, 
trying to justify why more troops will save his failed policy; but I am 
consistently disappointed by the stubbornness exhibited by an 
administration that has failed every step of the way.
  I have stated from the beginning of the war that the Commander in 
Chief has the responsibility to define a well-articulated mission that 
has the support of the American people and an exit strategy to bring 
our troops home sooner and safer. He has neither.
  Top military commanders in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and 
the American people all agree that sending more troops to Iraq will not 
end the civil war. They understand the Iraqi Government needs to take 
responsibility for securing their own country, and we should 
immediately begin a strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in 
conjunction with diplomacy that forces Iraq's neighbors to step up as 
regional, responsible partners.
  If the President sidesteps the Congress, he does so at his own peril; 
and, sadly, it is the men and women of our Armed Forces and their 
families who will pay the highest price.

                              {time}  2015

  I believe it is grossly irresponsible to send more troops to Iraq 
when only two thirds of our Army's up-armored Humvees in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have been fitted with the latest anti-IED protective kits. 
That is over 4,000 Humvees without the right equipment.
  General Pace has indicated that all armored vehicles will not be up-
armored until July, well after the President's surge has occurred.
  This is why I am an original cosponsor of the Meehan legislation that 
requires the President to ask Congress for an up-or-down vote if he 
plans to raise troop levels in Iraq and why I am proud to support this 
legislation today.
  I will continue to challenge the President to abandon his flawed 
troop surge policy, and I urge my colleagues to support this important 
resolution. We owe it to our troops and to our conscience.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just 30 seconds, and I would 
like to just make one note. That is, if we add the 21,500 troops that 
are already partly in Iraq, these reinforcements to the 138 who existed 
before the movement started, and we allow for the troops who are 
rotating home, we will have fewer; we will have 157,000 troops in Iraq, 
according to DOD. That is fewer than the number of troops that we had a 
year ago in December. That is the state of this so-called surge; fewer 
troops than we had last year.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would yield such time as he may consume 
to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) who, for a 
number of years, chaired the Terrorism Subcommittee and is now the 
ranking member.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to the resolution that will be voted on Friday. 
And my statement, as clearly as I can, says why.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the funeral of an old friend who 
passed away after a wonderful, productive 90 years of life. His family 
and friends gathered at the church to celebrate his life and to 
remember his accomplishments. During World War II, he served as a 
member of the Army Air Corps.
  Near the end of the service, two Air Force sergeants unfolded and 
refolded an American flag, and then caringly presented it to my 
friend's widow saying, ``On behalf of the President of the United 
States, the United States Air Force, and a grateful American people, I 
present this flag in honor of your husband's service to his country.''
  Mr. Speaker, we survive as a nation today in large part because of 
the selfless service to our country by a great many Americans just like 
my friend. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, members of the Coast 
Guard, and members of the foreign service organizations have been 
supported by the American people and by American resources and funding.
  Because we are once again involved in a war which threatens our 
country, we find American military personnel are again deployed to many 
parts of the world. Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Peter Pace listed the long list of countries where our forces are 
deployed and are present to help protect us as part of the global war 
on terror. Earlier tonight, I read from that list. There are 70 
countries where Americans serve abroad in support of the global war on 
terror. We don't send them there because we want to send them off to 
some far off part of the world for no good reason. There are threats 
there, threats like al Qaeda, threats like Hezbollah, threats like the 
Quad groups that are funded by Iran.
  This is a unique and historic struggle for a number of reasons. Chief 
among them is that our enemies are both state and nonstate actors. They 
are lethal and deadly. Fortunately, the great citizens of this country 
have responded. Americans have volunteered in large numbers to work, 
defend, and fight to protect our way of life. Yet,

[[Page H1541]]

today some among us would question whether we are on the right track. 
And I think they are on the wrong track.
  As many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, I have 
devoted much of my career in Congress to studying and understanding 
this enemy. I must say that I believe I have developed some 
understanding of them, and so I would like to take a few minutes here 
tonight to share some thoughts and some facts about them. You simply 
cannot discuss or understand our situation in Iraq without first 
addressing some of the fundamental and important questions about the 
enemy.
  Who is he, or who are they? How do they work to achieve their goals 
on the battlefield? How do they work to achieve their international 
objectives? What is our record against them? And what is at stake?
  First of all, who are they? Members of al Qaeda and Hezbollah, the 
Quads forces, and other similar terrorist groups' view of the world is 
based on an extreme ideology, an ideology that is far more extreme than 
most Middle Eastern people want or support. I certainly can't speak for 
the citizens of the Middle East, but it seems clear to me that in the 
opinion of the great majority of citizens and residents of the Middle 
East, both Muslim and non-Muslim, that this is an extreme ideology 
which they feel they should reject. And they do.
  The extremists are groups of individuals who do not believe in any 
form of secular government, and will go to seemingly any lengths to 
sabotage others who try to establish secular or representative free 
types of governments. Their tactics run the gamut from sermonizing to 
mistreatment to capture, torture, and death, often by beheading. Their 
leaders are male and assign subservient roles to females. Their 
ideology holds that members of society, both Middle Eastern society and 
otherwise, who do not share their same radical beliefs are assigned to 
a subservient role or simply eliminated. They are members of 
organizations who state openly and repeatedly, ``Death to the non-
believers, death to America.'' They say it every day. This, in short, 
is what they are about.
  Perhaps there are some of us here in Congress who don't take these 
people seriously. I do. And I am glad Franklin Roosevelt took Hitler 
and his people seriously as well. It is much the same.
  Twenty years ago, while on my second trip to Israel, it was 1987 to 
be exact, I came across an article about Hamas. In 1987, I had never 
heard of them before; they were a brand-new group. So while I was 
there, I asked about them. And I learned much about Hamas, but also 
about other groups that we hear about today, groups like Hezbollah and 
the Islamic Jihad, other groups that existed at the time. And I will 
always remember getting back on that airplane to come home. I thought, 
``Today these people are a huge problem in the Middle East, and I bet 
it won't be long until they are a huge problem in the U.S.'' They are 
today.
  The second thing I would like to talk a little bit about is how they 
work to achieve their goals on the battlefield. It is kind of unique, 
certainly unique in history. Their radical ideology breeds an 
unconventional strategy of violence, and they are not to be 
underestimated. This is the method to their violence:
  They have recognized that it is difficult or impossible for them to 
achieve their goals through conventional warfare strategies and 
techniques. They have instituted as a substitute a four-stage process 
that replaces traditional warfare, at least traditional warfare as we 
know it in the West. Their strategy is well laid out and planned; it is 
called insurgency. Four steps.
  First, they work quietly to gain the support of the population 
through social, charitable, and ideological groups and organizations, 
schools, hospitals, charities. They gain the support of the people.
  Second, now that they have developed some strength in organization, 
they begin to develop strength in unconventional warfare capabilities. 
Unconventional warfare capabilities, terrorism, if you will, until 
their ability exists to severely harass their enemy, usually the 
superior legitimate force, the government of whatever country they 
happen to be operating in. This is often the traditional or newly 
created government, just like the one that we are dealing with in Iraq. 
And in this way, they build popular support through unconventional 
warfare successes as well as through charities.
  Step three. They develop the ability to reconsider the danger of 
counterattack posed by the stronger legitimate force or government, and 
the ability to fade away temporarily into the population until the 
pressure is off so they can come back and fight again, all the time 
getting stronger, all the time carrying out their work through the 
charities and the schools and the hospitals, and the terrorist acts 
against their enemy.
  Finally, the fourth step, they develop it over time, the conventional 
capabilities that are necessary to be used against the stronger 
traditional force with the objective of defeating the legitimate 
government.
  If that sounds familiar, it should, because it is exactly what is 
happening in Iraq. This is the traditional four-step insurgency process 
first used in China by Mao in the 1920s, and in Vietnam during the 
1960s and 1970s.
  Studying this concept, one can apply it to various theaters around 
the world in the global war on terror and identify various stages in 
various theaters in many places in the world. I believe, for example, 
Hezbollah in Lebanon has worked its way nearly to the fourth stage of 
the insurgency process. Other groups like al Qaeda in Iraq are 
following the same course elsewhere.
  The third thing I would like to talk about a little bit is how they 
work to achieve superiority strategically internationally. Let's look 
at the process, the process that fosters the doubt that some citizens 
in the U.S. have today. That is why we are here tonight. Some people 
doubt our capabilities. And this is the type of thinking that brings us 
here tonight. This is the doubt that fuels the desire to disengage, to 
pretend that the danger doesn't exist, to discuss, as we are here today 
or tonight, solutions to limit our success and move toward 
disengagement.
  The enemy has demonstrated a strong understanding and some success 
internationally in developing this unconventional strategy of warfare. 
It has evolved something like this:
  In the early 19th century, armies met each other on the battlefield, 
frontline to frontline. We all remember looking at those old movies of 
wars in the 19th century. Warriors were trained in techniques aimed at 
defeating their foe's frontlines so as to prevail on the battlefield. 
There was little thought, planning, or training given to reaching 
beyond the frontlines in battle, much less to strike directly at 
central governments. Today, this strategy of warfare is called first-
generation warfare.
  Then, during the 20th century, specifically during World War I and 
World War II, two new generations of warfare evolved. During World War 
I, armies were trained to carry out tactics not only against frontlines 
but also against logistical supply lines. The intent was to damage the 
enemy's ability by reaching back beyond the battlefield frontline. This 
is called second-generation warfare.
  World War II brought about third-generation warfare by using tactics 
to reach even further behind the lines to attack the industrial 
production facilities of the enemy's central governments.
  Finally, the most recent evolution, strategic and tactical execution 
of warfare, designed as fourth-generation warfare. The goal, to destroy 
the determination of the enemy's decisionmakers to continue the fight.

                              {time}  2030

  Today's decisionmakers are the citizens of Europe and the rest of the 
West, including, of course, the United States and the decisionmakers of 
the United States Congress. Unconventional tools have been used by al 
Qaeda through fourth-generation warfare and other groups to convince 
the decisionmakers to discontinue the effort. Unconventional tools such 
as the Western media, terrorist acts such as those on 9/11, and 
unconventional warfare such as killing Shiia citizens, Sunni citizens 
and coalition military participants with IEDs and car and truck bombs.
  Through the media, every one of these acts which is reported has an 
effect and carries a message intentionally to discourage 
decisionmakers,

[[Page H1542]]

and that is precisely the plan. That is precisely why we are having 
this debate tonight.
  That brings us to the debate today. Often American decisionmakers 
have been convinced through fourth-generation warfare used by al Qaeda 
and used by other groups, Shiia militias, Sunni insurgents, to convince 
some here to vote to discontinue necessary efforts in one of the 
central theaters of the global war on terror, Iraq, and hence convince 
us not to provide the level of national security so important to the 
citizens and children and future generations of the United States of 
America.
  Fourth, let me talk about understanding the consequences of 
withdrawal and our record. Withdrawal under fire is unacceptable and 
history is replete with examples of harmful consequences in doing so. 
Lebanon and Somalia are two examples where we presently face increased 
threats to our national security as a result of previously ill-timed 
withdrawals.
  As a result of the U.S. withdrawal in Lebanon, for example, after the 
Marine barracks bombing in 1983, the country, Lebanon, even today 
remains a terrorist hotbed. The withdrawal strengthened Hezbollah. It 
contributed to years of civil war in Lebanon. It diminished U.S. 
prestige in the region and influence throughout much of the world.
  The lingering question: Could the U.S. have prevented the rise of 
Hezbollah and the influence of Tehran with sustained engagement in 
Lebanon? We will never know.
  In 1993, we withdrew our forces from Somalia after a failed military 
operation in Mogadishu. A decade later an Islamic militia with ties to 
al Qaeda has controlled that country and is responsible for 
destabilizing the entire Horn of Africa. We didn't know it at the time. 
We decided to withdraw. It was a mistake. This radical movement briefly 
shows signs of regaining lost ground in Somalia, even today.
  At the very least, Somalia remains a dangerous, ungoverned place, and 
the lingering question, could the United States have prevented the 
spread of radicalism in the Horn of Africa with a sustained engagement 
in Somalia, but we withdrew.
  Further evidence of failure to respond to terrorism emboldened al 
Qaeda. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. No response. In 
1996, Khobar Towers were bombed. No response. In 1998, the U.S. Embassy 
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania took place. No response. In 2000, the 
attack on the USS Cole took place. No response.
  Result? September 11. We are not alone. The Soviet Union and Israel 
both paid heavy prices for implementing a precipitous withdrawal on two 
separate occasions. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 
and left behind the conditions of anarchy and warlordism, which 
ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban and provided safe haven for 
al Qaeda.
  Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 resulted in an empowered 
Hezbollah, weakened Lebanese moderates failed to keep peace. The best 
example was Hezbollah's naked aggression this past summer in delivering 
unbelievable attacks against Israel's civilian population. As one 
commentator has put it, this is from Victor Hanson in the National 
Review Online, December 1, 2006, ``By not responding to a decade of 
prior attacks in East Africa, New York, Saudi Arabia and Yemen and 
withdrawing precipitously from Lebanon and Mogadishu, we gave the fatal 
impression that terrorists could strike the U.S. with near impunity.'' 
That is what we are talking about doing now in Iraq.
  The lesson here is obvious. We must remain engaged until we complete 
our mission. Finally, what is at stake? It is clear that al Qaeda and 
other groups constitute a serious threat to the citizens of the U.S. 
for this generation and, even more importantly, for the future 
generations. Our enemies have demonstrated significant success in 
carrying out activities to the detriment of the citizens of the U.S.
  They have successfully attacked numerous targets overseas, mostly 
with explosives, and have used missiles known as jumbo jets to attack 
New York City and Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, and they have used 
explosives in terror operations in Afghanistan, and even more 
successfully in Iraq to pit the minority Sunni population against the 
Shiia. They fueled the insurgency and have cost Sunni, Shiia, as well 
as the lives of U.S. soldiers.
  Our choices may be difficult. It is not easy to be at war. It is even 
harder to stay at war, but it is clearly proven by history that we must 
not abandon the missions in the war on terror nor in the Iraqi theater. 
We have seen the results of the precipitous withdrawals. It would be 
unconscionable to vote and to do other than to support the 
administration's plan.
  Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman
  Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding briefly. I 
want to thank him for his statement and just clarify the record, while 
he has got some time, if I could.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend from California, the gentlelady, made the 
remark, as I understand it, that the Iraq Study Group did not agree 
with the President's so-called surge. I just would point to the 
statement that the Iraq Study Group published in their report. They 
said we could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of 
American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training 
and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that 
such steps would be effective.
  We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops because we 
believe that so much is at stake. So the Iraq Study Group did state 
that they would support a surge to effect the stabilization of Baghdad, 
and it is in the nine sectors of Baghdad with Iraqi battalions to the 
front, American battalions backing them up, that this operation is 
taking right now. So it appears to me that the President is, in fact, 
following and is on common ground with this recommendation by the Iraq 
Study Group. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to respond, 
since you were so nice to quote me.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is, as we all know, the Iraq Study Group had a 
very comprehensive strategy, but it was a radical departure from what 
the President is proposing today in this surge. I think there was some, 
you know, 70-plus recommendations in the Iraq Study Group, including 
shifting the mission to training of the Iraqi Security Forces and a big 
emphasis on diplomacy. So I don't think it is fair for the gentleman to 
cherry-pick a paragraph out of what the Iraq Study Group says.
  But with all due respect, I will tell you what the Iraq Study Group 
recommended is not what the President is doing now. Frankly, the 
President has rejected the Iraq Study Group recommendations, and I 
think that to suggest that he is going along with the Iraq Study Group 
recommendations is really not correct.
  Mr. HUNTER. I would just say to my friend from California, he is 
consistent with the Iraq Study Group to the extent of 21,500 troops, 
which has been described by your side of the debate as very substantial 
and such an important thing and such a major thing that it should be 
stopped. So that, obviously, is not an inconsequential aspect of the 
Iraq Study Group's statement.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Well, yielding myself some time, I don't disagree with 
you, but one recommendation out of some 70-odd does not make the Iraq 
Study Group what the President is doing.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am going to yield myself 25 minutes, and 
at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the 
chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Costello.
  Mr. COSTELLO. I want to thank my friend from California for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Skelton bipartisan 
resolution opposing President Bush's policy to send 21,500 additional 
troops to Iraq. I do so because I am strongly against escalating the 
war in Iraq.
  This is not so much a policy as it is a hope that additional troops 
will somehow make right the long list of poor decisions by this 
administration regarding our involvement in Iraq. Putting 21,500 more 
soldiers on the

[[Page H1543]]

ground only gives President Bush little more time to resist the 
conclusion that the vast majority of Americans have already reached, 
and that is that the events in Iraq have moved beyond our ability to 
impact them in a meaningful way militarily.
  It is important to note that we have reached this point not because 
of some failing of our men and women in uniform who continue to make 
sacrifices. Indeed, our respect and admiration for our troops is 
matched only by their bravery. Regrettably, but not unpredictably, the 
plan for postwar Iraq woefully was inadequate, and the Bush 
administration, instead of taking responsibility for its failings, 
continues to insist that victory is just around the corner. It is not. 
A civil war is raging in Iraq, and our troops are caught in the 
crossfire.
  The grand designs of the Bush administration are not attainable now, 
if they ever were. It is time to admit it and move forward. This is not 
to say that we should abandon the region. Far from it. The United 
States must continue to work with countries of the Middle East and of 
the world to stabilize Iraq and its neighbors.
  I have said for months that I believe the best way to get the rest of 
the world to take responsibility for what is happening on the ground in 
Iraq may be to remove our troops, and I am convinced that this is the 
necessary course of action now. We can maintain a strong presence in 
the region, but we cannot make the hard political decisions that the 
Sunnis, Shiites and others must make to save Iraq, and then they will 
not make them as long as our military is there.
  Let me just reemphasize that. We cannot make the hard political 
decisions that the Sunnis and Shiites and others must make to save 
Iraq, and they will not make them as long as our military is there.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people do not support sending more troops 
to Iraq. In fact, the American people want us out of Iraq, and the 
people of Iraq want us out as well
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the sacrifices and service of our men and 
women in uniform, and I commend Chairman Skelton for bringing this 
bipartisan resolution to the floor of the House. I urge my colleagues 
to support the bipartisan resolution.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to my 
friend and colleague from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our 
extraordinary troops and oppose sending over 20,000 additional U.S. 
forces into the middle of Iraq's violent sectarian conflict. I oppose 
the President's plan because it will not end the insurgency, halt 
military activity, or accelerate our departure from Iraq. The plan is 
not a strategic change.
  Rather, it is the continuation of a failed policy. When Congress 
voted to authorize the use of military force, I voted ``no.'' I felt at 
that time that we had not exhausted all diplomatic avenues and that 
unilateral action would have a grave effect on our strategic position 
in the world. More significantly, it could undercut the broader long-
term war against Islamic extremism. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, many of these 
predictions have come through. We now find ourselves in a position 
where only grim choices remain.

                              {time}  2045

  The war in Iraq has indeed strained our military, drained taxpayer 
dollars and damaged our credibility in the international community. As 
a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have heard from a 
number of administration officials and academic experts on the way 
forward in Iraq. And many of these experts have warned against 
increasing the number of troops.
  Last November, General Abizaid told Congress that an increase in U.S. 
troop levels would only delay the ability of Iraqis to take the lead. 
Mr. Speaker, what changed between November and today? Even the most 
ardent proponents of the troop increase acknowledge that to work all 
pieces must come together.
  First, the military must be able to quell sectarian and insurgent 
violence. And then if the violence subsides long enough for a window of 
opportunity to open, the economic and political components must be 
executed flawlessly.
  Even if our forces are successful in reducing violence in the short 
term, assurances cannot be given that other parts of the government 
will be able to address the economic and political components of the 
President's plan.
  Well, the track record of the administration and the Maliki 
government make it hard to believe that such a plan will bring real 
results. One of the most egregious errors of our entire experience in 
Iraq has been the failure to put trained experts in critical civilian 
positions.
  To accomplish this new mission, civilian agencies have been asked to 
send several hundred experts to Iraq to carry out the plan. However, 
the military has reported that because of hiring delays, DOD will have 
to assign their own personnel because U.S. civilian agencies are unable 
to fill the much needed positions.
  Mr. Speaker, it should not be the role of the military to rebuild 
nations on their own. We should have been leveraging our talented and 
experienced Federal workforce all along. Many of my colleagues have 
already discussed key issues such as readiness and equipment levels, 
but two of the greatest concerns I have with the President's plan are 
the effect on our volunteer force and the strategic risk that is 
created by putting more military assets into Iraq.
  By adding more troops, the administration leaves our Nation with 
fewer resources to deal with Afghanistan and future contingencies. Will 
we be able to respond if our military is needed elsewhere? With more of 
our troops bogged down, will our allies around the world continue to 
have faith in our ability to respond to extremist and military threats 
around the globe?
  We must answer these questions. But I have not heard satisfactory 
responses from the President or military officials. Mr. Speaker, I also 
oppose the surge because the present administration has not 
sufficiently answered questions about the impact on military personnel. 
For those in the military, this war hits close to home every day.
  While we have asked few Americans to sacrifice during this conflict, 
servicemembers and their families continue to face the uncertainty of 
repeated deployments, injury and in some cases the death of a loved 
one. They deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I told President Bush that veterans in my district have 
said, ``We are a military at war, not a Nation at war.'' And military 
leaders agree. Mr. Speaker, if we truly want to create a situation 
where we can withdraw our troops, we need to escalate our diplomatic 
efforts and call on Iraq's neighbors to help the Iraqi Government make 
the tough political decisions needed to reduce the violence.
  We must not give in to the President's diversion, but develop a 
multipronged strategic plan the American and the Iraqi people deserve
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of this resolution that supports our troops, but oppose the President's 
escalation plan. My opposition to this war has been clear and 
consistent. The night before I voted against the Iraq war resolution in 
October 2002, I stated on this floor that Congress should not grant the 
President power to pursue a war in Iraq for three reasons.
  First, Iraq was not an imminent threat to the safety and security of 
America, something we now know to be true. There are no weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq.
  Secondly, we were acting without real international support. And we 
now know that our unilateral action proved to be disastrous to our 
standing in the world community.
  Finally, I questioned whether the President had an exit strategy. 
Now, 4\1/2\ years later, it is clear that President Bush did not have 
and still does not have an exit strategy for our troops.
  Even though I voted against the invasion, I never dreamt that the 
President's policies and course of action would be as disastrous as 
they have been for Iraq, for the gulf region and for America.
  Americans went to the polls in November to send a clear message to 
Congress and to the administration. They

[[Page H1544]]

are against this war and they want a successful exit plan. Americans 
see that we are spending 8 to $10 billion a month to fight this war, 
while in our own country we have 47 million Americans without health 
care insurance and our national debt is almost $9 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I hear the American people 
loud and clear. They want oversight of this war. They want to know the 
hard facts of the situation on the ground in Iraq, instead of the rosy 
picture the Bush administration tries to paint. They want 
investigations of and an end to the shady contracting in Iraq that has 
given away billions of American dollars without so much as a receipt. 
They want assurances that our troops will be protected.
  Mr. Speaker, even though it was a mistake of titanic proportions to 
initiate this war, now that Iraq has been destabilized, what are we to 
do? The answer cannot be more of the same, because what we are doing is 
failing to have a positive impact. Our troops have performed the 
difficult missions given to them in Iraq with courage.
  Congress and the American people will continue to support them and 
provide them with every resource they need. 320 soldiers from my home 
State of California have died in this war. We can never repay our debt 
to their faithful service and the sacrifices made by their families.
  The failure in Iraq is not a failure of our fighting men and women. 
It is a failure of command, a failure of political leadership. We must 
provide our troops and their families with a new exit strategy instead 
of a new deployment.
  The civil war in Iraq is not the product of ad hoc, spur-of-the-
moment individual violence. No. It is organized and it is a strategy of 
various political and sectarian factions in Iraq. Putting our troops in 
the middle of these warring factions will not end the violence. It will 
only put our troops in the middle of it. That notion is borne out by 
the fact that more than 60 percent of the Iraqi public believes that it 
is a good thing to attack and kill Americans stationed in Iraq.
  Proponents of the President's escalation plan act as if the United 
States has but two options: one, increase the American troops at great 
cost, both in human lives and financial; or, two, do nothing. But those 
are not the only choices. We must step up our diplomatic efforts in the 
region as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
  Americans should call upon neighboring states in the Middle East to 
take strong measures to avoid a spread of the conflict beyond Iraq. As 
Iraq disintegrates into sectarian violence, her neighbors must insist 
that the factions within Iraq halt their civil war.
  We need to remind the countries in the region that stability in Iraq 
is vital to their interests. If they want to avoid having this war 
spill out across the Middle East, they must step up their diplomatic 
efforts. With the help of the entire region, we can push the Iraqis to 
help themselves.
  Iraqi security forces must be trained in a faster pace so they can be 
responsible for their own country. There is no guarantee of success in 
Iraq, nor is there a clear definition of what success might look like; 
but we do have a moral obligation to make our best efforts to diffuse 
the chaos the war has created. The solution must be a political and a 
diplomatic one.
  Unfortunately, the President refuses to pursue the diplomatic options 
endorsed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and his own military 
advisors. As we saw today with the welcome news that diplomatic efforts 
have led to the de-escalation of tensions in North Korea and an 
agreement to abandon their nuclear weapons ambition, a conflict is not 
always the right answer to world challenges.
  Even General Abizaid, the outgoing top commander of the U.S. forces 
in Iraq, does not believe an escalation will increase our chances of 
American success. The American public has long been ahead of Congress 
in their opposition to this war.
  I am here today to tell the American people that they are being 
heard. I stand with the majority of Americans who say they have had 
enough. In the coming weeks and days, Congress will give the 
President's plan the scrutiny the American people expect and our troops 
deserve. It is time to bring this war to an end and time to support 
this resolution
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, America begins the fifth year of war in Iraq. 
I am pleased that Speaker Pelosi has scheduled such a thorough debate 
of the most important moral and political issue of the day. The war in 
Iraq was misguided from the outset, even illegal, and has been 
mismanaged consistently ever since.
  The resolution we have before us today puts Congress on record 
opposing the escalation of troops in Iraq proposed by President Bush 
and expressing our steadfast support for our troops.
  Let me say at the outset that I intend to vote for this resolution. 
It is an important first step. The President's escalation of forces in 
Iraq is worse than the stay-the-course strategy so clearly rejected by 
Americans. If we pass this resolution, we will be doing more than 
repudiating the President's disastrous policy. We will for the first 
time be putting Congress on record in a way that will allow us to bring 
this war to an end for Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq are heroes. 
They are the most finely trained and dedicated group of patriots any 
leader could want. But they now find themselves mired in the middle of 
intense violence, based on sectarian, political, social and cultural 
factors dating back 1,000 years.
  The situation in Iraq cannot be solved militarily. Pretending 
otherwise only puts our soldiers, marines and others in greater danger. 
I have visited them in theater, in Iraq and other countries in the 
region and, yes, at Walter Reed Hospital here in Washington.
  I have met with their families in New Jersey. The quality of these 
men and women, their earnest wish to serve their country makes this 
situation all the more tragic.
  Mr. Speaker, they were sent to Iraq irresponsibly and in ignorance by 
leaders, sometimes improperly equipped, and are now asked to achieve an 
impossible mission. There is no way for us to resolve militarily the 
emerging multifaceted civil war that is engulfing Iraq.
  When he ordered the invasion of Iraq, President Bush unleashed forces 
he did not understand and could not control. As the most recent 
National Intelligence Estimate attests: ``The term civil war does not 
adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which 
includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence and al Qaeda and Sunni 
insurgent attacks on coalition forces and widespread criminally 
motivated violence.''
  Whenever American forces leave Iraq, there will not be a stable 
American-style liberal democracy. Prolonging the occupation of Iraq 
whose stability has only declined by any measure as our presence goes 
on increases the costs we incur in lives, dollars, and international 
prestige.
  No one will look back and say, if only the American military stayed a 
little longer. No, historians will look back and ask what took Congress 
so long to recognize a disaster and do something about it. Extracting 
American troops from this quagmire will dry up support for the various 
insurgencies operating in Iraq, and encourage other nations to take 
part in the process of stabilizing the country and promote the domestic 
processes necessary for long-term stability.
  Given all of those factors, the burden should not be on those who 
believe that American forces should be withdrawn. The burden should be 
on those who want to continue this endeavor to show any compelling 
evidence that is worth sending more Americans to kill and to be killed.
  Sending more troops should require the same high standard of evidence 
that should have been met to go to war in the first place.

                              {time}  2100

  But the President and, I am sorry to say, the previous Congresses did 
not apply that high standard. Some of us said 4 years ago that there 
was not evidence sufficiently compelling to send Americans to kill and 
to die. After the President went to war anyway, I called for withdrawal 
early.

[[Page H1545]]

  Now, Congress must establish standards that we failed to set, 
standards of intelligence and evidence, standards of diplomacy, 
standards of legislative oversight, so that we do not go to war or 
escalate wars based on ideology rather than evidence, bravado rather 
than humility, patriotic fervor rather than patient diplomacy.
  Congress failed in its constitutional role to exert a check and 
balance on the Executive. With this resolution we begin on a new 
course, under new legislative leadership. We will audit the books. We 
will review the procedures for detaining prisoners, for engaging 
civilians, for conducting intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for President Bush to catch up with the 
American people. The American people understand that American forces 
should not remain in Iraq to try to quell a civil war they cannot 
control. The American people understand that we must refocus our 
attention on our real interests. If the President did not, let us show 
at least that we do and pass this resolution.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and 
colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Al Green of Texas). Before recognition, 
the Chair announces that the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher) 
has 1 hour and 17 minutes, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) has 1 hour and 18 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the debate taking place here in the House 
this week is long overdue. We are approaching our fifth year of this 
war, and this is the first time Congress is debating the strategy 
President Bush wants to implement in Iraq.
  Congress can no longer stand on the sidelines, and the President has 
to know that to escalate the war in Iraq is simply not acceptable. We 
have lost too many American lives, seen too many soldiers seriously 
injured and spent too much of our hard-earned taxpayer money for no 
good reason. I am proud of my vote against the initial Iraq war 
resolution, and see this resolution before us tonight as the beginning 
of the end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to commend our troops 
for the valiant work they have done over the last 5 years. I am 
thinking of them when I voice my strong opposition to the President's 
plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
  The President hopes this troop escalation plan will secure Baghdad 
and reduce the sectarian violence that is ripping the country apart. 
But there is no evidence to support those hopes.
  In fact, on four different occasions the President increased troop 
levels in Iraq, and every time these plans failed to calm the violence 
in Iraq. Last summer the President moved more troops into Baghdad and 
said that he hoped to see some results in a matter of months. By 
October, General William Caldwell had publicly stated that the surge 
was a failure and the operations had ``not met our overall expectations 
of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.''
  Additional troops are not going to make a difference because there 
simply is not a military solution to the war in Iraq. The devastating 
sectarian violence is going to continue, but our troops should no 
longer be asked to serve as referees in a battle between religious 
sects that have been fighting for centuries.
  Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
claim that if you speak out against the President's proposal, you are 
not supporting our troops, and this is nonsense. And if they listened 
to the troops, they would know that not even a majority of our troops 
support the President's plan. According to a poll conducted by Army 
Times, a weekly newspaper popular with Active Duty and retired Army 
personnel, only 41 percent of our troops support the President's plan. 
But they will do whatever is asked of them, regardless of whether or 
not they agree with the command.
  Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the war, our troops fought without 
the body armor they needed to protect themselves against improvised 
electronic devices. It now appears that the military doesn't have the 
protective equipment needed to properly outfit the troops the President 
plans to send to Iraq. According to the Army, it lacks not only armor 
kits for soldiers, but also trucks and vehicles needed to accommodate 
any escalation in troop levels. Lieutenant General Steven Speaks, the 
Army's deputy chief of staff for force development, said any additional 
units of troops sent to Iraq would have to share the trucks assigned to 
the units now there.
  Do supporters of this plan really believe this Congress should allow 
the President to move ahead without properly investigating whether or 
not our troops will have all the necessary protective equipment they 
need?
  Mr. Speaker, we also need to realistically look at the distraction 
that the Iraq war is causing in the overall war against terror. While 
the administration and the Pentagon focus their attention on Iraq, the 
war in Afghanistan has been forgotten. The Taliban has significantly 
grown in strength in Afghanistan, and America needs to focus its 
attention there, the source of the attacks on 9/11.
  Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the very beginning, and want to 
see our troops home. The President should be putting forth a plan for 
withdrawal from Iraq, not escalation. I am willing to vote to cut off 
funding for the escalation. I have voted against the Iraq supplemental 
appropriation bills to send a message that we need to end U.S. military 
involvement in Iraq. With this resolution, we begin the process of 
getting out of a place where we should never have been from the 
beginning.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to just make a 
brief response to a couple of statements that have been made.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Holt referred to our wounded folks in Walter Reed as 
tragic. They are not tragic. They are American heroes, and they are the 
people who have bought the freedom that allows us to have this debate 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield some time to three unusual 
Americans on the Armed Services Committee who all have had sons serving 
in the Iraq theater. The first gentleman is the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), whose son has been a helicopter pilot in Iraq, 
as much time as the gentleman wishes to consume.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, of course I rise today in strong 
opposition to this resolution.
  It occurs to me, Mr. Hunter, that I need to thank you not only for 
your service, but for your son's service in the Marine Corps. It is one 
of those little twists of those things that I served my whole life in 
the Marine Corps, and my son is serving in the Army. You served in the 
Army, and your son is serving in the Marine Corps. And I don't know if 
we will ever untwist this. But I thank you and him for his service.
  Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this resolution will have us believe 
that this resolution supports and protects our military personnel while 
criticizing the President for changing course.
  We have listened to several speakers today who, like me, served in 
Vietnam and witnessed firsthand the micromanagement of the war from 
Washington. Ironically, they stand here today endorsing the same 
incompetent policy of interference. Instead of President Johnson 
choosing bombing targets, however, we have 535 legislators dictating 
General Petraeus's reinforcement levels; yes, dictating his tactics. It 
was wrong in 1967, Mr. Speaker, and it is wrong in 2007.
  I notice that the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee has risen several times today to point out his belief that 
what the President is doing is not a change of strategy, it is a change 
of tactics. And I would say to my good friend, that great gentleman 
from Missouri, that if that is right, if this is tactics, then in fact 
this resolution is trying to do just that, micromanage the tactics of 
this war.
  If congressional micromanagement were the only problem with this 
resolution, I would still argue vigorously for its defeat. But it is 
not the only problem. Understanding the purpose and intent of this 
resolution, its proponents have revealed their true intentions in the 
course of this debate. They intend for this resolution to be the first 
step on the path to defunding our troops, withdrawing them, and 
allowing Iraq to become a chaotic, ungoverned space that will act as a 
training ground for al Qaeda and the radical jihadists that we are at 
war with.

[[Page H1546]]

  Though few in the West knew it, a new war had already begun during my 
days as commander of Marine aviation forces in Somalia. In the intense 
battle in the back alleys of Mogadishu that inspired the movie 
``Blackhawk Down'' and the bombing of vulnerable U.S. embassies in 
Tanzania and Kenya captured America's attention briefly, but it took an 
unprecedented attack on our homeland for the country to realize what 
Islamic extremists had long known: The United States was at war. And I 
think Mr. Saxton did a very thorough and eloquent job of explaining the 
length and nature of this war. Every country was now a potential front 
and every city a battlefield in the enemy's war against Zionist 
crusaders and nonbelievers. Whether by design or not, Iraq has become 
the front in not only a physical war of attrition, but in the war of 
wills between free societies and Islamic jihadists who seek to destroy 
them.
  The proponents of this flawed resolution prefer to ignore reality. 
They believe that repeating the mistaken belief that Iraq is not a 
central front in the war against Islamic jihadists will make that 
perception real. Unfortunately for those who hold this belief, the 
enemy, our enemy has a say in the matter. Al Qaeda's second in command, 
al-Zawahiri, in December 2006, made it quite clear where al Qaeda 
stands. In a video posted on jihadist Web sites, al-Zawahiri sent a 
clear message: ``The backing of Jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is 
to back the most important battlefields in which the crusade against 
Islam and Muslims is in progress. And the defeat of the Crusaders 
there, soon, Allah permitting, will have a far-reaching effect on the 
future of the Muslim Ummah, Allah willing.''
  We have heard repeatedly that al Qaeda and the jihadist terrorists 
understand that Iraq is the central front in this war against radical 
Islam. Thankfully, the U.S. military leadership has also recognized 
this fact.
  In his recent testimony before the Senate, General David Petraeus was 
asked if he believes that Iraq affects the overall war on terror. His 
response was clear and unequivocal: ``I do, sir.''
  Clearly, there are elements of the greater al Qaeda network of 
international extremists that want something very different than most 
Iraqis want, and want something very different in that region and in 
the world.
  Many mistakes have been made as our military, unparalleled in 
conventional strength and maneuver, has changed strategy and tactics to 
fight the counterinsurgency battle. In response to the frustration at 
the lack of progress felt by those in Iraq and at home, the American 
military demonstrated its greatest strength: the ability to adapt to 
new conditions on the ground and develop new strategy.
  To those who have lived and studied the art of military strategy and 
tactics, the plan we debate this week, developed by American commanders 
in Iraq and here at home, represents a fundamental shift. In a study 
updated last week, Anthony Cordesman from the nonpartisan Center for 
Strategic and International Studies, declared that, ``Much of the 
criticism of the new Bush approach has been unfair. The new strategy is 
considerably more sophisticated and comprehensive than the details the 
President could fit into his 20-minute address,'' or, I might add, Mr. 
Speaker, than I can include in this 10-minute address, ``presuming it 
combines political, military and economic action in ways that do offer 
a significant hope of success.''
  But rather than acknowledge the comprehensive nature of the new 
Baghdad and al-Anbar security plan, opponents prefer to ignore the 
pleas of General Petraeus to provide him with the troops necessary to 
turn the security situation in Iraq's capital city around. Instead, 
they pat him on the back, wish him ``Godspeed'' in his endeavor, and 
then promptly move to deny him that which he has requested and needs to 
succeed. As a Vietnam veteran, I cannot in good conscience watch as 
Congress once again undercuts the morale of those in uniform.
  I will not stand idly by and watch others resurrect the ghost of that 
painful conflict, and we have heard it resurrected many times this day, 
Mr. Speaker, without acknowledging the slaughter and humanitarian 
disaster that resulted from the fall of Saigon. And it was a 
humanitarian disaster. Millions died. Just as in 1974, decisions we 
make today in this body will have consequences for entire nations and 
generations to come. History stands ready to judge the wisdom of this 
body, its ability to learn from past mistakes and its ability to 
comprehend the ramifications of its actions. In spite of countless 
warnings, I fear we will come up short in the eyes of posterity.
  Opponents call for the administration to heed the advice of its 
generals, only to reject the commanders' pronouncement when such states 
are at odds with their own misguided perceptions. They criticize the 
``cherry-picking'' of prewar intelligence, and then proceed to do just 
that, while reading the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, 
choosing to ignore the dire warnings of the Intelligence Community's 
most authoritative written judgments on national security issues.
  But to those who criticize this new security plan and offer no 
solutions for success, only demands for capitulation, we must demand 
that they answer a vital question they choose to ignore: What will 
happen if the Iraqi Government does not succeed and we withdraw 
prematurely?
  One critic of the administration's handling of Iraq, a very vocal 
critic, and a man who I knew and admired throughout my Marine Corps 
career, retired General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of Central 
Command, spelled it out bluntly when he noted that, ``We cannot simply 
pull out, as much as we may want to. The consequences of a destabilized 
and chaotic Iraq sitting in the center of a critical region in the 
world could have catastrophic implications.''

                              {time}  2115

  The recent National Intelligence Estimate was even more specific in 
its analysis. If the United States were to withdraw rapidly, the Iraqi 
security forces would likely collapse, neighboring countries might 
intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and 
forced population displacement would be probable; and al Qaeda in Iraq 
would attempt to use parts of the country to plan increased attacks in 
and outside of Iraq.
  It seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here 
is success or failure.
  Let us not support that catastrophe. Let us not promote a 
humanitarian disaster which is almost unimaginable. Let us support 
success in Iraq. Let us support the new commander in Iraq and give him 
what he needs to succeed in this mission.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution 
expressing disapproval of the President's decision to escalate the war 
in Iraq.
  During the past 4 years, I have embraced, stood by, and prayed with 
Wisconsin families as they said their last goodbyes to their brave sons 
and daughters and husbands and wives. Those fallen soldiers have served 
with the utmost loyalty and courage, trusting decision-makers in 
Washington, the President, his administration, and this Congress to do 
the right thing. Like almost all of my colleagues, I have visited with 
wounded troops at Walter Reed and at home and joined with families and 
communities to send troops off to war and to welcome them back home. 
All of them, all of them, the dead, the wounded, the deployed, the 
returned, and their families, deserve political leaders who will make 
decisions worthy of their enormous sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, we have 
fallen well short of that goal, and we will only honor their sacrifices 
when we acknowledge this and end the war.
  I want to review just some of the things that we now know. We all 
know that this is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We all know 
that Iraq posed no imminent danger to America that would justify what 
this administration called a ``preemptive'' war. We all know that Iraq 
had nothing to do with the tragic September 11 attacks that our Nation 
suffered. We know that few in the world stood with America as we 
undertook this nearly unilateral war. And we now know that our war in

[[Page H1547]]

Iraq has diverted our attention and our resources from efforts to 
combat terrorist threats to our Nation.
  And beyond that, we know now that worldwide resentment of our 
military presence in Iraq has become a central recruiting tool for 
terrorist organizations worldwide. Therefore, we know that this war 
continues to make America less safe and more vulnerable.
  What else do we now know? We now know that the planning and execution 
of this war was wrought with enormous miscalculations. We know that 
more than 3,000 American servicemembers have lost their lives in Iraq, 
and we know that between 56,000 and 61,000 Iraqi civilians have been 
killed since the war began. And based on polls released Monday, we know 
that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of 
this war.
  Mr. Speaker, I was among the first group of House Members to speak 
out against the prospect of going to war in Iraq, and I voted against 
authorizing the use of force in Iraq; and as an early and consistent 
critic of the war, I understand the importance of offering a new course 
in Iraq. We must bring an end to our military occupation and replace it 
with a program of humanitarian relief, rebuilding political 
stabilization, and diplomatic engagement. We must participate in a 
robust regional diplomatic effort, including direct discussions with 
Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq. And I think that this 
effort will be well received by Iraq's neighbors because regardless of 
whether these countries are close allies of the United States or not, 
Iraq's neighbors have more to gain if Iraq is stabilized and more to 
lose if it is not.
  We must also heed the advice of many, including the Iraq Study Group, 
and acknowledge that other conflicts in the Middle East require our 
attention and leadership if the region is to achieve lasting stability. 
Therefore, we must also initiate a new push for Arab-Israeli peace. I 
believe that Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to 
assert its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government in 
overseeing the conduct of this war and bringing it to an end. In doing 
so, I believe all options, including using the power of the purse, 
should be on the table.
  The United States is the lone superpower in the world today. And 
along with that awesome power comes responsibility to humankind. 
America's reason for maintaining its superpower status must be to 
export the best of our democratic system of governance and the hope of 
the American Dream to the rest of the world. But these cherished ideals 
cannot be exported through force. We must teach and lead by example
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution expressing 
disapproval of the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq.
  During the past 4 years I have embraced, stood by, and prayed with 
Wisconsin families as they said their last goodbyes to their brave sons 
and daughters, husbands and wives. Those fallen soldiers have served 
with the utmost loyalty and courage, trusting decision-makers in 
Washington--the President; his administration and this Congress--to do 
the right thing. Like almost all of my colleagues, I have visited with 
wounded troops at Walter Reed and at home, and joined with families and 
communities to send troops off to war and to welcome them back home. 
All of them, all of them--the dead, the wounded, the deployed, the 
returned, their families--deserve political leaders who make decisions 
worthy of their enormous sacrifices. Mr. Speaker, we have fallen well 
short of that goal, and we will only honor their sacrifices when we 
acknowledge this and end the war.
  I want to review just some of the things that we know. We all know 
that this is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We all know that 
Iraq posed no imminent danger to America that would justify what this 
Administration called a ``pre-emptive'' war. We all know that Iraq had 
nothing to do with the tragic September 11 attacks that our Nation 
suffered. We know that few in the world stood with America as we 
undertook this nearly unilateral war. We now know that our war in and 
occupation of Iraq has diverted our attention and our resources from 
our multi-faceted efforts to combat terrorist threats to our Nation and 
its allies. And beyond that, we now know (based upon last year's 
declassified intelligence estimates) that worldwide resentment of our 
military presence in Iraq has become a central recruiting tool for 
terrorist organizations worldwide to increase their ranks. Therefore, 
we know that this war continues to make America less safe and more 
vulnerable as long as it persists.
  What else do we now know? We now know that the planning and the 
execution of the war following our invasion were wrought with enormous 
miscalculations. We now know that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars 
have been lost or squandered through no-bid contracts, lack of 
accountability measures and lack of Congressional oversight under the 
previous Republican majority. We know that more than 3,000 American 
service members have lost their lives in Iraq. We know that between 
56,000 and 61,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began. 
And, based on polls released Monday, we know that 68 percent of 
Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the war in Iraq and 
72 percent of Americans believe that things are going badly in Iraq.
  The situation in Iraq today has variously been called an all-out 
civil war or more simply a state of chaos.
  For years many Americans, including many members of this Congress 
from both parties, gave this war a chance. It is time for this 
administration to give peace a chance. It is time for the President to 
pay attention to the vast yet still growing majority of Americans that 
want us to get out of Iraq.

  Mr. Speaker, I was among the first group of House Members to speak 
out against the prospect of going to war in Iraq. I voted against 
authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and as an early and consistent 
critic of the war, I understand the importance of offering a new course 
in Iraq. Many of my colleagues have introduced bills that would 
redeploy our troops in a responsible manner within a reasonable time 
frame, while focusing on aggressive diplomatic efforts to stabilize the 
Middle East. A number of these bills and resolutions establish concrete 
benchmarks for the Iraqi government. It is long overdue for this 
Administration to start paying attention to these alternative 
proposals, that chart a new course in Iraq. I believe that we must 
redefine our mission in Iraq. We must bring an end to our military 
occupation and replace it with a program of humanitarian relief, 
political stabilization,and diplomatic engagement. We must participate 
in a robust regional diplomatic effort, including direct discussions 
with Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq. And I think that 
effort would be well received by all Iraq's neighbors, because 
regardless of whether these countries are close allies of the United 
States, or not, Iraq's neighbors have more to gain if Iraq is 
stabilized and more to lose if it is not.
  We must also heed the advice of many, including the Iraq Study Group, 
and acknowledge that other conflicts in the Middle East require our 
attention and leadership, if the region is to achieve lasting 
stability. Therefore, we must also initiate a new push for Arab-Israeli 
peace.
  I believe Congress not only has the right, but the responsibility, to 
assert its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government in 
overseeing the conduct of this war and bringing it to an end. Our 
Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress the power to declare war 
and to raise and support armies. If Congress is given the power to make 
wars, we must also exercise our power to end wars. In doing so, I 
believe all options, including using ``the power of the purse,'' should 
be on the table.
  The United States is the lone superpower in the world today. Along 
with that awesome and unprecedented power comes responsibilities to 
humankind. America's reason for maintaining her superpower status must 
be to export the best of our democratic system of governance and the 
hope of the American Dream to the rest of the world. But these 
cherished ideals can't be exported through force. We must teach and 
lead by example.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support the resolution, I strongly believe 
Congress needs to do more to represent the will of the people and 
pursue all options that would lead to an end to this occupation and 
this war.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 10 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) and note that he has a son who has 
served as a U.S. Marine in Iraq.
  (Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, we come here today, we have spent most of the 
day on this, to discuss a resolution. It has two parts. The first says 
that we support our troops, and the second says that we are opposed to 
the mission that the troops are sent on.
  Now, the problem with the resolution is that it is self-contradictory 
right up front. If we were going to say we are supporting our troops, 
we would give them body armor. We would give them up-armored Humvees. 
We would give them tanks. But would we withhold the most important in 
our arsenal and that is other American fighting men and women? So to 
say that we are going to support our troops, but we are not

[[Page H1548]]

going to send them any reinforcements is on the face of it 
contradictory. Could you picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo looking at 
his BlackBerry, getting a message from Congress: Davy Crockett, we 
support you. The only thing is we are not going to send any troops. I 
am sure that would really be impressive to Davy Crockett.
  The second problem with this resolution is that it really misses the 
job of what Congressmen should be doing. Look, I am an engineer by 
training. If we are about to make a mistake or we are doing something 
wrong, I am open minded to my Democrat colleagues saying to me, Todd, 
we are going down the wrong path. That is a bad idea. You should do it 
this way instead. I was always trained that if you are ready to 
criticize somebody, you at least offer an alternative. But the problem 
with this nifty little resolution is that it says we support the 
troops, but we are not going to give them any reinforcements, and then 
it is blank. There is no recommendation. There is no leadership. They 
are just saying we are going to stand on the sidelines and say, It 
won't work. But don't we owe our soldiers something positive, something 
specific, a positive recommendation?
  The Democrats have been elected to majority. That means leadership. 
That means if you have got a better idea, put it on the table; but if 
you don't, shut up and don't undermine the morale of our troops and 
encourage our enemies. That isn't very helpful.
  Now, I have heard people talking about the fact that this is a civil 
war. This isn't a civil war. If we leave, it will be what is a real 
civil war. Right now there is a lot of ethnic clashing and violence, 
and what is that caused by? Guess what, terrorists. They said they are 
doing it intentionally. They blow up a holy place of the Shias, and the 
Shias react and they go shoot up a bunch of Sunnis, and so, yes. But 
who started all of this? Well, of course, it is the terrorists. It is 
their intention. And do we think if they can destabilize Iraq by 
fomenting strife between racial groups that they won't take the same 
strategy to the other barely stable nations in the Middle East, nations 
where you have a Sunni leadership and a Shia majority? Are they not 
going to do the same? Or are you going to say, oh, but it is a civil 
war, so we can wash our hands of it, it is nothing to worry about?
  Now, we had the ambassadors to Egypt and to Jordan, and they pleaded 
with us today, do not rapidly withdraw your troops. So we started to 
ask, well, what would happen if we were to do this? Well, nobody knows. 
But there is one thing we can kind of assume. All the way through 
history, the history of mankind, whenever there is anarchy, it lasts 
but a short time; and it is immediately filled with some kind of very 
strong dictator. Now, do we think that the dictator is going to be a 
moderate, reasonable sort of guy, or if we pull out of Iraq 
immediately, is it not likely that we are going to get an 
Islamoterrorist dictator? I think that that makes at least some sense. 
So then now what do we have? Now we have Iraq with the oil money 
supporting it, with this crazy dictator spreading this same kind of 
radical Islam all over the Middle East. That is a minimum for the 
scenario of what we are potentially looking at if we rapidly withdraw.
  Now, it seems to me that all of us, as Americans, need a little bit 
of a direction check. And I think sometimes when we need direction, it 
is helpful to look at the people who came and founded this great Nation 
before us. And so I go back to a question that I ask audiences, not 
only school kids but adults. I ask them, What is it that makes America 
so unique and so precious? If you take America like an onion and take 
all the outer layers off, when you get down to the heart, what makes us 
who we are as a people? And invariably I hear the word ``freedom.'' But 
that is not quite sufficient because it isn't quite complete. You see, 
the people at Tiananmen Square, those little kids in college, wanted 
freedom, but they greased the treads of Chinese tanks. Just because you 
want freedom doesn't mean you can have it.
  There was more to what our Founders understood, and they set it forth 
before we embarked on our first war as a Nation eloquently in our 
Declaration of Independence. It says: ``We hold these truths to be 
self-evident.'' Rather flowery language. Any idiot should know this: 
``That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
Rights, that among these is Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of 
Happiness.'' And our job in government is to protect those God-given 
rights. It is not just an idea; it was a conviction. People say ideas 
have consequences. Many idiots have ideas, but an idea that you die for 
has consequences. And this idea was powerful. It is the engine that has 
driven America. It has guided us in times of war because we will say, 
yes, we believe there are certain fundamental God-given rights that all 
people are given.
  And that is what I taught my son when he was a little kid. Here he is 
with the Marine Club, just a little guy, saluting Old Glory with a 
whole bunch of little kids in some motley uniforms they bought from the 
used equipment store for military services. Here he is posing just as 
proud as can be. Founder of the Marine Club, taught, taught that there 
are some things in this world that are worth dying for, and those 
convictions are the fact that God gives us life and liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness. And I believe America still believes that.
  There is the little marine. He has grown up now. That is the cache of 
terrorist arms that was found in Fallujah. That is the gang that he had 
the proud opportunity to lead as a second lieutenant in Fallujah 
because he believes that there is nothing particularly strange for us 
to be fighting terrorists.
  Why would it be so odd for us to fight terrorists? What do terrorists 
believe? They believe that you blow up innocent people. What do we 
believe? That life is a gift from God.

                              {time}  2130

  What do terrorists do terrorism for? To take your liberty away, to 
compel you to do something you don't want to do, to make women into 
slaves, to take away people's freedom, to take away your liberty. That 
is what terrorism is for, and that is fundamentally against the idea 
that God made people to be free. That is why he fights.
  That is why America has always fought. There is nothing weird or 
unusual about this. Is it worth fighting terrorists? Is it worth 
risking your life for freedom? I taught my son yes. When I went over to 
visit him, together we reaffirmed what we were doing in Iraq.
  What? Is it so unusual that we have a debate about whether we should 
be going to war or not? That very first war was over the Declaration of 
Independence. There was a gentleman from Virginia who said, What has 
there been in the conduct? But perhaps maybe we could adjust his words.
  What has there been in the conduct of the terrorists that gives us 
any room for hope? The terrorists say the only good Jew is a dead Jew, 
the only good Christian is a dead Christian. That doesn't leave you a 
lot of room for negotiation.
  If we want to stay free, we must fight. Millions of Americans that 
are armed in the holy cause of liberty are invincible by any force 
which the terrorists may send against us. A just God presides over the 
destinies of nations. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be 
purchased at the price of the terrorists running the world? Forbid it, 
Almighty God.
  I know not what course others may take, but as for me, and as for my 
son, we will choose liberty.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, 
colleague, and neighbor from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the young men and women who joined the 
Armed Forces after 9/11 out of a sense of duty and love for our country 
are just like my son Michael, who joined the military because of those 
terrible attacks. I am proud and heartened by their commitment to 
service and patriotism, just as I am proud of my own son's commitment, 
and I am concerned about their safety and well-being, just as I was 
about Michael's when he was in the service.
  When I talk about supporting our troops, it is not rhetorical, it is 
personal. And it is with great sadness and steely resolve that I stand 
up here tonight on the issue of Iraq and the President's plan to 
escalate that conflict. I am saddened because the misguided and 
mismanaged conflict has become a tragic disaster and a genuine

[[Page H1549]]

threat to Mideast stability and global security. The escalation will 
cause more violence in the Middle East and will weaken our Nation.
  I am resolved, because it is our duty as the Congress of this great 
Nation to check and balance the power of the President on any issue we 
believe harmful to this country. This administration insists on finding 
a military answer rather than changing this failed approach and 
pursuing the diplomatic and political solutions necessary to bring an 
end to the violence.
  Unfortunately, the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq will 
not bring success there, nor make the United States more secure. In 
fact, the proposal means a further distraction from the mission in 
Afghanistan and the need for a tougher, smarter approach to the global 
war on terrorism. The President's proposal puts more U.S. lives at 
risk, further stretching the readiness of our ground forces and 
increasing the drain on our Treasury.
  President Bush's plan is opposed by military experts, by Republicans 
and Democrats in both Chambers of Congress, and by the vast majority of 
our country. That is why I rise in strong support of the resolution 
under consideration in this body.
  The resolution has two straightforward provisions: continuing support 
for those American soldiers who have served or are currently serving in 
Iraq; and disagreeing with the President's plan to escalate the 
conflict.
  Supporting our troops is my top priority, not just because it is our 
duty and responsibility, but because it is personal to me and my 
family.
  Recently the Washington Post reported that the Marine Corps and Army 
brigades that would be sent to Iraq under the President's plan are 
short of body armor, vehicles, and other important equipment. That 
shows just how desperate the President's misguided plan is. Military 
action should never be executed in desperation.
  We must transfer the responsibility for establishing and maintaining 
law and order on the streets of Iraq to the Iraqis. Training those 
Iraqi units must be done outside of Iraq. This will mean more troops 
trained more quickly and will lessen the likelihood that Iraqi army and 
police turn to dangerous militias and death squads.
  The members of our Armed Forces who have served in Iraq have done so, 
bravely and honorably. Unfortunately, the President's strategy in Iraq 
has not matched the commitment with which our troops have served in 
that country.
  We must begin a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq on 
a public timeline that makes sense, while pursuing political and 
diplomatic solutions. Yet the President has steadfastly refused to 
engage in the political and diplomatic efforts necessary to bring a 
resolution to the violence in Iraq.
  Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we need a new direction in 
Iraq. I will continue to push for that new direction while always 
putting our troops first.
  This resolution is an important first step. I stand with resolve in 
opposing President Bush's plan for an escalation in Iraq


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Al Green of Texas). The Chair will 
remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the 
House and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of 
proceedings or other audible conversation is in violation of the rules 
of the House.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the discussion on Iraq that is 
taking place in this Chamber, across this country, in classrooms, 
coffee shops, living rooms and across back fences. This resolution asks 
whether the House of Representatives believes with regard to the war in 
Iraq that doing more of the same is a correct strategy to adopt.
  Since this war began, 3,125 American soldiers have died and 23,417 
have been wounded. There have been over 100,000 Iraqi casualties and 
nearly $500 billion has been spent. We have tried troop surges before 
in this war and we have seen the results. In November of 2004, the 
United States increased the troop levels by approximately 18,000. And 
guess what happened? Insurgent attacks went up by 17 percent. Did that 
surge work? No.
  In June of 2005, we increased troop levels again, this time by 21,500 
troops. Guess what happened? Insurgent attacks went up 29 percent. Did 
that surge work? No.
  If we allow to surge troop levels again, by how much can we expect 
insurgent attacks to rise this time? Einstein once suggested that 
insanity is doing something over and over and over again and expecting 
different results.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted against going to war in Iraq, but ever since the 
President committed our first soldier, I have done everything in my 
power to support our troops and give them equipment to keep them safe. 
Our warrior soldiers have done everything we have asked of them and 
more, and I remain committed to our troops until the very last soldier 
leaves Iraq, and I will do whatever it takes to protect our soldiers. 
But putting an additional 37,000 American troops in harm's way when 
there hasn't been a change in strategy is not how we as a country 
support our troops.
  Last November, the American people spoke loud and clear. They said 
that the current tactics in Iraq weren't working and they don't support 
more of the same. An escalation of troops will not quell the violence, 
but will lead to increased violence, more American casualties and a 
further destabilized Iraq.
  There is a moment when wisdom requires change, and I believe that the 
time has come to say enough is enough. America's military involvement 
in Iraq needs to draw to a close and it is time for the Iraqi people to 
assume control over their own country.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, to complete this triad of veterans' fathers, 
fathers of sons who have served in Iraq, is Joe Wilson, whose son Alan 
has received the Combat Action Badge for service in Iraq and the 
Palmetto Cross, which is a high award for the National Guard in South 
Carolina, and who has a son in the Signal Corps, Julian, a doctor in 
the Navy, and a son Hunter, a well-named son, Hunter, in the ROTC.
  The reason I am going through these members of the Wilson clan, Mr. 
Speaker, is because inspired by his wife Roxanne, all these young men 
are serving in the military, and if the Wilson family does not re-up, 
we are in trouble.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the great gentleman from South 
Carolina, Joe Wilson, to follow that wonderful presentation by Mr. 
Akin.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Congressman Hunter, for your 
leadership for our troops and for your son's service in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our men and women serving in 
the United States Armed Forces and in opposition to House Concurrent 
Resolution 63, a resolution that claims to support the troops but 
opposes reinforcements. To truly support our troops, we must provide 
the equipment and sufficient personnel requested by their commander, 
General David Petraeus.
  I believe that we must triumph in the global war on terrorism, that 
victory in Iraq is the only option, and that America's survival is at 
stake. My convictions are deeply derived from personal experience and 
from historical perspective.
  My concerns have been developed as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, through which I have visited Iraq six times, as a 31-year 
veteran of the Army Reserves and Army National Guard, and as the proud 
parent of an Iraq veteran.
  Less than a year after the war in Iraq began, my eldest son, Captain 
Alan Wilson, was deployed across Iraq, where he served honorably for 1 
year. Alan worked for young girls to be able to attend schools. He has 
been a trusted military advisor to me regarding life on the front lines 
in Iraq. Alan today continues to serve in the South Carolina Army 
National Guard.
  In addition to Alan, my younger three sons are also in the military. 
My wife Roxanne and I appreciate their dedication to protecting 
American families.
  The decision to support continued efforts in Iraq is not one I made 
lightly. In the end, however, it is the only viable solution. Retreat 
is not an option.

[[Page H1550]]

Defeat is not an option. There is no end but victory.
  I was truly transformed by September 11th, and I live with its 
ramifications every day. I sincerely believe we are faced with fighting 
the terrorists overseas today, or we will face them in the streets of 
America tomorrow.
  The attacks of September 11th were not isolated, random events. Our 
enemy is highly intelligent, well financed, and committed to the 
destruction of our freedoms.
  Terrorists have declared war on the American people. We have a choice 
of opposing them overseas or fighting them again here in America. The 
concept that America's retreat in Iraq will bring an end to sectarian 
violence and terrorist activity in the region ignores history. 
Premature retreat will embolden the enemy and make us more vulnerable 
to attacks.

                              {time}  2145

  We have seen it happen before. Withdrawals from Beirut and Mogadishu 
led to the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the 1998 embassy bombings 
across Africa, the 2000 bombings of the USS Cole and ultimately 
September 11, 2001.
  Al Qaeda has openly stated Iraq is the central front in the war on 
terrorism. Osama bin Laden himself has said, ``The issue is big and the 
misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for 
the whole world is this third world war. I say to you that the war will 
be won either by us or by you. If it's the former, loss and disgrace 
will be your lot for all eternity, and, Allah be praised, this is the 
way the wind is blowing. If it is the latter, you should read the 
history books. We are a nation that does not remain silent over 
injustice, and we will seek blood vengeance all lifelong. Not many days 
and nights will pass before we take blood vengeance, like we did on 9/
11,'' end of quote of Osama bin Laden.
  We ignore bin Laden's words to the peril of American families.
  All of this is not to say that Members of Congress do not have an 
obligation to question foreign policy. As elected public officials, it 
is our duty to do so. If by conscience one disagrees with our 
direction, he or she has a responsibility to put forth an alternative 
plan.
  An alternative plan, however, is not what we are debating today. 
Instead, the Democrat leadership has put aside 36 hours of debate for a 
resolution that provides no substantive solutions.
  Our men and women in uniform deserve better. Their families deserve 
better. These men and women deserve to know that America supports them, 
that Congress will provide requested equipment and personnel, and that 
we are all committed to their victory.
  There is no magic bullet, no cure-all pill, but the fact remains that 
we must endure. The stakes are too high, the consequences of defeat too 
catastrophic. As men and women elected to represent our constituencies 
and provide for their well-being, it is our responsibility to look out 
for the safety of American families.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops. We will never forget September 
11. Our thoughts and prayers are with the late Congressman Charlie 
Norwood, his wife, Gloria, his family, his staff and his constituents.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 6 minutes to my 
friend and colleague from Tennessee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cooper).
  (Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I disapprove of the President's January 10 
decision to surge 20,000 new troops into Iraq. I urge my colleagues to 
support the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, although the President says that the 20,000 new troops 
constitute a change in his strategy, all I am seeing are a repeat of 
the same failed policies of the past. America has sent additional 
troops to Iraq before, several times, without result. America has tried 
to work with the Maliki government, and it has not been very 
successful.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to admit that this approach is not working. The 
President himself has admitted that his patience is running out with 
the Maliki government. It is really just a question of whether Congress 
should try to force President Bush and Vice President Cheney to change 
course now or whether they will do it several months from now. I say 
that the time for change is now.
  It is true that Congress has no business micromanaging a war. No one 
here in Congress is Commander in Chief. It is also true that we must 
not shirk from our responsibilities to support our brave men and women 
in uniform, and we need to support the brave Iraqis who have stood with 
us and the good people of the region, but we do deserve a better 
strategy. More of the same is just not good enough, either for our 
soldiers or for the good people of the region.
  President Bush, we have to admit, has shown a distressing 
stubbornness regarding Iraq. Although former Secretary of Defense 
Donald Rumsfeld offered to resign twice due to his own embarrassment 
with his failures, President Bush refused to accept his resignation for 
years, and finally only accepted it the day after the last election. 
Colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that if the President had 
accepted that resignation earlier, not only would Pentagon policy have 
been different; the core of the war might well have been different.
  I think that the President needs a nudge now, and this resolution 
will offer it. True, it is nonbinding, but that is a good thing. 
Congress is not cutting off money for the troops, nor should we. We are 
sending a message to the President.
  Now, I will admit that it is a shame that we do have to do it this 
way; but on this issue, the President has refused to heed the advice of 
so many of his own top generals, of his own father, of the Iraq Study 
Group, of our few remaining allies, or of the leadership of this equal 
branch of government. It is also a shame that today in America there is 
a widespread fear that the President could even be establishing the 
preconditions for war with Iran. Regardless of that situation, I hope 
that this resolution will curb any reckless behavior.
  Finally, why is a change in strategy necessary now? Iraq appears to 
be descending into a civil war that neither Congress nor the Pentagon 
predicted. Defense Secretary Gates has described no less than four 
separate conflicts going on in Iraq today. That has led stalwart 
Republicans like Senator John Warner, the former chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, to question whether the 2002 authorization to 
use force in Iraq is even still valid today. American influence in the 
region has substantially diminished, while the influence of Iran has 
increased. It is time for a change.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the original judgment of CENTCOM commander 
General Abizaid who testified before Congress not long ago, and he 
said, ``I do not believe that more American troops right now is the 
solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay 
where they are.''
  General Abizaid went on to say, ``I met with every divisional 
commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all 
talked together. And I said, `In your professional opinion, if we were 
to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our 
ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no.'' That is 
quoting General Abizaid.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have been more inclined to support the President 
if he had asked for a much larger number of troops or for a sacrifice 
on the part of all Americans who do not have a loved one in our 
military. Such proposals would have led me to believe that the 
President was considering a serious change in strategy, but the 
President has not recommended either.
  Instead, he has consistently violated the so-called Powell doctrine 
by not waging war with an overwhelming military force, a clear 
objective, or a defined exit strategy. From the beginning of this 
conflict, we have skimped on the number of troops, the equipment for 
our soldiers, the commitment of our allies. It is simply too late to 
add on a few thousand more troops now.
  Our brave troops and their families in the all-volunteer military 
have carried the entire burden of this war. Wall Street and Main Street 
have not been asked to help. Where are the war bonds to pay for this 
war? We have not even tried to pay for it. We have borrowed most of the 
money from nations like

[[Page H1551]]

China. Policies like that do not make the Nation more secure.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Congress has already given the President 
more time to fight this war than it took to win World War II, more 
money than was spent in Korea and Vietnam, and the unfettered use of 
the finest military in history. We are spending more on our military 
than every other nation in the world combined, and yet we are bogged 
down in a Third World country embroiled in its own civil war. At this 
point in time, it is not unreasonable for Congress to say enough is 
enough. Voters certainly said so clearly in the last election.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond to 
my friend from Tennessee.
  Let me just point out that we are spending roughly 4 percent of GDP 
on defense at this point. President Ronald Reagan spent 6 percent. 
President John Kennedy, 9 percent. Operations in the war against terror 
are not bankrupting this country.
  With respect to the group of allies that the gentleman called our few 
remaining friends, I am reminded that there is a number of them like 
Poland and Moldavia and Herzegovina and Georgia and Bosnia and 
Azerbaijan and Armenia and Albania, lots of little countries that used 
to be behind the Iron Curtain or in the case of El Salvador, in what 
was called by the Democrat Party the unwinnable war in Central America 
in Salvador, those countries, which themselves were the beneficiaries 
of an American policy of expanding freedom are standing with our 
country in this operation in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert), who is a member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
resolution offered by the majority expressing the disapproval of 
President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops 
to Iraq.
  This resolution, in my opinion, is nothing but politics. Opposition 
to a plan is not a plan. This resolution is using our service men and 
women in a debate that does not address policy. If this was an earnest 
debate about the administration's proposal, then the majority would 
have offered a bill that answers two pertinent questions: What is 
success, and how do we achieve it?
  Instead, we stand here debating a bill that opposes sending 
reinforcements to Iraq. There are no amendments allowed, and there is 
certainly no plan offered in this bill.
  In fact, this debate is incredibly ironic since many of those on the 
other side of the aisle were calling for more troops not too long ago. 
Once again, the debate was not about success, but about opposition to 
the administration's vision.
  Let us talk about policy. First, nostalgic thoughts and longing for 
the times before the U.S. entered Iraq are not useful nor can they be 
used as a vision for the future. We are in this war. We must win. 
Anything less than an honest discussion on how to proceed forward is a 
disservice to this Nation and to our military.
  Second, if our policy is to support a stable Iraq, then we must 
employ a strategy to achieve that goal. The President and our military 
commanders have stated that in order to fulfill that policy objective, 
Baghdad must be secured. In order to secure Baghdad, the Iraqi security 
forces need more American troops to reinforce their operations. 
President Bush agreed to this on the condition that the Iraqis lead the 
fight and that the Iraq Government take more responsibility for 
securing their country.
  If the majority party disagrees with this policy objective and the 
strategy to achieve it, then I ask them, what is their policy 
objective, and how do they plan to achieve it? I have yet to hear a 
consensus from my friends on the other side of the aisle on what they 
believe our policy should be. They certainly cannot suggest that this 
resolution even faintly resembles a plan or vision for a successful 
resolution to the current conflict.
  I will tell you what the debate is. It is a sound bite. It is a quick 
and easy way to feed the defeatists in this country. More than anything 
it is a disappointment. The majority would rather score political 
points than have a real discussion on the most important question of 
this generation, how to win the war against our enemies and keep our 
country safe.
  We should be asking ourselves, what would failure in the Middle East 
mean?
  Our enemies have stated that they believe that Western Civilization 
is rotten to the core. Unless we get out of the Middle East entirely 
and convert to Islam, we will always be their enemy. In chapter 2 of 
the 9/11 report, the authors answer what the terrorists want from 
America:
  ``To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer 
was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and 
end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture.''
  Al Qaeda is closely watching Iraq, sending fighters and weapons and 
doing most everything in its power to bring about an American retreat. 
If we leave Iraq before it is secure, what will that do to our enemy, 
an enemy who has already stated that they seek to destroy us not for 
being in Iraq but for being in the Middle East and for being non-
Muslim?
  An American failure would bolster al Qaeda and every other terrorist 
organization in the world. It would give them a reason to believe that 
they can win and that it could give them confidence so they could 
surely breach our shores one day. It would let them believe that their 
plan, a plan to destroy Western culture for its godlessness, is 
correct.
  As 9/11 taught us, warfare is no longer limited to the enemies within 
our region. Geographic boundaries and long distances do not keep us 
safe.

                              {time}  2200

  An enemy encouraged by a retreat in Iraq will be close to our heels. 
That is exactly why we must stay and confront our enemies.
  So how is this enemy, who is at a military and financial 
disadvantage, seeking to win? They simply studied a little American 
history. Both Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi have referenced the 
Vietnam conflict in forming their strategy to defeat us.
  Many in this body often rush to compare this conflict with Vietnam, 
and in one respect it is very similar: both enemies understood the way 
to victory was through American politicians. If they can weaken the 
American political will, they knew they could achieve victory. The 
majority often invokes the number of our war dead as the reason to 
leave or the fact that this conflict has gone longer than our 
involvement in World War II. These arguments play right into the hands 
of the enemy and their propaganda machine.
  What people don't seem to understand is that we cannot fall into the 
trap of comparisons, or we risk losing sight of what our men and women 
in the Armed Forces need from us: they need our support. They need a 
coherent policy and strategy that does not make politics the long pole 
in the tent.
  Courage to do the right thing is not always easy. I will not abandon 
those who have fought and given their lives in this conflict. I will 
not abandon the Iraqis who long for peace. Instead, I support the 
President's call for more troops. I believe it is the right thing to 
do. It is illogical to say you support the troops that are there, but 
not the reinforcements that they need.
  In closing, I would like to remember those who have lost their lives 
to the acts of terrorism:
  The Beirut embassy and Marine barracks bombing in 1983; the bombing 
of Pan Am 103, 1988; the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 
1993; the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires 
in Argentina in 1994; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia 
1996; the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; 
the bombings of the USS Cole in Yemen in the year 2000; the attacks on 
New York City and the Pentagon, September 11, 2001; the Madrid train 
bombings, March 11, 2004; the London bombings, July 7, 2005.
  Do not doubt that if they were given the chance, our enemies would 
come in this Chamber tonight and kill us all.
  This resolution is not a solution. It is nothing but doubt, fear, and 
weakness. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution and 
stand up for victory.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

[[Page H1552]]

  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by setting the record straight. I have 
heard my friends on the other side talk about this resolution as 
calling for withdrawal, as calling for retreat. There is nothing in 
this resolution that says withdraw; there is nothing in this resolution 
that says retreat; there is nothing in this resolution that says exit.
  What this resolution says is that we support our troops, and we do 
not believe that it is a good idea to add 20,000 more troops to a 
policy that has not worked.
  In October of 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I 
believed then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is a dangerous 
place and that you have to use a combination of hard power and soft 
power to help change the trajectory of the Middle East from a place 
that teaches kids how to blow things up to a place that teaches kids 
how to put things together.
  In January of 2005, I visited our troops in Iraq, and I remember 
sitting with General Casey and asking him, How many foreign fighters 
are here and how many insurgents? And at that point, January 2005, the 
General said, Congressman, there are about 500 foreign fighters and 
there are about 5,000 insurgents. And so what to do? We committed more 
force to try and solve that problem.
  And then I went back to Iraq in April of 2006, 15 months later, and I 
asked General Casey, How many foreign fighters are there and how many 
insurgents? And General Casey said, Congressman, there are 5,000 
foreign fighters, there used to be 500, now 5,000; there used to be 
5,000 insurgents, now there are 20,000 insurgents. And so what did we 
do? We threw in more force.
  And now a year after that we stand here debating a resolution on 
whether we should commit another 20,000 troops to a mission that is 
poorly planned, from a military that has been strained by that poor 
planning and that is ill conceived.
  Now, I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. If the President of the 
United States asked me to support additional troops into Afghanistan 
tonight to find Osama bin Laden, who by the way was the one who killed 
over 100 of my constituents, or to stop the resurgence of the Taliban, 
which by the way was the group of people who really gave aid and 
comfort to the enemy, I would vote for that tonight. I absolutely would 
vote for that tonight. But this decision by the President to put 20,000 
more people into Iraq is the wrong number at the wrong place at the 
wrong time.
  Mr. Speaker, during this debate I have heard my colleagues talk about 
the messages that we are sending our troops and how it will affect 
their morale, and I have an obligation as somebody who supports our 
military to suggest that if we had given our troops up-armor for their 
Humvees, Kevlar for their vests, night-vision goggles that work, and 
consistent rotations, their morale would be much better.
  Our troops are not afraid of democracy being waged on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. And, in fact, on the chance that our 
enemies are listening to this debate, let me suggest that this debate 
doesn't give aid and comfort to our enemies. It tells our enemies what 
democracy is about. So for our enemies who may be listening: welcome to 
democracy. This is what it sounds like, this is what it looks like, and 
this is what we are willing to fight for.
  What our servicemembers deserve to hear is the truth. What they 
deserve is a government that confronts reality rather than simply 
hoping for the best. So here is the truth, Mr. Speaker: somewhere 
between those who believe that we can stay the course in Iraq 
indefinitely and those who believe that we should leave Iraq tomorrow 
is the painful truth. The truth is that neither of those options will 
work.
  Now, if you agree with me that that is the painful reality, then you 
are left with a hard choice: add 20,000 troops to continue the 
administration's ineffective plan, or try something different. 20,000 
additional troops to Iraq, or rebuild our readiness here at home to 
deal with the growing challenges of Iran or naval expansion in China or 
genocide in Darfur or the other dangers in the world. Hold the Iraqi 
Government accountable for accelerating the training of their troops, 
or continue hoping for the best while putting the burden on the backs 
of 20,000 more U.S. troops.
  Let me make two other points. The gentleman who preceded me, my 
friend from California, said, what do you have to offer? We have 
offered ideas; we have offered ideas from day one. The problem has been 
the stubborn resistance by the administration to listen to our ideas.
  I have been advocating with my friend from California (Mrs. Tauscher) 
a status of forces agreement in Iraq, so that we would send the message 
that we are not occupiers, that we don't want to be there for one day 
longer than we need to be. The administration has rejected that.
  I have been advocating with my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney) 
a one-for-one resolution. I and others have been advocating a formula, 
a one-for-one formula that says that for every Iraqi security force 
that stands up an American will be redeployed.
  So we have provided ideas. And I want to once again offer a 
bipartisan invitation to my colleagues to work with us, because whether 
this resolution passes or not, the war is not going to end the next 
day. We still have many challenges ahead, and we are going to have to 
work together.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, let me make a point about some of the 
characterizations that we have been listening to. As a Democrat, I know 
that there is not a single Republican who wakes up in the morning 
wanting this war to last for one day longer than it has to last. And in 
the same spirit, I am offended by anyone who would suggest that there 
is a Democrat who gives aid and comfort to the enemy, who wants us to 
be defeated, who wants us to lose. That is not what we are about.
  We need to end the sound bites and the partisanship and the war rooms 
off the floor of the House that tell people what to say, and begin 
formulating effective policy for the troops that are listening to us 
tonight.
  I visited my VA hospital yesterday, and I saw men and women in 
wheelchairs and gurneys. It didn't say Republican or Democrat on those 
wheelchairs and gurneys. When the time came, they went to fight for us. 
Our obligation is to stand by them, not with sound bites, not with 
policies that haven't worked before, but with new ideas for a stronger 
country.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my 
colleague, my good friend who just spoke, Mr. Israel.
  Let me just make a couple of points. With respect to up-armored 
Humvees, when we entered this administration, the Humvee is a successor 
to the Jeep, it is a tactical vehicle, we had 1,200 up-armored Humvees. 
That was in the year 2000. Today, we have got 15,000 up-armored 114s, 
plus thousands of Humvees that have the so-called MAC kits which are 
also protective armor kits.
  We had virtually no body armor in the year 2000. I don't believe we 
had a single set that was available for any line units in any American 
division in the world. Today, we have over 400,000 of those.
  I just want to make a point, if there are American moms and dads, and 
we have had a few who have thought that their sons and daughters were 
going to Iraq without body armor, I have said, Call me personally at 
the office, and I have not had a single phone call in 2 years. So they 
have plenty of body armor.
  And, lastly, I just want to make one other point with respect to what 
America has, because there has been an implication I think throughout 
the debate that we are stretched too thin, that others may attack us, 
may take advantage of the fact that we have deployments in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Since the year 2000, we have more than doubled the 
precision firepower of this country. That means the ability of this 
country, and Republicans and Democrats have supported the funding that 
has done this; but if any country in the world should think they are 
going to take advantage of an America that is, in their estimation, 
stretched too thin, the precision firepower, that means the ability to 
send a smart weapon on target to thread a goal post at many, many 
miles, has more than doubled since the year 2000. And so no country

[[Page H1553]]

that feels that there is that implication in our situation in Iraq and 
Afghanistan should bet their life on it, because they will lose.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to Mr. Cole, the outstanding 
gentleman from Fort Sill.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the 
challenges we face as a Nation, and to urge the Members of this House 
to confront those challenges honestly and forthrightly.
  As I do, I remind my colleagues that this House is not a debating 
society. It is not a place to merely score political points or 
rhetorical points. It is a place where we should confront the issues 
that face our country and then act accordingly. This responsibility 
rests not just with the Members individually, but with the majority 
especially. We come to this floor not just to speak, opine, and orate. 
We come here to set policy, to legislate and, most importantly, to act.
  This resolution the majority, the Democrats, put before us today 
presents us with a choice; but after we make that choice, nothing will 
happen, nothing will change. We will have chosen to state our opinion, 
but we will refuse to act on that opinion. Some will see this as a 
tragedy; some, Madam Speaker, will see it as a farce.
  This resolution is not serious. It is a political ploy rather than a 
principled position. It is sound and fury that signifies nothing. It is 
a cruel joke on those who sincerely want to leave Iraq before our 
mission is finished, and it is an affront to those of us who wish to 
succeed in Iraq. But while this politically motivated resolution 
achieves nothing, it does have real and lasting consequences. Passing 
this resolution will embolden our enemies, it will discourage our 
friends, and it will disappoint our troops. It will raise questions 
about our seriousness as a legislative body to anyone who actually pays 
attention to our proceedings, and it will lead our enemies to question 
our resolve and it will leave our men and women in uniform wondering 
why we are sending them on a mission in which we do not believe, but 
lack the political courage to cancel.
  Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed that the majority party 
would bring a resolution to the floor which condemns an action directed 
by our Commander in Chief and his military advisers yet which neither 
forbids that action nor offers an alternative course.

                              {time}  2215

  If the majority party, the Democratic Party, was being honest with 
their supporters and with the American people, they would have a 
straight up-or-down vote on whether or not to fund the initiative 
ordered by the President. This is the way in which we should approach 
our constitutionally defined responsibility in regard to war and peace.
  Madam Speaker, I have often voiced my respect for my Democratic 
colleagues on the floor, and as individuals I do respect and admire 
them. However, I neither respect nor admire the manner in which their 
leadership has chosen to frame the issue which they now place before 
the House. My friends on the other side of the aisle have abdicated the 
responsibilities of being in the majority.
  They do not want to legislate. They do not want to act, they just 
want to state an opinion. But they are stating it in a fashion that 
will lead many to question our sincerity as Members of this House and 
to doubt the effectiveness of the institution which we all love, and 
they are now privileged to lead.
  Madam Speaker, the majority in this body has the responsibility to do 
more than just criticize. So, I ask, what is their plan? We don't know. 
How will they achieve a stable Iraq? They won't say.
  It is time for Democrats to step up and answer these questions. It is 
easy to second-guess the decisions of former Congresses and the 
President. It is easy to reconsider one's support and the support many 
in this Congress and in their majority have voiced in the past of 
placing additional troops in Iraq. But, what is easy isn't always right 
and certainly not in this case.
  Let there be no mistake. Our soldiers are engaged in combat this very 
minute. Our military commanders have voiced support for the mission 
that they have been asked to complete. General Petraeus, our commander 
in Iraq, supports the surge of forces. Indeed he says he needs these 
additional troops to succeed. Moreover, the declassified National 
Intelligence Estimate makes clear the disaster that would result from 
failure in Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, let us consider what will happen if the Democrats are 
successful in undermining the mission and the objectives of the surge. 
What would it mean? What effect would this have on our forces? What 
would be the implications for our Nation and the region?
  Well, Madam Speaker, at a practical level, it would certainly mean 
that our enemies would know they have weakened the will and resolve of 
the American people. They would take this as a lesson and a guide for 
the future. At a tactical level, it would likely increase the level of 
insurgent activity aimed at destroying our forces. Additionally, it 
would also mean that, lacking reinforcement, our current forces would 
be stretched even further.
  Strategically adopting this resolution would undermine the 
credibility of the United States. It will make the region more chaotic 
and dangerous than it is today. I remember many Members of the majority 
party calling for an increase in the size of our force in Iraq not so 
long ago. I remember numerous statements by Members from the other side 
of the aisle that said the alternatives to success were too horrible to 
contemplate. They were right, but now those concerns seem to be no 
longer operative.
  I am under no illusions that we face an easy road ahead in Iraq. 
Quite frankly, it is the greatest challenge our Nation has faced in a 
generation. However, the alternative to showing resolve in Iraq is 
defeat in the central front in the war on terror. That will be 
disastrous for the Iraqis, threatening for our friends in the region, 
and dangerous for the security of our own country.
  That is why this resolution is so disturbing. Democrats want to have 
it three ways. They want to criticize the President's plan, offer none 
of their own, and then refuse to let our side of the aisle offer a 
proposal for consideration by this body. A nonbinding resolution is no 
plan for the future. It is a plan for the next election.
  In the next few days, I will continue to engage in this debate and 
outline what I believe to be the real challenges and choices that we 
face, and why we must support the surge in forces. I hope that in this 
debate my side persuades my colleagues to reject this resolution.
  But if they are not persuaded, then I hope they will have the 
political courage to act, as opposed to just talk; that they will 
legislate as opposed to just debate. I hope they will discharge their 
duties as a majority by laying out and enacting their strategy, as 
opposed to merely criticizing the President and complicating a 
dangerous situation faced by our forces in the field
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady from California has 47\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 33 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield myself as much 
time as I may consume.
  I was interested in my colleague, the last speaker's questions, the 
question about why do we have a nonbinding resolution and does it have 
any significance. I should say, no one should minimize the significance 
of this resolution. Passage by a bipartisan majority of the House of 
Representatives of this resolution opposing the President's plan to 
escalate the war in Iraq would be a major turning point in the war 
debate.
  Despite the fact that it is nonbinding, passage would have enormous 
significance. This bipartisan resolution is serving as the basis for 
the first real debate on the President's flawed Iraq war policy since 
the war began nearly 4 years ago. Last November, the voters sent 
President Bush a loud and unmistakable message about Iraq, but the 
President didn't listen.
  As his announcement of an escalation of the war showed, passage of 
this bipartisan resolution is a second

[[Page H1554]]

chance for the President to hear a strong, clear message that cannot be 
ignored. Passage of this bipartisan resolution will send another clear 
message: No more blank checks for the President on Iraq.
  In addition, passage of a nonbinding resolution opposing the 
President's escalation plan is only the first step in the Congress, 
demanding a changing of course in Iraq. When this resolution containing 
fewer than 100 words passes, we will take the country in a new 
direction in Iraq. A vote of disapproval will set the stage for 
additional legislation, which will be coming to the House floor.
  Furthermore, what is surprising, as I see my colleagues from the 
other side trot forward one after another, I have to remind them that 
in their 12 years in the majority, House Republicans passed hundreds, 
hundreds of nonbinding resolutions, including in very similar 
situations.
  For example, on October 30, 1995, the House Republican leadership 
brought to the floor and passed H. Res. 247, a nonbinding resolution 
repudiating President Clinton's pledge to deploy up to 20,000 troops to 
Bosnia as part of a peacekeeping force. I will remind my colleagues, 
Kosovo is about to be declared independent because the United States 
and NATO countries interceded and stopped the genocide there. That is a 
perfect example of wrongheaded policy that Democrats were able to put 
forward.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in 
appreciation of our troops' exceptional service and sacrifice, and to 
voice my opposition to President Bush's plan to send more forces into 
what amounts to a civil war.
  As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and a new 
member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize that our next steps 
in Iraq present one of the greatest security decisions our Nation has 
faced in decades.
  The Iraq Study Group called the situation grave and deteriorating and 
said it requires a new approach. I agree. We can all conclude that an 
unstable Iraq, torn by sectarian conflict, would lead to continued 
violence and civilian casualties, provide combat training opportunities 
to those who would do us harm, and pose increased challenges to the 
region.
  Yet I disagree with President Bush's misguided belief that sending 
more Americans into combat will solve the problem.
  Our military has served valiantly for nearly 4 years, particularly in 
some very challenging and nontraditional missions, in some cases for 
which they were never trained. However, we have done all that we could 
do militarily to help the Iraqi people, and their problems no longer 
require a U.S. military solution. The underlying causes of violence are 
primarily political and must be addressed in that framework. Sending 
more troops would simply be a continuation of the same failed strategy.
  In October of 2002, I expressed my concerns that President Bush's 
approach to Iraq could have dangerous ramifications in the region and 
America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. For those reasons and 
many others, I voted against authorizing use of force against Iraq, a 
war that was mismanaged by civilian leadership from the start.
  Now, to address our troops' lack of protective gear and up-armored 
Humvees, I supported legislation to provide additional funding for 
proper equipment, as well as other efforts to assure our forces would 
be safe and effective. Now, however, we can best support our troops by 
changing our mission in Iraq and adopting a new strategy that reflects 
the realities on the ground. The Iraqis must now take the lead in 
providing for their own security, and we must reduce our presence to 
let them do so.
  The President's claim that by adding 21,500 additional combat troops 
we can force a greater stability in Iraq is an argument that ignores 
some basic truths. Not only have past surges of U.S. forces proved 
unnecessary in reducing sectarian violence among Iraqis, but the 
addition of more troops would further inflame anti-American sentiment 
and turn popular opinion even more against us in our efforts. We have 
no proof that another surge would lead to a different outcome than in 
the past, but we do know that it would have negative consequences.
  Now, perhaps of greatest concern is the impact of the surge on our 
military readiness. The President's estimate of 21,500 more combat 
troops does not count the additional 15,000 to 28,000 support troops 
that would be needed, spreading our military even more dangerously 
thin.
  Madam Speaker, we have asked much of our forces, included repeated 
deployments, and a surge will only exacerbate that problem. Operations 
in Iraq have also taken their toll on our equipment.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, 40 percent of the 
Army's and Marine Corps' equipment is now located in the Central 
Command theater of operations. Our National Guard/Reserve units are 
underequipped to deal with emergencies, and we have depleted our 
preposition stocks, which we need to respond quickly to other 
contingencies.
  Now, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in January, 
General Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, noted that an increase 
in forces in Iraq would increase our strategic risk and possibly lead 
to slower and less effective response to another potential threat.
  Madam Speaker, sending more troops to Iraq is a dangerous gamble with 
our national security, and we need a new approach. A number of experts, 
including the Iraq Study Group, had made important recommendations, and 
they must not be ignored.
  It is clear that the President's plan for escalation would harm our 
national security and ignores the will of the American people. I urge 
my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can promote a new 
strategy for Iraq and bring our troops home.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, let me just respond to my good friend from 
Rhode Island, he is a great friend of mine and a former colleague on 
the Armed Services Committee, the estimate that has been given, that 
has been bandied around, that we would need some 20,000 support troops 
to support the 21,500 troops that are involved in the President's plan, 
some of whom are already in theater, has been rebutted by DOD, which 
said it is not 1 for 1 support to line troops, it is about 1 in 10, 
which in the estimate that they gave us was about 2,000 to 2,300, not 
20,000 support troops.
  Using that number, even with the 21,500 troops that are involved in 
the Baghdad plan, adding them to the 138 that we have right now, still 
brings us to a number that is lower than the 160,000 that we had 
December a year ago. I know that number has not been absolutely 
resolved, but I would just tell my friend that I believe it is going to 
be much lower than the number that has been put out there.
  To my good friend from California, who talked about the Kosovo vote 
and the resolution to disapprove it, my recollection is that vote was 
undertaken before troops were moved. In this case, the 82nd Airborne is 
not already over the line in Iraq, but they actually have a brigade 
deployed in this operation, and the Baghdad operation that is being 
undertaken right now has a combination of Iraqi troops and American 
troops in each of nine sectors.
  Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he would like to take to Mr. 
Conaway from Texas, who is a gentleman that represents a great base at 
Fort Hood.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me this time. Let 
me correct that record just a bit. I have got the area just west of 
Fort Hood. So I have got a lot of civilian contractors and retirees and 
active duty personnel who live in my district, but serve in Fort Hood.
  Mr. HUNTER. I will stipulate that the gentleman would like to 
represent Fort Hood.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Absolutely. I certainly would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for this time tonight.
  I am opposed to this nonbinding resolution. This is a vehicle that 
the majority is using to bring us to this debate tonight. The 
resolution is pretty

[[Page H1555]]

simple in its language. It simply says that Congress disapproves of the 
decision President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to 
deploy more than 20,000 additional troops, U.S. combat troops to Iraq. 
It says this twice, in the preamble and then once again in the 
resolved.
  It also says once that Congress and the American people will continue 
to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces 
who are serving or who have bravely and honorably served in Iraq. We 
must assume, of course, that, because it is not stated, that Congress 
and the American people will also support and protect those additional 
troops that are headed into harm's way who will serve in Iraq, even 
though the resolution disapproves of the decision that sends those 
young men and women into harm's way.
  The majority knows that this resolution will pass. They would not 
have brought it to the floor if their leadership had not be assured 
that they had the minimum 218 votes needed to pass this resolution. 
Since passage is assured, we have to ask, why this language? Why 
something so like this, that simply says what they are against, as 
opposed to something that is perhaps more meaningful, like what you are 
for.
  It allows those who would vote in favor of this, and like I said I am 
quite confident it will pass, to set themselves up in that very 
enviable position to say I told you so if things do not go exactly as 
planned. And no plan in war has ever done that. So our colleagues who 
vote in favor of this resolution will be in that position to be able to 
say I told you so across a variety of circumstances.
  I do not believe that either side of the aisle believes that it is 
the role of this or any other Congress to tell the President how not to 
deploy 20,000 troops. I believe there is another reason for this 
language. One explanation may be that it sets the stage for something 
that will really have an impact on the War in Iraq, the way that war is 
being fought, and I think that has to do with the power of the purse.
  In spite of the language that says we will continue to support and 
protect our troops, I believe we will see in the not too distant future 
attempts by the majority to cut off funding for this war. I think we 
got a preview of this tactic last week when we passed the continuing 
resolution which cut $3.1 billion in spending for military quality of 
life projects and infrastructure that is needed to support the various 
BRAC decisions.
  A lot has been made as to whether or not this debate will have an 
impact on the morale of our troops. Last week in a hearing with the 
Armed Services Committee, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff told us, as well as Bob Gates, that this debate in and of itself 
will not directly hurt or harm the morale of the young men and women 
who are fighting this fight.
  I think that is generous. But what Pace did tell us was that if this 
Congress begins to cut funding, cut financial support, begin to go back 
on the promises made to those young men and woman, that that will in 
fact have a deleterious impact on the troops' morale and their families 
who serve here. I think that the debate tonight and the next 4 days 
will have a direct impact on the families who support these young men 
and women, who allow them to do what they do on behalf of this country.
  And that is certainly is regrettable, if that support is hurt and 
harmed, and that hurt and harm is then transmitted to our young men and 
women who are fighting this fight every single day.
  I also do not believe it is the role of 535 independent contractors 
that make up the House and Senate to become five-star generals and make 
decisions on how to fight this fight or any other war. I do believe it 
is our job to look as far into the future as we can, and make decisions 
and then pass laws that lead this Nation.
  I do not know of anyone who believes that a failure in Iraq is in our 
national interest. Both sides have been saying this. There are no good 
results for such a failure. General Petraeus has listed out a couple of 
the possibilities that he talks about. One is that sectarian groups 
would begin to stake out turf. This would generally involve ethnic 
cleansing. The humanitarian suffering that would go on while that was 
happening is totally unacceptable
  He also mentions that international terrorist organizations might 
gain control of Iraq, and therefore use their bases in Iraq to further 
their interests.
  The disruption to the oil markets and the impact that that will have 
not only on our economy but economies around the world would certainly 
occur if we have a failure in Iraq.
  None of these guesses as to what would happen for failure in Iraq, 
that failure would almost automatically happen with an untimely 
withdrawal of our troops, none of them are positive, none of these 
scenarios make Iraq a safer place, none of them make the Middle East a 
safer place, and they certainly do not make America and the United 
States safer.
  There are no guarantees, of course, that any plan will work. But 
telling the President what not to do is clearly not in the interest 
interests of moving this debate forward. My personal view of that 
future that I spoke about is that the effort in Iraq is a major part of 
the overall global war against Islamic Jihadists. Other Members have 
eloquently stated tonight that this war will last for decades.
  I take very seriously the threats that the Islamic Jihadists have 
made and are making to kill Americans and to hurt American interests. I 
do not understand why they take these positions, but I certainly 
believe them when they tell us they are coming to hurt us.
  This fight, this global war against Islamic Jihadists is really a 
fight for the heart of Islam. We must begin imploring moderate Muslims 
to stand against those few who seek to hijack the religion, and who are 
prosecuting this fight.
  Let me preface my next remarks by saying that I am a Christian, and I 
believe that God is always in the business of changing men's hearts, 
and that the hearts of these Islamist Jihadists can be changed by the 
God I serve. But short of that, I believe we have only two choices, 
either we lock these people up forever or we kill them.
  That is pretty harsh for a Christian to say, but those are our only 
options. I don't believe we can compromise with them and I don't 
believe they will compromise with us. I don't believe that they will 
alter their beliefs to peacefully coexist with us.
  So we are in a fight that will last for years and for decades. There 
is no guarantee as to how this fight is being prosecuted and how we win 
this fight, I just know that we cannot lose it. And this resolution 
tonight does not move that process forward in a positive way.
  We are in a long and hard struggle to protect freedom and liberty 
here and around the world. We are blessed by men and women who are 
willing to risk everything to defend you and me every minute of every 
day.
  This resolution does not help in that struggle. And I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate. Four 
long years and we are searching our souls. We have sent our finest and 
our bravest soldiers on a mission that made no sense from the 
beginning. Our Nation was attacked by evil people who trained in 
Afghanistan.
  We have a right to go into Afghanistan to remove the terrorist 
training camps. As a matter of fact, we should be working even harder 
there to make sure our Afghanistan mission does not fail. We must not 
allow the Taliban and other terrorist groups to control Afghanistan 
again.
  However, we are unable to give Afghanistan our full attention because 
our President has led us into a war with Iraq. Why? There are no Iraqis 
on the plane that day. The Iraqis had no weapons of mass destruction. 
And they never asked us to come to their country. They do ask us to 
leave, though. And yet we will not leave.
  The President will not listen to the Iraqis. The President will not 
listen to the American people. The President will not listen to the 
world. But Congress will. We are ready to go in a new direction and say 
no to the President, and no to his plan to escalate this war.
  I was a military spouse. I am very, very proud of my husband's 
service. I am also on the Armed Services Committee. I know our troops 
need our support and they have it. But troops also

[[Page H1556]]

need to know that their leaders will make sure that their mission is in 
the best interests of the United States before they are asked to go 
fight and die for their country.
  I watched a young soldier walk down a ramp on the way to Iraq. He was 
looking at all of us, and we were looking hard back at him. And I think 
most of us had the same thoughts in our hearts, that we could not look 
him in the eye and tell him that his mission was so essential to the 
security of the United States and the freedom of the world that he had 
to go and he had to die if necessary.
  Why could we not tell him that? Because the mission had changed. 
Several times the President told us why we were there, and it was 
always a different reason. The mission had changed. And therefore the 
soldier looked confused and we certainly felt confused also, because we 
could not tell him why we were there.
  I wanted to run up to him and tell him I support you, I support you 
by making sure that you never get sent to a war against unless we know 
why you are there.
  What is this talk I have heard tonight about freedom and liberty? 
This talk of glory that I heard on the floor. This romanticized 
language, this talk about Davy Crockett. There is no Davy Crockett in 
Iraq. Our troops need clear-eyed leaders, not this romantic rabble that 
we have been hearing. This war has cost us. We have paid a terrible 
price.
  Our military troops are strained. Yes, they are strained. Their 
families are strained. Our brave soldiers have died or they have been 
injured. The Iraqis have lost their lives. They have lost their 
society. They have lost their infrastructure. They are losing their 
middle class who are moving to other countries to keep their children 
safe.
  Their people are fleeing from their own country. We are wary, they 
are wary, the world is now more dangerous. Iraqis were polled and the 
majority of them said they wanted the Americans to go home and let them 
work out their problems. For 4 years the administration and its 
supporters here have made no plan for them to do that.
  Now they ask us on this side of the aisle what our plan is. This is a 
strange question. But it shows how confused this administration's 
supporters are, if they are looking to us and ask us what our plan is. 
They have been offered plans. They even commissioned a plan, and they 
do not follow any plans. The President follows his own way.
  We have offered plans. They will not listen. I for one want the 
United States to succeed in this world. Therefore, I am going to listen 
to all of the generals who have pled with the President and pled with 
the President's supporters in this administration to do the right thing 
here.
  But the President does not listen. Now, I am going to vote to tell 
the President that I am against his escalation.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I appreciate him letting me go out of order. I am not a member of 
his committee. But when my committee has time on Thursday night, I am 
hoping to be able to attend the memorial service for our comrade, 
Charles Norwood, whom we lost today.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against H. Con. Res. 63. I think it is 
a mistake. It is the first step of this new Congress, the first step 
this new Congress is going to make towards cutting off the funding for 
our troops.
  You do not have to take my word for it. Yesterday's CQ Today, a 
magazine widely read up here in Washington, and I am quoting, ``It is a 
foot in the door toward limiting military involvement in Iraq. The 
Democrats want to do this by the Congressional power of the 
checkbook.''
  Further in the article it says, ``Democrats are well on their way 
toward planning more aggressive measures in an attempt to force 
redeployment beginning by blocking funding, and ending in the 
supplemental spending request.
  And then finally, Democrats said, ``The resolution would just be a 
first step in the process that could result in a reduction or 
reconditioning of funds slated for our troops in Iraq.''
  Well, we do not have to go too very far back in our past to see the 
consequences of that type of action. When I was in Iraq in August of 
2005 General Casey told myself and a group of us who were there that 
there is no group in the world that can stand up to the American 
military. In fact, the only organized body in the world capable of 
defeating the American military was the American Congress.
  I believe he was right. The CRS has done a report for this Congress, 
a report for Congress about restrictions of military operations in 
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia and Kosovo, funding and non funding 
approaches. I reference particularly, I urge my colleagues, this is 
easy to download from the Internet on the CRS, simply type in Cooper-
Church amendment, and you will get this well-researched product.

                              {time}  2245

  It details the Mansfield amendment, the Cooper/Church amendment of 
1970 and 1973, the Cranston amendment, the McGovern/Hatfield amendment. 
It also talks about the funding for Somalia. In fact, in this House, in 
1999, when President Clinton was President, a bipartisan group in this 
House came together to defeat a motion to block funding for the troops 
in Kosovo. So congressional actions regarding funding do have a real 
world impact.
  And I would submit that much of the chaos that ensued after we left 
Vietnam, and I would include the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in that 
chaos, I would include the militant jihadist takeover of our Embassy in 
Iran in that chaos, much of that ensued because of congressional action 
that was taken on the floor of this House in cutting off funding for 
our troops.
  And I am not a big one on process. I haven't been here that long. I 
don't know that I understand process all that well. But why in the 
world would we not allow a vote or even a motion to recommit on, say, 
Sam Johnson's bill, H.R. 511. Sam Johnson's bill, a simple two-page 
bill that details all of the fine things done by our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and ends with this simple paragraph: Faithful support of 
Congress. Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and 
members in the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in 
harm's way.
  Wow, that is pretty simple. I don't understand. I frankly, do not 
understand why this House could not vote on this simple measure 
submitted by my fellow Texan, Sam Johnson, a legitimate war hero in his 
own right. I simply do not understand why we wouldn't have an 
opportunity to vote on that bill or offer it as a motion to recommit 
before we vote on the resolution.
  And the resolution itself, it is a shame that we weren't offered a 
chance to amend the bill, to amend the resolution, to perhaps make it 
better. I urge people to go on line and read it for themselves. It is 
only two lines. It is not a very heavy lift to read this particular 
piece of legislation.
  Line 1, Congress and the American people will continue to support and 
protect Members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or 
who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq. That is sentence one. 
Remarkable for what it leaves out. What about a comma, and who will 
serve? Would it be so wrong to include those individuals who will serve 
in whatever time is left in the country of Iraq, to include them in as 
being worthy of our support in Congress?
  Line 2 is so vague as to almost defy description. Line 2 reads: 
Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush, 
announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional 
troops.
  Well, would 19,995 troops be okay? Would Congress then not cock an 
eyebrow to say we don't like that either? Well, what does that second 
statement actually, what point are we trying to make by that second 
statement, other than we don't support the Commander in Chief, we don't 
support the mission, and as a consequence, you do have to ask if we 
support the troops.
  Now, we are all sent here in Congress, we are all elected by 600- to 
700,000 people, back in our districts, back in our States, to make hard 
decisions. We are not sent here to read the polls, stick our fingers in 
the wind and then decide which direction to go. We are not sent here to 
shift tactics because we think we may become more

[[Page H1557]]

popular back home if we do that. I fully recognize that by voting 
against this resolution, I put myself in jeopardy of reelection, and I 
am willing to do that because I believe a vote for this resolution puts 
my country's fate in significant jeopardy for decades to come.
  Now, I was not here when this House voted in October of 2002 to give 
the President the power he needed to deploy the troops. But I have 
always voted for funding for the troops. And I appreciate so much the 
chairman standing up here and offering his telephone number to any 
family who is concerned whether or not their loved one will have access 
to body armor in Iraq.
  I remember those first hearings when I came here in March of 2003, we 
were instructed on how quickly our men and women in the field could get 
into their chemical suits. This was an object of great concern to 
everyone in this body. In fact, most of us sit on top of a chair which 
has a gas mask underneath it, just in case we need to leave this body 
in a hurry because of the deployment of chemical weapons. We were all 
concerned about chemical weapons back in 2003.
  Now, I have made five trips to Iraq, and I know that what is reported 
on our television news services here in the States is not always 
accurately reflective of what is happening on the ground back in Iraq. 
I referenced Dr. Norwood a moment ago. My last trip to Iraq was in July 
of 2006. Dr. Norwood, Chairman Deal and I, and Gene Green from our 
Health Subcommittee went over to see the status of health care for our 
troops. I was very impressed with what I saw that day.
  But, Madam Speaker, I think everyone in this body has to answer two 
fundamental questions on this resolution before us: Is it in our broad 
national interest to win this fight? The second question: Can we 
prevail? Can we provide a modicum of security in the country of Iraq? 
Can we provide a modicum of sovereignty in the country of Iraq? For me, 
the answer to those two questions is yes. Yes and yes. And I recognize 
that people of goodwill can disagree about these issues. But if your 
answer is no, and no, then please stand up, show some courage.
  This is a nonbinding resolution, for crying out loud. Even a 
Democratic Presidential candidate said it is equivalent to standing in 
the corner and stomping your feet.
  We have heard a lot about moral obligations tonight. Well, I would 
submit that we have a moral obligation that if we can't answer both of 
those questions in the affirmative, bring the troops home now. Don't 
wait till April. Don't wait till September. If we haven't the resolve 
to see this thing through, or if we no longer feel that it is in our 
broad national interest to continue this fight, why in the world would 
you ask any man or woman to continue to serve in that country under 
those conditions?
  It is our moral obligation to ensure that our troops know our 
intentions and they know that we are going to provide continued support 
for them, and that continued support, whether it is bullets for their 
gun, whether it is the M-16, whether it is the Humvee, or whether it is 
reinforcements, we are going to continue to provide the things that the 
generals on the ground say they need for their men and women to get the 
job done.
  When the President invited me down to the White House right before 
his Oval Office speech, he asked me what the constituents in my 
district would say. And I said, Mr. President, it is pretty clear. My 
constituents would say to you, if they were standing here today, fight 
the war or bring the boys home.
  The rules of engagement sometimes, frankly, I don't understand. If we 
capture someone in Sadr City and we get a call from the Prime 
Minister's Office and we have got to take him back and let him go, that 
doesn't make sense, good sense, if you are fighting a war.
  Well, it looks as if a lot of those restrictions have been removed. 
In fact, on the Drudge Report on Fox News earlier this evening they 
broke the story that Moqtada al-Sadr is now living is Iran. That is a 
good thing. That reflects the change in tactics on the ground brought 
to you by our men and women who are fighting for our freedom abroad.
  Madam Speaker, I suggest that we commit together to support the 
future, the future support of our troops in the country of Iraq, or 
simply get them out of harm's way now. Again, Moqtada al-Sadr has fled 
to Iran.
  I think we can prevail. I think it is in our broad national interest. 
I think the price of defeat is simply too steep, not just for us today, 
but for generations in the future.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Herseth). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, would it be wrong to propose an amendment 
that would ask that we add support for troops that will be in harm's 
way in the future in line 1 of this bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would entertain such requests only 
from the majority manager of the concurrent resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Well, then I would call on the majority manager of the 
concurrent resolution to consider adding future support for our troops, 
or those troops who will be in harm's way in the months to come.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy today, right now, to yield 5 
minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. 
This afternoon I went to Walter Reed and I visited some injured 
soldiers. One of them was from my congressional district in the State 
of Utah; had a number of serious injuries. He has been in intensive 
care at Walter Reed for about 3 weeks now. His wife was there with him. 
There were pictures of his 2-year old daughter plastered up all over 
the wall. His daughter is back in Utah with a set of grandparents.
  I wish everyone could have the experience of going and meeting the 
soldiers and the families. They inspire me, and they also tell me how 
serious this issue is about putting people in harm's way, because the 
lives of that family are changed forever based on these severe injuries 
that this soldier undertook.
  With regard to the situation in Iraq, our military personnel have 
done everything we have asked. We can never thank our troops enough, 
and we owe them. We have an obligation to them to give them the best 
opportunity for success.
  The problem is that we have never really stood here and talked about 
a strategy for success. A successful strategy has to be comprehensive. 
That is what has been needed from the outset of the conflict in Iraq, 
and it is still needed today as Iraq descends into civil war.
  A strategy for success in Iraq requires more than a military 
strategy. We have the most powerful military in the world, without a 
doubt. If military might alone could succeed, we would be done by now.
  The situation in Iraq has always required a more comprehensive 
effort. We need a plan for political and diplomatic and economic 
success.
  Now, just a couple of months ago, Congress was actually handed just 
such a strategy in the report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The 
report was put together by some of the greatest statesmen, diplomats 
and military minds of our generation. This was a bipartisan group led 
by former Secretary of State James Baker and former 9/11 Commission 
Chairman Lee Hamilton. These venerable men and women painstakingly 
considered all the available options. They talked to military 
strategists, generals, Iraqis and each and every type of individual who 
might hold the key to a way forward. They acknowledge that each 
recommendation of the Iraq Study Group carries its own risk factors. 
But in the end, this bipartisan group unanimously endorsed a plan to 
move forward. And in doing so, they rejected the overly simplistic 
discussion that seemed to dominate the 2006 election season when the 
primary options that were discussed were either stay the course or cut 
and run. In fact, the Iraq Study Group report provides reasoned 
arguments against both of these options.
  As for staying the course, the Iraq Study Group states that, and I 
quote, ``The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, 
the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who

[[Page H1558]]

believe they are the subjects of a repressive American occupation. As 
one U.S. official said to us, `Our leaving would make it worse. The 
current approach without modification will not make it better.' ''
  As for an immediate withdrawal, the Iraq Study Group states that if 
we left tomorrow we would simply leave an immense power vacuum in Iraq. 
The results would have devastating effects on the global economy, the 
region and the Iraqi people themselves. And specifically, the report 
says that ``a premature American departure from Iraq would almost 
certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration 
of conditions.''
  Now, the resolution we are debating right now addresses the proposal 
to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by just over 20,000. 
Let's remember that the Iraq Study Group specifically took a hard look 
at the surge option. In discussing the merits of a surge the Iraq Study 
Group report said that a surge ``might temporarily help limit violence 
in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the 
violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to 
another area.''
  Furthermore, many generals and other military strategists have 
roundly criticized the surge strategy.
  Now, I have long believed that the lack of independent, accurate 
assessments of our progress has hampered our efforts to secure Iraq and 
assist in its reconstruction. I strongly believe that the U.S. cannot 
linger in making the important policy and strategic decisions 
recommended in the report.
  That is why we need to follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study 
Group report. U.S. forces should be redeployed from combat missions to 
support functions. Our troops should be supplementing the Iraqi Army. 
And at the same time, we have to move forward on the economic 
development front and the political front and the regional diplomacy 
front.
  The resolution we are debating today is very simple. We support our 
troops and we oppose the surge strategy. I will vote for this 
resolution.
  As I said before, our troops have done everything we have asked of 
them. Their performance is a source of great admiration and pride for 
everyone in America. At a minimum, we owe them a new approach and a 
thoughtful approach to the situation in Iraq and the pursuit of a 
comprehensive strategy for success.

                              {time}  2300

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, first of all, I think that I speak for all 
of our colleagues and all of us here in paying tribute to the 137,000-
some-odd American men and women who are fighting in Iraq, the 25,000 or 
so that are fighting in Afghanistan. We are here to do what we can to 
honor them. We are trying to express our patriotism. We are trying to 
do what we are obligated to do by standing up here.
  The notion that it is our patriotic duty, our obligation to sit 
silent and to do whatever the President thinks is best and blindly walk 
in that direction, that is not the way to honor the troops that are 
there. I can imagine the challenges that they face every single day, 
and would the message going back to them be most appropriate that just 
as often as they wake up in the deserts of Iraq trying to figure out 
why people are shooting at them and what they can do to stop it, they 
should know that every single day we here in Congress are trying to 
think about ways to make their mission safer and make it more possible 
for them to accomplish their mission and to extract them as soon as 
possible. We pray that they are successful. Although I strongly oppose 
the President's initiative, that I am going to vote ``yes'' on this 
resolution, I pray that they are successful. I pray we don't lose 
another life. We want them to be successful. But it is not enough just 
to be silent and to be prayerful. We also have to act.
  Some in this Chamber have objected to this resolution because what it 
seeks to do is to do two things: one is the thing that I have done 
already, which is to pay tribute to the troops, something we all share 
in doing; and two is begin on a path of oversight. It is not surprising 
at all to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle have such a 
difficult concept with this idea of doing oversight over something the 
President proposes. They have done no oversight over how the money has 
been spent over there, and so as a result, we found out in the first 
month of the Democratic Congress that a $12 billion pallet of currency 
was delivered to Iraq and promptly disappeared. We had hearings last 
week that showed that even Mr. Bremer and officials on the ground from 
the administration have no idea where $12 billion disappeared to. So it 
is not surprising that my Republic friends have a difficult time 
figuring out what it is we are doing here. We are doing oversight, and 
we are going to do more of it.
  We are doing oversight over the equipment that the troops had. This 
weekend there were stories coming outside of Iraq that Iranian-built 
armor-piercing projectiles were being used in roadside bombs. It 
reminded us again that the troops had been sent there without 
sufficient hardware, without sufficient protective gear, without 
sufficient armor-plated vehicles to be able to do their job. We are 
going to do oversight on that as well.
  And I have to say that as part of the oversight that we are doing 
today, we are doing oversight on how the troops are being used. And let 
us not kid ourselves. The troops have done a remarkable job. They have 
done just about every single thing we have asked. They brought down a 
dictator. They set up a trial. They allowed a government to be stood 
up. They built roads and bridges. They have done an extraordinary job, 
and we in this House support them in that work.
  But now what is their mission? Their mission is essentially to stand 
in the middle of a shooting match of the worst order. It is not over a 
patch of land. It is not a shooting match over what a border is going 
to be. It is not a shooting match even over oil. It is a shooting match 
of the most ingrained type between Shia and Sunni that goes back 
hundreds of years. Are our troops going to solve that conflict with 
20,000 troops or 40,000 troops? I don't believe so. And even worse, I 
believe it is an untenable mission to be giving them. They are 
essentially in a schoolyard where everyone wants to fight.
  And I have to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, over 
and over and over again today I have heard this dynamic being described 
that if we were to leave or to support this resolution, we would let 
down our allies, we would embolden our enemies, and we would betray the 
Iraqi people. In fact, this policy does all of those things. Let us 
look at it.
  What does this policy say to our allies? Well, it says to our allies 
in Afghanistan we are not going to devote the resources there necessary 
for you to do the job. This isn't an abstract notion. You can watch it 
happen every single day. So long as we have 140,000 troops or 130,000 
troops in this shooting match largely in Baghdad, we are watching as 
Afghanistan slips further and further back into the hands of the 
Taliban.
  We have heard, for example, from our so-called ally the Saudis, and 
what have they said? They have been most telling. They said recently, 
well, to you, the citizens of the United States, if you pull your 
troops out, we are going to be forced to put resources in to support 
our Sunni brethren. So the Saudis have said if the American troops 
leave, we are going to have to jump in on the side of our Sunni 
brethren in Baghdad. What does that say? What does that say? That says 
they will jump into a blood-letting, but they won't come in now to help 
us stabilize Baghdad. They have argued, essentially, that the only 
reason they are not involved is our troops are. Some ally. Some message 
we are sending to our ally Saudi Arabia. What they are saying is, You 
had better keep your boys dying because otherwise we are going to have 
to send ours in.
  That is exactly what we want. We want them to send they resources in. 
We want them to take ownership of this.
  And the same is true with Egypt and other allies in the region. They 
have said to us, You had better keep doing what you are doing, Mr. 
President. We are getting exactly the wrong message.
  And I have also heard my colleagues speak frequently today about

[[Page H1559]]

emboldening our enemies. Well, it seems like just about anything 
Democrats propose is emboldening our enemies.
  Let us take a closer look at this. Is Iran truly upset about what is 
going on in Iraq? Are the Iranians truly wringing their hands every day 
saying, Boy oh boy, I hope the United States does not pull out of 
there? No. They have never been happier with this existing policy. 
Their worst elements, their worst Shia elements, are crossing over the 
border practically at will, joining the fight. The President of the 
United States himself has said it. I have heard people here on the 
floor say it. They like this confrontation that is going on. They want 
it to be like this.

  But they are happy for another reason, and I say this particularly to 
my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are happy because I am 
truly concerned about the threat that Iran poses not only to the United 
States but to the world. Do you think we are in a position right now 
with our military stretched so thin that if we needed to act against 
Iran, we could? No. Our engagement in Baghdad, adding more and more and 
more troops, has stretched us thinner and thinner and thinner. And the 
most happy people in the world are the tyrants in Iran because they 
know they can get away with just about anything. And if you think I am 
wrong about that, take a look at the war back last year on the northern 
border of Israel. Hezbollah felt completely unencumbered, which is 
essentially, as we all know, an agent of Iran. They felt completely 
unencumbered again just to attack a democracy in the region because 
they knew that all of us were stretched entirely too thin to be able to 
respond. So this notion that we are going to send the wrong message to 
our enemies is completely wrong.
  Do you know what would send the right message to our enemies, I say 
to my colleagues? You take some of those troops out of Baghdad, you put 
them on the Iranian border. That is how you send them a message. You 
get them out of the shooting match, but you keep them in the 
neighborhood. You keep them right on the border of Iran and you say, We 
don't need 140,000, but we are going to make sure you don't export any 
more problems. We are going to seal off the schoolyard.
  And, finally, I have heard it said that this will be an abandonment 
of the Iraqi people. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there is no element 
here that I am more disappointed with, and I think I speak virtually 
for all of us. Our troops are in there trying to create stability in 
Iraq, and for some reason, overwhelming numbers of Iraqis say that they 
think it is okay to shoot at our troops. It is outrageous. It is 
outrageous. Our troops are in there trying as best they can to build 
this country, put it back together, and the Iraqi people over and over 
again are saying, You know what, it is kind of okay when I read stories 
about snipers shooting at our troops.
  The Iraqi people have to have a moment where they confront the 
reality of the situation. Everyone agrees, I think, and whenever I say 
that, I hear someone come to the floor and think that everything is 
going just fine in Iraq, but just about everyone agrees that the Iraqi 
people themselves ultimately have to take responsibility for their own 
country.
  Are we creating an environment that is more likely to happen or less 
likely to happen? Well, there is no sign that it is happening; so the 
de facto response to my own question is that it is not happening. But I 
would argue that every time we stand up and put additional troops in, 
we push the Iraqi people further from the point where they have to 
confront that they have to take control. Might it be messy? Yes. Might 
it even be bloody? Yes. But one thing is for sure: up to now the Iraqi 
people have simply said, We are not going to. We don't have to. We have 
got our boys from the United States of America, and now we have another 
20, 30, 40,000 that are going to be rolling into town.
  My colleagues, I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle 
complain, and I have to say, present company excluded, it sounded a 
little like whining most of the day. I have heard, well, we need more 
choices. I have heard we need more bills. I have heard we need more 
language. There are going to be plenty of opportunities to confront 
these issues, but today my colleagues have to confront the choice in 
front of them. Sometimes in this job you have to say ``yea'' or 
``nay.'' And this week what you have to say ``yea'' or ``nay'' on is a 
resolution that is exquisite in its simplicity. It says two things and 
two things only. It says we support the troops. We are going to keep 
them safe. We are going to keep them secure. We are going to do 
anything that they need to show our support. And, two, we disapprove of 
the way the President wants to increase the number of troops going 
there. That is it. You are going to get to vote on other things later 
on because we are not done. Many of us believe very strongly that we 
need major tactical changes, and I know Mr. Murtha has a plan. The Blue 
Dog Caucus has a plan for more transparency. There are going to be 
plenty of choices. You are going to get oversight.
  I know it has been years, I say to my colleagues, since you have seen 
any around here, but you are going to get it. But today what we have is 
a simple proposition. It is the same proposition that is being 
discussed in coffee shops, in church socials, in corner stores all 
around this country, and that is: Do we support what the President is 
doing by increasing our engagement rather than reducing it? That is 
what this is about. And all of the foot stamping and all of the 
complaining and all of the whining, I want another bill, I want 
different language, I want to deal with something different, I want a 
hug, well, for the time being this is the choice that you are 
confronted with.
  If you believe that this surge is the right policy, you have a simple 
vote. You can vote ``no.'' If you believe that you don't want to 
support the troops, and there is no one like that, you can vote ``no.'' 
But this resolution is the beginning of finally starting to do what the 
American people are thirsting for, and that is this Chamber is a place 
where we stand up and say whether we support these things or not.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to take a couple of minutes to answer a couple of things that 
my friend said.
  First Mr. Weiner said, ``We aren't done.'' Madam Speaker, that is one 
thing that I am worried about. He said that we want more choices, more 
bills, more language. Not this Member. I will settle for a ``no'' on 
this resolution. I haven't asked for more bills, more choices, or 
different language.
  And the problem with this resolution, the gentleman said this is a 
very good resolution because it is very clear, very concise, and gives 
us clear choices. This resolution retroactively condemns an action that 
has already been taken. That is the movement of reinforcements into the 
theater. You already have the 82nd Airborne in the theater. That is 
part of the reinforcing force. They are already in there. You already 
have a brigade from the 82nd Airborne in one of the nine sectors right 
now, operating, boots on the ground as we talk. So you aren't 
prohibiting the President from sending reinforcements.
  He said that American forces are being stretched thinner and thinner 
and thinner.
  We have 2\1/2\ million Americans in uniform. We have roughly 138,000 
before the surge. Now a little more than 140,000 counting the ones that 
are already in country. When they are in country and the support troops 
are there and less the troops who will be rotating home at that point, 
you will have at the high point, we are told by DOD, about 157,000 
troops. That is less than we had a year ago in country, I would say to 
the gentleman. So that is not a huge surge.

                              {time}  2315

  He stated that we are going to be drawn thinner, and I quote, 
``thinner and thinner and thinner.''
  So you have about 160,000 troops, a little less than that, max. That 
is not 10 percent of the 2.5 million persons who are presently wearing 
the uniform of the United States.
  Secondly I will say to my friend, I want to say to folks who listen 
to this debate, because this statement about us being drawn thin and 
therefore being susceptible to problems and being vulnerable is a 
message that has come up several times in this debate.

[[Page H1560]]

  We have more than doubled the precision firepower of this country 
since the last administration, that is the Clinton administration. You 
have more than doubled the precision firepower. That means the ability, 
if people should give the United States a need to respond militarily, 
the ability to send precision systems that can explode right straight 
through goalposts at long distances and handle lots of stuff.
  Now, the gentleman is very concerned about Iran. I share that 
concern. And I share the concern the gentleman has about the centrifuge 
activity and the proposed centrifuge activity that Iran has discussed 
and may at some point develop with the aid of the Russians and the 
Chinese.
  I would just remind the gentleman that those precision systems, that 
doubling of the precision firepower that we now have, is probably the 
right medicine if we should have to keep the military option open and 
on the table with respect to Iran. So we will watch them as they try to 
walk down this road to developing a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I honor the gentleman for his mastery of 
the numbers. Perhaps you can enlighten me, what is the number of 
Reserves that are in country now?
  Mr. HUNTER. We have been up as high as 40 percent National Guard and 
Reserve, and that is a deliberate policy of the United States. When we 
went to war in Vietnam, the Guard and Reserve for practical purposes 
stayed home. And we said from here on out, when we go to war, we go to 
war with what is known as a total force.
  So you have a Reserve element that goes to war. If you were over in 
Iraq, as the gentlelady has been there a number of times, you will see 
Reservists flying C-130s, doing a lot of support missions, and you have 
National Guard units on the ground.
  Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will yield for a further question, are 
there any there doing second or third tours of duty?
  Mr. HUNTER. Certainly. I can tell the gentleman, my son has done two 
tours of duty. There are a number of people that have done that.
  Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will further yield, is it not your view 
that that has a dramatic toll only those families and communities who 
are not regular army who are there as Reservists and are being called 
back tour after tour? You don't think that is stretching those 
communities thin?
  Mr. HUNTER. I will just tell the gentleman, in the MOSs that our 
folks sign up for, especially the aerial supportive MOSs, that is 
always out there, that they are going to have to go, because where the 
armed services go, where the active folks go, let me just finish my 
answer to the gentleman. He asked me a question. I am going to ask 
answer it.
  If you are in a supportive service that involves things likes aerial 
refueling, C-130 work, which is the workhorse of the U.S. military, you 
understand when you go in, you are going to be making probably multiple 
tours. If you join the U.S. Marines right now, the recruiter tells you 
as you sign up, you can be guaranteed that you will go to Iraq.
  I would say to the gentleman another thing: Knowing those things, we 
are meeting all of our enlistment goals in the Guard and Reserve. So 
the active duty people who are undertaking multiple tours are coming 
back and reenlisting. And knowing that, knowing that you are exposed to 
multiple tours, we have more people signing up for the Guard, for the 
Reserve.
  And interestingly, I will tell the gentleman, the place where we have 
had problems with recruiting in the last year from the information I 
have seen is the Naval Reserve, which doesn't do tours in Iraq. But the 
combat arms have multiple tours.
  Mr. WEINER. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the 
gentleman very much. I think what you have just described is a military 
stretched thin, my friend. I think when you have people in the Reserves 
doing three tours, that are being taken away from their communities, I 
think that is a military stretched thin.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, I will just tell the gentleman this: 
There is a difference between people in specialties spending more time 
doing multiple tours, and I will say to him again, almost all Marines 
know that they are going to do multiple tours, either in country or on 
the so-called float, which is the deployment around the world, because 
they are the 9/11 force for this country. So that is something that 
people do.
  That is a far cry from not having enough firepower to respond to an 
Iranian crisis. We still have tons of firepower to respond to an 
Iranian breakout or surprise, a technological surprise, with respect to 
development of nuclear systems.
  Madam Speaker, if the gentlewoman from California has more speakers, 
I will enjoy listening to them, and I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the 
resolution before us that disapproves of the President's recent 
announcement to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops 
to Iraq.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am committed to 
supporting our troops and making sure that they have the resources they 
need. I always have and I always will. There is no debate about 
supporting our troops. This resolution clearly and unequivocally states 
that both the Congress and the American people support our valiant men 
and women in uniform. Our troops have been and are continuing to do an 
excellent job, and they deserve our support.
  Yet, overall, our military is being stretched thin, and now we face 
the prospect of not only sending over 20,000 more combat troops into 
Iraq, but also another 15,000 troops on top of that, at minimum, to 
support those troops, with additional military police, intelligence 
units and supply function personnel. In fact, the Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that it might take even more troops than that. So 
reality is that we are now looking at a total of 35,000 or more troops 
actually involved in this potential surge.
  We need to be moving toward a successful conclusion in Iraq; not with 
a timetable, but with definite benchmarks of accountability that are 
meant to ensure that the Iraqis are taking control of their own 
security and future. The Iraqi army, the national police and the local 
police in Iraq must take responsibility for their own country and 
communities, and only by lessening the American footprint in Iraq will 
we empower the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their own self-
governance and ultimately their own destiny.
  Is not just my opinion or the opinion of some here, it is exactly 
what General John Abizaid, our U.S. Commander said, when I visited Iraq 
and when he testified before Congress.
  We cannot continue to increase troop levels in Iraq at the expense of 
allowing the Taliban to come back into power in Afghanistan. The Global 
War on Terrorism is exactly what the name says. It is a global war, not 
just an Iraqi war, and we cannot let our troop strength be so focused 
on what is becoming a civil war in Iraq that we lose focus on threats 
that face us elsewhere in the world.
  Previous surges have not solved the problems in Iraq. Let us not be 
fooled into thinking that this one will.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have got one speaker left here, Mr. Franks of 
Arizona, but let me just say one thing before he speaks. I appreciate 
the debate. I think we have had a good discussion this evening.
  I wanted to say one thing about Charlie Norwood. He passed away. He 
was a Member of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I was a member of that 
brigade. I had a very average tour, a very easy tour in Vietnam. I did 
nothing special. But Charlie Norwood was a real hero who won the Combat 
Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars in Vietnam.
  I thought to commemorate Charlie, I have got my copy of General 
Douglas MacArthur's farewell speech that I quoted earlier, and let me 
just quote a paragraph about duty, honor and country that Douglas 
MacArthur thought so represented the fighting man in this country.

[[Page H1561]]

  He said these of words, duty, honor and country, ``They teach to be 
proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in 
success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of 
comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; 
to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who 
fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a 
heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never 
forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the 
past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be 
modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the 
open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.''
  I think that largely represented our great friend Charlie Norwood.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I certainly add my own 
feelings toward the words that you just spoke on behalf of Charlie 
Norwood. None of us know when we have to step from this floor for the 
last time. This man, while he was here, maintained a sense of honor. He 
was always committed to doing those things that would bring better hope 
to future generations. He was honorable among us, and we can certainly 
salute that kind of brotherhood that he represented to all of us.
  I certainly pass along my own condolences and also congratulations to 
his family, because in a sense Charlie Norwood's dreams were fulfilled 
in that he dreamed to be a statesman, and he certainly rose to that 
occasion in every way.
  I suppose it is in a sense a little bit of a statement to all of us 
that the brief moments that we have here should be spent debating those 
things that would truly make a difference, not only for this 
generation, but for whatever generations remain to America.
  Madam Speaker, tonight I think that is what I would like to talk 
about. There is an old Indian Iroquois quote that says that the secret 
to the universe is in the true naming of things, and as we debate 
tonight, it is easy for us to see each other as the opposition or as 
the enemy.
  I think tonight, if all else should fail us, we must consider who the 
real enemy here is. This one is a little different than those that we 
faced in the past, because even though there are parallels, this is an 
ideology. This is not just a group of people that we face in Islamic 
jihadism. It is an ideology that I believe has the seeds of danger in 
it for the entire human family.
  I think it becomes very, very important for us all to understand that 
one thing, because in a sense right now the battle that goes on across 
the world related to terrorism is a battle between those who are deeply 
committed with their lives to the destruction of the Western World on 
one side of the equation, and on the other side of the equation the 
opposition is largely asleep, and I think that nothing represents a 
greater danger to us than not only knowing what we face, but being 
completely oblivious to its potential.
  I believe that the ideology of jihad has the ability and even the 
propensity to germinate and one day threaten the entire human family. 
And even though America is engaged in some type of fight against 
terrorism and jihadism in nearly 70 countries across the world, whether 
we realize it or not, in the eyes of the leaders of jihad, Iraq is the 
frontline of that conflict, and it becomes profoundly important that we 
recognize it from their perspective, because in any ideology, one must 
understand that to grow, it must somehow take root and resonate in the 
hearts of the potential recruits.
  One of the things that causes this ideology to grow is a sense of 
victory on the battlefield, and leader after leader in the jihadist 
movement have said that Iraq is critical to the survival of their 
ultimate goal.

                              {time}  2330

  I know that we have faced dangerous ideologies before. There are a 
lot of people who have parents and family members that faced the Nazis 
down in World War II, and yet just a cursory glance at history helps us 
understand that the parallel here is real.
  There was a time when the Nazis were just a bunch of lunatics riding 
bicycles across France, and nobody paid much attention to them. They 
spewed a hate and a sense of superiority over their fellow human beings 
and even a sense of being willing to subordinate the innocent life of 
others for their own ideology. We did not pay much attention to them 
until it began to grow and the fires of this ideology began to spread 
across Europe.
  In the final analysis, the Western world and people of freedom did 
not wake up until this thing had become a monster, and when we finally 
did engage it, the ensuing war was so difficult and so horrible that at 
the end of the day, 50 million people had died.
  I will just say this, Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill warned us in a 
way that I think is pretty profound. He said, If you will not fight, 
then you can easily win without bloodshed. If you will not fight, then 
your victory will be sure and not too costly. You may come to the 
moment when you will have to fight and all the odds against you with 
only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse moment. 
You may have to fight when there is no hope for victory because it is 
still better to perish than to live as slaves.
  I submit in the ideology that we face tonight that is the equation 
that is before us.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to rise to close this debate from our side and say how 
impressed I have been by the debate that I have heard today. It has 
been about 11 hours. We are going to have tomorrow and debate on Friday 
and Thursday, and this is the first real serious debate we have had 
about the President's policies in Iraq since the vote in October of 
2002.
  This week the House is considering a bipartisan resolution introduced 
by Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, Tom Lantos of California, 
and Walter Jones of North Carolina, which supports our troops and 
opposes the President's plan to add 21,500 more combat troops in Iraq.
  People have talked quite a lot tonight about the size and the scope 
of the resolution, but it is elegant and it is certainly spare in the 
fact that it is about 100 words, but it is significant because of what 
it says.
  The resolution is very straightforward. It says:
  ``Resolved by the House of Representatives that:
  ``(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and 
protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving 
or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
  ``(2) Congress disapproves of the decision by President George W. 
Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 
additional United States combat troops to Iraq.''
  Those supporting this bipartisan resolution strongly support our 
troops and our veterans. Let us be clear on this one fundamental 
principle. We are honoring the service of our troops by asking the 
difficult questions about this war. In conducting this debate, we must 
be ever mindful of the sacrifices our military personnel and their 
families are making during this war and the toll it is taking on them 
and their families and our veterans. Each Member must determine for 
themselves, in a manner worthy of our troop's sacrifice, whether the 
President's plan will succeed in making Iraq more stable.
  I, for one, do not believe it will, and I strongly believe and hope 
that my colleagues will support this resolution and the debate that is 
coming forth in the next 2 days
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, scripture tells us, ``David consulted with 
the captains of thousands and hundreds and with every leader.'' 
Throughout the war in Iraq, the President has failed to adequately 
consult with the American people and their Congress or other countries 
in the region whose best interests are also served by a stable Iraq. He 
has long recognized that staying the course in Iraq is not working, yet 
he stubbornly stays the course.
  The Congress has a duty to make sure once sent into harm's way for 
good cause, our troops are equipped and supplied with everything 
necessary to accomplish a given mission. The Congress has an equal duty 
to change or end a given mission, when circumstances, realities and 
rationales demand it.
  We in Congress want to work with him to bring our troops home from a 
more stable

[[Page H1562]]

Iraq. We should not only ensure that the people are given a full 
accounting of what the President is expecting of our troops in the 
coming months, and how much it will cost our Treasury, but we must also 
demand accounting of what the war in Iraq has cost the U.S., and our 
men and women in uniform, over the last four years.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand today with my fellow 
veterans in the House of Representatives to register our opposition to 
the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and to show our 
support for our men and women in uniform.
  Last November 7th, the American people sent a clear message to 
Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq.
  Now, after nearly four years of bloodshed, death and destruction, 
Congress is likely to go on the record as opposing the plan for 
escalating the war. No longer will Congress stand by while the 
President wages a war that defies logic, common sense and human 
decency. This week, we shall take a stand. This week, we tell the 
administration: ``Enough is enough. Stop ignoring the American people. 
Stop ignoring your generals and retired generals, including Colin 
Powell. Stop ignoring the foreign policy experts. Stop wasting American 
lives and resources on this disastrous, unnecessary conflict.''
  This debate represents an important turning point in the public 
dialogue about Iraq, and so I welcome it. But it is not enough. The 
escalation must be stopped, but we cannot let the momentum against the 
war subside after we deal with the escalation. Our priority must remain 
ending the fighting and dying in Iraq.
  We must end the senseless deaths of service members like Marine 
Tarryl Hill of Southfield, Michigan, who died only last Wednesday when 
his vehicle drove over a bomb in Fallujah. Tarryl Hill was just 19 
years old. He had joined the military to help finance his education to 
become a chemical engineer, but instead he became the 120th serviceman 
from Michigan to die in Iraq. I don't want to see one more promising 
life like Tarryl's extinguished on the altar of this administration's 
arrogance.
  The loss of Tarryl's life brings to mind the bereavement of another 
patriot from Michigan, Lila Lipscomb of Flint, whose 26 year old son 
Michael died in Iraq in April 2003 when his helicopter was shot down. A 
member of a military family, Ms. Lipscomb initially believed President 
Bush when he told the nation that the war was necessary for our 
national security. But her son's letters from the front lines and his 
tragic death showed her that he never should have gone to Iraq.
  I need not spend much time explaining my opposition to the troop 
surge, which is simply even more ``more of the same.'' This policy 
takes us in precisely the opposite direction recommended by the 
generals and the experts. It would simply expose GI's to more intense 
door-to-door fighting, in the vain hope that, in the meanwhile, the 
Iraqis will miraculously reconcile.
  The real and underlying question is how we remove ourselves from this 
quagmire. As I have emphasized many times, our Constitution gives 
Congress the central role in decisions of war and peace. Last fall the 
American people spoke loudly with their votes. We should be here 
showing the voters that we heard them and that their trust in us was 
well placed.
  The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of 
the purse. We must use it. Supporters of the president's failed Iraq 
policy have argued that using Congress' spending power to end the war 
means that we don't ``support the troops.'' It is beyond absurd to 
suggest that those of us who favor ending funding for the war would 
simply abandon the troops in the field without the equipment and 
supplies they need. Every piece of legislation proposing cutting funds 
for combat operations would require the spending necessary to bring the 
troops home safely.
  Cliches about supporting the troops are not really about our service 
members' best interests. The true purpose of these accusations is to 
distract us from the fact that we are bogged down in an unwinnable war 
with no end in sight. Keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially 
when war is unnecessary, is the best possible way to support them. The 
American people understand that marching ahead blindly into oblivion is 
no way to support our troops. That is why they have asked us to end 
this war.
  Madam Speaker, the administration continues to live under the 
illusion that it can salvage its reputation by achieving a military 
victory in Iraq, when it is clear that diplomacy is the only effective 
means at our disposal. The recent National Intelligence Estimate 
reflecting the collective judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies only 
confirms what we have seen in the daily headlines for almost a year. It 
concludes that the civil war has reached an intensity that is ``self-
sustaining'' and that there are no Iraqi national leaders with the 
ability to stop it. No wonder the Administration stalled completion of 
the NIE until after the election and the President's presentation of 
his latest proposal.
  Most of the American people know that there is only one way to 
proceed in Iraq. We must begin the phased withdrawal of American troops 
in the next four to six months and conclude it within the year. 
Redeploying our armed forces does not mean ``cutting and running.'' On 
the contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the 
region through renewed diplomacy, a regional conference and 
reconstruction that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is 
the only one that can lead us to victory.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
157, further proceedings on the concurrent resolution will be postponed

                          ____________________