[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4455-4512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
157, proceedings will now resume on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on Thursday, 
February 15, 2007, 8\1/2\ minutes of debate remained on the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 
157, and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time 
for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
leaders or their designees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, that will be the order.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) now has 35\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 33 
minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, we gather today to consider a question that 
is profoundly simple: Do we support the President's plan to further 
escalate America's involvement in Iraq, or not? After 4 long, painful 
years in which we have seen so many young lives lost, are we now 
willing to put even more of our brave heroes in harm's way, or will we 
acknowledge that the current course is failing, that doubling down on 
the status quo while hoping for a better result would be foolish.
  There are those who oppose this resolution because they say it would 
hurt the troops' morale. Hurt morale? Our leaders promised them they 
would be greeted as liberators. Instead, we have put them smack in the 
middle of a shooing gallery, policing someone else's civil war, backing 
an Iraqi government that refuses to stand up for itself.
  We have sent our soldiers back time and again. We have sent many of 
them without the life-saving equipment and armor they needed, and now 
they say this resolution would hurt troop morale? To suggest that more 
of the same just won't do.
  They have done their duty with courage and discipline. Now it is time 
for Congress to do its duty. They deserve not to be sacrificed in the 
furtherance of a policy that failed for the last 4 years.
  From the beginning, this war has been a saga of miscalculations, 
mistakes and misjudgments for which America will pay in many ways for 
years to come. Let us not compound those bad judgments by ratifying 
another.
  The President assures us that this escalation of war is the most 
promising path to a more peaceful Iraq. For the past 5 years we have 
accepted the President's assurances on Iraq, only to learn that the 
facts on the ground belied his aggressive assertions and rosy rhetoric. 
We accepted his assurances about the presence of weapons of mass 
destruction and Saddam's links to al Qaeda. We authorized a war on that 
basis, only to learn that much of what we were told simply wasn't true.
  Against stern warnings, we accepted his assurances and those of the 
Vice President that a post-Saddam Iraq would welcome our presence and 
overcome deeply engrained sectarian differences. It simply wasn't true. 
We accepted their assurances when they told us General Shinseki was 
mistaken when he said we needed far more troops to stabilize Iraq than 
the administration planned, and that the cost of this war would be 
minimal. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they 
told us the insurgency was in its last throes. It simply wasn't true.
  Each of the last three troop surges has been countered with a surge 
in violence. It is for that reason that a bipartisan group of House 
Members and the American public oppose the forth troop increase. More 
troops doing more of the same is not a policy, it is not a strategy, it 
is not a tactic, it is the status quo plus.
  The time is past for accepting this administration's assurances at 
face value. The human cost of its repeated assurances is too great.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I asked permission to establish a temporary 
memorial to the fallen in Iraq in Statuary Hall. The leadership at that 
time refused, so I began posting the pictures of the young soldiers we 
have lost outside

[[Page 4456]]

my office. I have watched as that grim line of photos has grown past my 
doorway to fill the corridor. More than 3,000 dead, more than 20,000 
wounded. When I walk by those photos, I see the purpose, I see the 
pride, and I see the promise in their young faces. They were sons and 
daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers who will never see 
their kids grow up.
  I ask you, how long must this grim line of photographs grow before we 
acknowledge that this policy is not working? How many corridors must 
these memorials fill before we we say, not on my watch? How many more 
lives must we lose? How many more hearts must be broken?
  It is time for this Congress to tell President Bush that his 
assurances are not enough. This escalation does not mean stability in 
Iraq, it will mean more loss and more photographs in the corridor.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to 
respond to the first assertion just made by my colleague, to the effect 
that we sent the troops in without what he called life-saving 
equipment.
  When we finished the Clinton administration, virtually no one in any 
of the 10 Army divisions, which, incidentally, had been cut from 14 
Army divisions when that administration went into power, none of the 10 
divisions that were left, virtually none of them had any bulletproof 
vests, any of this body armor that we talk about that our troops have 
today.
  When we went into the first operation, we had much more than the 
Clinton administration had. At that point we had a number of the 
inserts, of the so-called Small Arms Protective Inserts. We had the 
outer tactical vests that incorporate those inserts with all of our 
Marines, with all of the infantry units going in with the U.S. Army. 
And very quickly after that, we developed a plan in which we fielded 
body armor for not only the people on the front lines, the infantry, 
the artillery, the armor, but also everybody that is in theater.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely outrageous to tell the American people 
that the Americans were dangerously unequipped when we went into Iraq. 
We went in with better equipment than we have ever had in any wars that 
this country has ever fought. And today, we have fielded over 40,000 
pieces of new equipment that we didn't have 4 years ago that makes our 
troops yet more efficient.
  I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  It has been interesting to listen to this debate over several days. 
Two thoughts stand out. One side says nonbinding resolutions achieve 
nothing and insult the troops. The other side has retired to opinion 
polls. The American people want to end this cost of human and financial 
treasure. They said so in the last election.
  Thank God John Adams never consulted public opinion polls. There was 
never a time when more than a third of our Nation was in favor of 
independence and freedom. Thomas Paine said, ``If there must be 
trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.''
  World War I was not America's war, no one attacked us; but an attack 
was made on freedom, and we responded. The doubters wondered why we 
would spend money on a war so far from our shores which didn't threaten 
us. The doughboys at Vimmy Ridge knew why they were there.
  Hitler didn't attack us, he didn't even threaten us; he threatened 
all that freedom meant to the world. And while we were engaged in 
Southeast Asia after Pearl Harbor, we still sent troops across the 
channel on D Day. Many mistakes were made. Troops drowned before 
getting to the beach. Support aircraft bombed the wrong areas. 9,386 
Americans died in the Battle of Normandy and are buried there on that 
hill.
  But the Boys of Pointe Du Hoc climbed that ridge under withering 
machine gun fire. They silenced the machine guns, took out the 
embankments and walked across Europe, and in 11 months Europe was free. 
We then spent billions of dollars to rebuild a free Europe.
  After World War II, we spent 50 years in a war against an idea. It 
was a battle of the two great religions, communism and freedom. When 
Whittaker Chambers left communism for freedom, he told his wife that he 
feared that he was moving to the losing side. He knew that communism 
could not survive if its people believed in a higher faith; he 
concluded that freedom could not survive if they did not. He had become 
a believer; he was unsure if we remained believers.
  Many of those Cold War years were not pretty. Between 1970 and 1980, 
the Soviets increased their influence in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, 
Nicaragua, Grenada, Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, South 
Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Syria. We watched and were timid. We even had 
Members of this very body go to some of those nations' dictators to 
apologize for our defense of what we believed; we believed in freedom.
  When Israel watched its athletes murdered at Munich, we urged 
caution. When terrorists continued to kill Israelis, we continued to 
urge caution. For 21 years we urged that great friend of ours not to 
respond in kind. We were timid. After the attacks began against 
America, beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers, we 
remained timid. We chose not to engage all of the opportunities we had 
to be bold. In the face of a declared war against our government and 
our people, we were timid.
  And then September 11, 2001. We stood together on the Capitol steps 
in solidarity that lasted a good week, and then it became politics as 
usual.
  I don't know if this fight for freedom can succeed when about half of 
our Nation doesn't know we are in it; nor do I know whether our Nation 
can come to an honest conclusion about what we are engaged in when all 
they see is the worst side of everything.
  When I was last in Iraq, a young man told me about going through a 
city and all the residents came forth to say thank you and throw 
flowers. He asked the embedded reporter if that was worth a picture; he 
was told, ``That's not news.'' I don't know how the whole story gets 
told.
  I do know this: This President knows that he and his commanders have 
made some wrong decisions, but he knows, as we must know, that this war 
has always been about the principle, the virtue, the idea of freedom, 
and to walk away now will have catastrophic consequences for its 
future.
  President Bush believes that our Nation, more than any other, ought 
to defend the right of people to live free. That is the only victory we 
can ever have over an ideology that cannot survive in a free society.
  President Bush knows why Lincoln said that he often found himself on 
his knees because there was nowhere else to go.

                              {time}  0815

  He also knows, as did Lincoln, that a President must continue to 
fight for posterity, even when it becomes unpopular to do so.
  If you believe, as I do, that the idea of freedom is still worth 
defending, you will vote against this resolution.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concern that this President has chosen 
to escalate the war in Iraq instead of charting a course towards peace.
  Today, I am reminded of the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., when he 
spoke out against the war in Vietnam on April 4, 1967. He said, ``The 
world now demands a maturity of this Nation that we may not be able to 
achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the 
beginning of our adventure in Vietnam,'' we could substitute Iraq, 
``and that our actions have been detrimental to the people of that 
Nation.''
  Mr. Speaker, war is messy. War is bloody. It tends not just to hide 
the truth but to sacrifice the truth. And

[[Page 4457]]

the truth is that this was a war of choice and not a war of necessity. 
It was ill-fated from its inception at the highest levels of 
Government, and persisting in error will not fix a policy that was 
fundamentally flawed from the very beginning.
  Thousands of our sons and daughters have been left dead on the 
battlefield, and tens of thousands are changed forever, wounded 
physically and spiritually by the brutality of war. Our soldiers are 
the best men and women in the world, willing to sacrifice all they have 
at a moment's notice to protect our freedom. They do not deserve to pay 
with their lives for the errors of this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, we will never find the answer to the problem we have 
created in Iraq down the barrel of a gun. The lasting solution to this 
crisis will rise from skillful diplomacy, not military might. The Good 
Book said, ``Come let us reason together.''
  We must never, ever be afraid to talk. What harm comes from sitting 
down with Syria, Iran and our allies in the Middle East to help bring 
the warring parties together? John F. Kennedy once said, ``Those who 
make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution 
inevitable.''
  My greatest fear here is that the young people growing up in the 
Middle East will never forget this American invasion. My greatest fear 
is that they will grow up to hate our children, our grandchildren and 
generations yet unborn, because of what we are doing today in Iraq.
  Yes, we must maintain a strong national defense. We must defend our 
borders. We must bring an end to terrorism. But not at the expense of 
our democracy, not at the expense of the very principles this Nation 
was founded upon.
  I want to close by asking a question of old, Mr. Speaker. What does 
it profit a great Nation to gain the whole world and lose its soul? 
Gandhi once said, ``It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.''
  Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, ``We must learn to live together 
as brothers and sister or perish as fools.''
  It is better to heal than to kill. It is better to reconcile than to 
divide. It is better to love than to hate. That is why we must vote for 
this resolution. We must do more.
  We must not place more of our young people in harm's way. We must not 
continue to make our soldiers sitting ducks in a civil war. As Members 
of Congress, we must continue to stand up, speak up and speak out. It 
is our duty, it is our right, it is our moral obligation. We must find 
a way to get in the way until we bring our young men and women home, 
and not to continue to escalate this war.
  Vote for this resolution. It is the right thing to do. We must send a 
powerful and strong message to this administration to stop this 
madness.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution. But, as this debate progresses, we should be proud of the 
sincere expressions of concern by our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle and both sides of this resolution, for the lives and well-being 
of America's defenders who are now at risk in order to protect our 
country, our communities and our families.
  All of us have been to heartbreaking wakes, funerals, burials; all of 
us have gone to the bases to see off our Reservists and our National 
Guardsmen and to wish them Godspeed; and all of us have been on the 
tarmac to greet them when they return, sometimes having lost comrades, 
killed or wounded. All of us want to do what is right for our defenders 
and for the future of our country.
  So we need to be extraordinarily careful. Whatever we do today honors 
their efforts and their sacrifice. We should not be the authors of a 
policy that ensures the lives of these American heroes have been lost 
in vain. If at the end of this episode our country is at greater risk, 
then indeed their lives will have been lost in vain.
  I am supporting this last effort, this last chance, if you will, to 
see that our commitment to Iraq will not result in failure. A failure 
now will have consequences that are worse than the price that we are 
now paying in blood and treasure. We do not have the option of walking 
away without consequences. No amount of midwest corn pressed into 
ethanol will allow us to ignore the Middle East.
  Helping establish moderate democratic governments in the Middle East 
is not just a favorite of the people there, but it is an imperative to 
our own prosperity and security. Our dependency based friendships with 
oil-rich yet dictatorial regimes has set the parameters for the 
fundamental decisions American leaders have made. It has skewed our 
ability to be a force for freedom and progress. And it is freedom and 
progress that shield us from the whims of feudalistic, corrupt despots 
and religious megalomaniacs. It is the onslaught of freedom that will 
change that reality that we are now dependent upon.
  That is what we had to deal with, and now we have come to this moment 
of decision. I wish it were not so. But it is a sad reality that what 
is right is usually not easy. The right course is, in the long term, 
usually frustrating and heart-wrenching. There are stalls and reverses 
to every historically significant event and undertaking.
  There are always those who walk away when the road gets rough, who 
cannot see the end and when uncertainty looms. If one seeks certainty, 
bold actions will never happen. Only if we are bold to our enemies and 
steadfast will we ever succeed in any international endeavor.
  The current conflict in Iraq has several dimensions; and, yes, it is 
between the Sunnis and the radical Shiite sects of Islam, a bloody 
Janus, with one face to Tehran and the other to Riyadh.
  But don't be fooled, Mr. Speaker. The murderers, torturers and the 
haters on both sides revile the United States. The sword of Sadr and 
the bombs of al-Qaeda have turned on each other, but they both have a 
dream that is close to their hearts, and that dream is a nightmare to 
those who cherish freedom and to those who stand with liberty and seek 
comity among the people of the world. That macabre nightmare is the 
removal of the United States influence from the Muslim world.
  You see, there is another force in Iraq and throughout that part of 
the world, where the majority of people are guided by the visions of 
the prophet Mohammed. Those of whom I speak are those Muslims who 
desire liberty and justice, who want government to be elected and 
directed by the people, who do not want to live their life in fear and 
would choose a positive relationship with the western world.
  They are there, as we have witnessed in one of the most devout Muslim 
countries of the world, Afghanistan. It was not the American soldiers 
but the Afghan people themselves who drove out the Taliban and al-Qaeda 
from their country. Similarly, moderate Muslims, people of good will 
all over the Middle East, and they are there and they tremble that 
America will lose its resolve and retreat before a radical form of 
Islam.
  An American retreat condemns them to suppression under the heels of 
fanatic Muslims who hate our way of life and are willing to murder 
anyone who suggests that Islam and the West can live in peace with one 
another and that we can respect each other's faith and build a better, 
more peaceful and, yes, a freer world.
  Mr. Speaker, if the sole superpower cannot stabilize Iraq, we are not 
a superpower. If we cannot thwart such a gang of bandits and savages as 
we face in Iraq, who will stand with us anywhere? Who will be our ally? 
We must not lose in Iraq.
  But what does that mean? That means we must not leave that country 
defeated and in retreat or we and our families will lose and in the 
short run pay a horrible price. Yes, if we retreat from Iraq, these 
ghouls who kill civilians, who would kill civilians and are currently 
killing civilians by the tens of thousands, they will follow us home 
and they will be emboldened.
  The sides are chosen, the game is in play. We will determine, not the 
terrorists or the radical lunatics, who stands and who falls, who 
marches forward

[[Page 4458]]

and who retreats. All of this will be determined by our military 
capabilities, our technological advantages, but even more so by our 
will, by our desire and by our sure grit.
  What we do today makes the future. We choose how it will be shaped.
  I am reminded of General Petain, the French commander who fought the 
Germans at the Battle of Verdun. Some attribute the phrase ``they shall 
not pass'' to him. Well, he rallied the French people to that German 
onslaught. But, 20 years later, he capitulated to Nazi Germany almost 
without a fight, because he and the people of France viewed the Second 
World War as not worthy of the price necessary to prevent a Nazi 
victory.
  Well, did that defeatism and appeasement, what did it do? The cost 
was unimaginable.
  Let us today not make this severe misjudgment again about the 
magnitude of the downside of retreating before an evil force that 
threatens the West. There will be a cost with the retreat.
  So let us note that what we do in Iraq will determine if the West 
will truly stand behind any ally of freedom and any enemy of radical 
Islam. Let us make sure there is hope in the Middle East and throughout 
the world.
  Mr. Speaker, let us today not make this severe misjudgment again 
about the magnitude of the down side of retreating before an evil force 
that threatens the West. There will be a cost if we retreat. Many in 
this Chamber supported military interventions around the world during 
the 1990s, including numerous civil wars, situations from which they 
now claim the United States should steer clear. However, the 
consequences of withdrawal from Bosnia or Haiti pale in comparison to 
withdrawal from Iraq.
  What happens in Iraq determines if the West will truly stand behind 
democratic government in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic 
world. Moderate Muslims must have confidence in our ability to triumph 
over our fears, to withstand humanitarian impulses to simply disengage 
from conflict, not to give in to force and pressure when applied by an 
enemy. Otherwise, we lose. The world loses. The moderates of the 
Islamic world will never prevail against this evil unless we are with 
them and have courage and persevere, unless we are willing to hold the 
line, until the moderate forces in the Islamic world can take up the 
fight with a reasonable chance of victory.
  On the flip side, only a defeat of radical Islam will bring peace to 
that troubled region. A loss of faith in America's ability to persevere 
in the Middle East would be a catalyst for catastrophe. That region in 
chaos would disrupt the entire world economy. Shifts of power would 
channel enormous resources into the hands of the enemies of Western 
civilization, enemies of the United States. It's a frightening picture 
that doesn't need to happen.
  How is this different than a year ago? The difference is 1,000 
American lives lost in a distant, foreign land. America is war weary. I 
too am weary. Every story of another young person, blown apart, rips at 
my heart. Those Americans who have gone are volunteers, heroes all. We 
owe it to them not to call it off and change direction in haste. To 
withdraw quickly, without honor, that would indeed mean their lives 
were lost in vain. It would mean the next front line battle will be the 
home front.
  I, then, am one who is not anxious to declare defeat and retreat from 
Iraq. I am willing to give the Iraqi people a while longer, a slot of 
time, to step forward and meet the bloody, yet historic, challenge that 
faces them. We can't do it for them, but we can, as the world's leading 
free nation, give them this chance. Otherwise, we are clearly not a 
leading nation at all. We are too weary to lead. That is not the 
America I know. Today we define ourselves, to the world, and to our 
children. We must have a commitment to our ideals and courage.
  America has a crucial role to play in this world and we are America. 
Let us not fail in this our historic responsibility.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my friend, Mr. 
Peterson.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, by nearly all measures, the situation in Iraq is a mess. 
And yet what seems crystal clear to most Minnesoteans the President 
says that we still have a realistic chance to achieve his vision for a 
free and democratic Iraq and that all is needed is a short-term 
addition of 21,000 American combat troops. Does nobody seriously think 
that this is true, that success is only 21,000 more soldiers away?
  Mr. Speaker, I am against the President's plan. I have given this 
President the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion. But his 
plan to send in more troops does not pass the test of common sense. If 
a short-term surge was going to deliver victory and democracy in Iraq, 
we would have already done it.
  This idea would have made more sense at the beginning of this war. 
And more troops at the start were what many experts counseled. I was 
serving on the Select Intelligence Committee when the President, senior 
Pentagon officials, and senior intelligence officials told us that Iraq 
was a threat to our national security. At the time, we had a great deal 
of confusing and occasionally conflicting information.
  We questioned them about this, and their response was that the 
information that they had required us to act and that they had a plan 
for the aftermath. I gave them the benefit of the doubt then, and I 
believed them.
  But as time passed and events unfolded, we all learned that, at best, 
we had received unreliable information and, at worst, we had been 
misled.

                              {time}  0830

  Mr. Speaker, I want to focus now on the soldiers in the Minnesota 
National Guard and talk about what the President's plan is going to 
mean for them.
  A Minnesota Guardsman, a staff sergeant who is currently deployed in 
Iraq, and, by the way, that is the same rank I held when I left the 
Guard, sent a letter to the editor of one the newspapers in my 
district; and I want to read some of it to you.
  He says, ``My unit, the Second Battalion, 136th Infantry, Bear Cats 
of Minnesota, which are now the 34th Infantry Division 1, First 
Brigade, is on its second deployment since 2003. In 2003, we were 
mobilized for a 10-month deployment to Bosnia. We returned home in 
April of 2004 and were mobilized again in October, 2005, for our 
current Iraq deployment. When our current deployment is complete, the 
134th Combat Battalion will have spent 490 days in combat, exceeding 
the current record held by the First Armored Division, an active duty 
armor unit, by 35 days. A great deal has been asked of us and more will 
be asked of us in the near future. But our benefits do not reflect the 
burden that we carry.''
  He says that, ``while the State and the people of Minnesota have been 
extremely generous towards their soldiers, the Federal Government 
continues to treat Minnesota soldiers like unwanted stepchildren by 
neglecting to give them the benefits that better reflect their roles in 
today's military, that is as full-time, front-line soldiers who are 
used on a regular basis, rather than sparingly. However, it is not our 
choice to be full-time soldiers, a capacity that we essentially fill 
for the military, given the frequency of deployments and the sheer 
numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops deployed across the globe 
at any one time. If the military is going to use the National Guard in 
an active duty capacity, it must increase our benefits to go along with 
the responsibility or there will be no National Guard for the Federal 
and State governments to rely upon in times of crisis.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think he said it clearly; and I couldn't agree more. 
When called upon to serve our country, the Minnesota National Guard has 
a proud history of answering that call. Over 2,500 soldiers of the 
Minnesota National Guard are in Iraq. Many of them were already 
deployed overseas, as I said, in Bosnia; and they were slated to come 
home in March. But, instead, they are having their tour extended for 4 
more months because of this administration's plan.
  Now they are scheduled to come home in July and will have spent 22 
months away from their families. They will have been deployed a total 
of 36 months out of the last 5 years. In my opinion, that is 
unacceptable, and I say, enough is enough.
  The soldiers of the Minnesota National Guard are performing their 
duties admirably. They are performing

[[Page 4459]]

well or better than the regular Army. They are serious about completing 
their mission; and, from my experience, they will always do more than 
what is asked of them.
  Another group of people that I would like to recognize are the 
Guard's families. They are not in harm's way, but they wake up every 
day worrying, not knowing what that day will about bring for their 
loved ones. They didn't enlist for the military, but they share their 
daily effects of this war.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this plan.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. 
Westmoreland, the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, if this undemocratic, smoke-and-
mirrors Congress had been in power throughout our Nation's history, I 
am not sure we would have much to celebrate this weekend when we 
commemorate Presidents Day. On Monday, we honor the Presidents who 
guided our Nation through its toughest moments, Presidents who made 
tough decisions in the face of public skepticism despite great peril 
and unimaginable sacrifice.
  Not all Americans supported General George Washington's campaign 
against the British, yet our Nation's father led a ragtag band of 
underfed and underequipped soldiers to victory over the greatest 
military of its day.
  Not all Americans supported President Lincoln's decision to go to war 
to preserve the Union. It seems inevitable today, but, at the time, 
many Americans would have preferred to save the lives, treasure, and 
misery and just let the Nation cleave into two. But Lincoln decided to 
preserve the Union, a Union that, in time, would become the greatest, 
most powerful nation on earth, even though he had to wage the deadliest 
war in U.S. history, with 600,000 lives lost.
  I wonder what the forebears of today's Democratic Party would think 
of their policy of retreat and defeat? What would they think of the 
timidity in the face of great danger?
  What happened to the legacy of Woodrow Wilson, who faced down 
American skeptics to lead us to victory in World War I?
  What happened to the legacy of FDR, who faced down American 
isolationists to defeat the evils of German fascism and the militarism 
of imperial Japan?
  What happened to the legacy of Harry Truman, the first President to 
realize the peril of the Soviets and entered our war-weary Nation into 
the fight against the spread of communism?
  The wisdom of their decisions wasn't necessarily clear to all 
Americans of their day, but the judgment of history validates their 
leadership.
  Today, our Commander in Chief sees the danger to our Nation's 
security and freedom posed by Islamic extremist forces in the Middle 
East. Many in this Congress choose to believe that the violence in Iraq 
is a local problem. To some degree, it is, but it is also a problem for 
the United States.
  If we were to follow the proposals of Democratic leaders, we would 
pull out our troops and let Iraq become a failed State. Anarchy in Iraq 
would give al Qaeda and other extremists a safe haven to train and plot 
attacks. It was in the failed states of the Sudan and Afghanistan that 
al Qaeda was able to plan the African embassy bombings, the attack on 
the USS Cole and the September 11 disasters.
  The smoke and mirrors Democratic Congress wants it both ways. On the 
one hand, they say this is a nonbinding resolution. On the other hand, 
they say this is a first step.
  Given how Democratic leaders have battled to one-up each other and 
have allowed their rhetoric to spiral, how can this nonbinding 
resolution be anything but a first step?
  How can Democrats stop with the nonbinding resolution if they agree 
with Senator Obama that lives lost in Iraq have been ``wasted?''
  This nonbinding resolution expresses disapproval of the military plan 
to strengthen our forces in Iraq and give them the resources they need. 
By the end of this week, every Member of this House will be on the 
record and answerable to their constituents about whether they are for 
or against the military plan.
  My colleagues who vote for this resolution are for one of two things. 
They are either for retreat and defeat, or stay the course.
  We all agree that changes need to be made, that changes need to take 
us toward a stable and peaceful Iraq. Withdrawal would take us in the 
opposite direction.
  Let's reject this smoke-and-mirrors resolution and continue to fight, 
take the fight to the terrorists.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. 
Frank.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a great 
example of an important form of political debate. The Republicans 
specialize in this. It is kind of political necrophilia. There is this 
love of dead Democrats among many Republicans. Democrats who, when they 
were alive were trashed by the right wing, once they are dead and 
safely no longer possibly candidates for office, get lionized. Nothing 
of course shows that better than with Harry Truman, but it is John 
Kennedy, and it is others.
  The assertion that the Democrats who are supporting this resolution, 
and the unspoken Republicans who will be joining with us, that we 
somehow oppose the use of force is terrible history. It is wrong. In 
fact, the most recent entirely successful use of military force by the 
United States came from a Democratic President, Bill Clinton--he's 
still alive, so don't say good things about him--and supported by 
Democrats in Congress, and it was opposed by many of the Republicans, 
including many of the current Republican leadership.
  Under Bill Clinton, American military forces were used quite 
successfully; and the result is not perfection but a much better 
situation in the former Yugoslavia than we had before. And the 
Republicans brought forth, guess what, nonbinding resolutions.
  Now, they pretend to be upset about nonbinding resolutions. Frankly, 
I was a little encouraged when I heard the Bush administration 
criticize nonbinding resolutions, because, up till now, I had thought 
that Bush and Cheney thought that everything we did was nonbinding with 
regard to national security. So they were at least implicitly conceding 
that some things can be binding.
  But the fact is that the Democrats strongly supported--I didn't mean 
to make it partisan, they did--the effort in Yugoslavia over Republican 
opposition.
  And then let's talk about terrorists. We were attacked in 9/11 from 
Afghanistan and overwhelmingly, with only one exception, Democrats in 
the House and Senate supported the war in Afghanistan. We are 
continuing to support that war in Afghanistan.
  I am critical of an administration which has diverted military 
resources and energy and political resources from Afghanistan. They are 
weakening the number one fight against terrorism, which is in 
Afghanistan. And that is one of the reasons for opposing this war in 
Iraq.
  Now, the war in Iraq has been, in my judgment, the greatest national 
security disaster in America history. And it isn't one in which we got 
sucked in and had to defend ourselves. It was an entirely voluntary 
error. This administration unwisely went into Iraq on inaccurate 
grounds; and not only did they make the wrong war, they have been 
disastrously wrong in virtually every decision. So the question now is, 
are we doing more good than harm to the causes we care about?
  I believe, in fact, that fighting terrorism, fighting extremism, 
fighting that particularly radical fundamentalist form of Islam, not 
all Islam, obviously, by all means, that that is weakened by our being 
in Iraq. It has clearly weakened our effort in Afghanistan. The 
commanders in Afghanistan beg for more troops, and instead they go 
uselessly to Iraq, uselessly not because of the lack of capacity of the 
fighting people but because they are condemned to fight in a very 
mistaken strategy.

[[Page 4460]]

  It has emboldened radicals elsewhere. This administration predicted 
that our overthrowing Saddam Hussein would strengthen the forces of 
moderation. In fact, it has weakened them.
  Let's remember that when America invaded Afghanistan with the 
overwhelming support of both parties and the united support of this 
country, we were popular in the world. We mobilized the world. And 
since that time came the invasion of Iraq. And because of the mistaken 
decision and the poor way in which it is carried out, I do not think 
there has been a time in recent history when America has been less able 
to accomplish in the world the things we want to accomplish.
  So then the question is, okay, but isn't this escalation going to 
change that?
  There is zero reason to think that. First, we are told this is what 
the administration says. If ever any group of people forfeited their 
right to be listened to, it is the collection of people who have shown 
an aggressive incompetence with regard to Iraq. Can anyone think of a 
single decision from the invasion forward that has been correct, that 
has been borne out by events?
  So why do you take people who have been wrong about everything, wrong 
about the politics, wrong about the military situation, wrong about the 
economy, and then you say, oh, but this time we think they got it 
right. Maybe it is the theory of random occurrences, that people, 
having been wrong so often and so consistently, they are owed one. But 
that is not a basis on which we ought to be making a decision.
  This war in Iraq continues to hurt rather than help our efforts 
overall. If I thought we were doing some good there, then it would be a 
different story. But the causes of the disaster, in addition to the 
rampant incompetence of this administration at virtually all levels, 
the cause of the disaster is internal, it is ethnic and political and a 
whole range of other things within Iraq. It is not a lack of American 
firepower.
  So to try to resolve this disaster by taking the advice of people who 
created the disaster and have been wrong about it would be a terrible 
error, and I hope the resolution passes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just take 2 minutes to respond to my 
colleague who has just made a number of points.
  First, there are a number of live Democrats that I like to refer to. 
When somebody asks me whether or not Saddam Hussein was indeed a 
dangerous terrorist in and of himself, I like to take the words of all 
of the Democrat leadership of this country in the 1990s, when, in their 
words, there was no Bush administration to trick them, who made that 
point very, very forcefully.
  Secondly, the invasion of Iraq and the taking of Baghdad in record 
time with very low casualties has been described by most military 
leaders as being a remarkably efficient and effective operation. In 
fact, while we had people saying that our troops would be bogged down, 
the same talk shows would be interrupted with a news flash that Tommy 
Franks had taken yet another stronghold of Saddam Hussein.

                              {time}  0845

  We took Baghdad with very low casualties, very, very quickly, in a 
very effective and efficient military operation.
  Lastly, I don't think that the gentleman can say that there have been 
no ripples, no ripples whatsoever in the Middle East with respect to 
freedom and democracy and people wanting to be free as a result of the 
elections in Iraq. There clearly was action in Libya where they moved 
lots of parts of their nuclear weapons program which are now residing 
in the United States, I think as a result of American actions there. 
Clearly actions toward freedom, toward ejecting the Syrians from 
Lebanon and moving toward multiparty elections in Egypt. All imperfect 
to be sure but nonetheless reactions from our operation in Iraq.
  Lastly, I would just say to my colleague let me just say to my 
colleague, there are no smooth roads. The smooth roads not taken, that 
have been held out by the armchair critics, like we should have kept 
Saddam Hussein's army in place, that was an army with 11,000 Sunni 
generals. What are you going to do with an army with 11,000 Sunni 
generals? Certainly not establish stability in a country in which you 
have a Shiite majority.
  The idea that we needed to have 300,000 Americans in Iraq and yet at 
the same time put an Iraqi face, as a number of the critics have said, 
on the military apparatus.
  So I think a number of the gentleman's points have been strongly 
disproven by the American operation in Iraq. We are in the second 
period right now of a three-phase operation: stand up a free 
government; stand up a military capable of protecting that free 
government; lastly, the Americans leave. Let's give the second phase a 
chance to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me 15 seconds 
to respond?
  Mr. HUNTER. I like a full debate. If the gentleman will hold on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. HUNTER. Let me allow the gentleman from Missouri to yield to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 30 
seconds.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman from California wants to 
claim Iraq as a success, he is entitled to do that. I must say that the 
initial victory was a very deceptive one, because it led to the current 
situation. But the biggest difference between us, I guess, is when he 
cites Lebanon as one of the successful ripples, as he says. In fact, 
the terrible tragedy that went on in Lebanon that was initially 
something that was promising, we have had that war with Hezbollah in 
control in Israel, I think Lebanon is a further sad example of the 
extent to which this misguided and badly run operation in Iraq has 
sadly strengthened the most radical and anti-American forces in the 
Middle East, not weaken them.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 15 seconds to make a 
response to that last point.
  My last point wasn't that Lebanon is California or New York or 
Massachusetts. My last point was that the free elections in Iraq 
inspired the Lebanese to work to eject the Syrian influence, which I 
think the gentleman would agree was not a good influence in Lebanon. It 
inspired people to want to be free.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman consider Lebanon or 
Syria free today?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman gets more time, I will be happy to 
engage with him.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for your 
leadership, your military service, and your son's military service.
  Mr. Speaker, complete discussion regarding the way forward in Iraq is 
certainly appropriate. In fact, it's our duty as elected public 
officials. It is sad that the resolution before us offers no solutions. 
It is contradictory to say in one paragraph that we support the troops 
and in the next paragraph oppose reinforcements for them. As the parent 
of a son who served proudly in Iraq and three others in the military, I 
want to fully support the troops.
  Al Qaeda spokesman Zawahiri has made it clear that Iraq is the 
central front in the global war on terrorism. In a January 22, 2007 
transcript, Zawahiri boasted, ``The backing of the jihad in Afghanistan 
and Iraq today is to back the most important battlefields.'' The enemy 
know Iraq is the central front of the global war on terrorism.
  We must put our trust in the commanders on the ground who are living 
the situations we are merely debating. General David Petraeus in 
Baghdad is an accomplished general with a proven record of success. He 
has expressed his confidence that victory in Iraq can be achieved--
provided he has the personnel required to do so. General

[[Page 4461]]

 Petraeus has just been unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to 
lead our troops in Iraq. We need to support him with reinforcements.
  In my six visits to Iraq, I have gone to encourage our troops, but 
each time it is them who have encouraged me. They know firsthand that 
the enemies fighting us today in Iraq want to fight in the streets of 
America tomorrow. We must face them today to protect American families.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September 11.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The question is, where are we today? We are looking at this conflict 
today and the consequences that it has upon tomorrow and tomorrow's 
military readiness.
  I spoke about the lack of readiness last summer. Others did as well. 
We had a hearing on it a good number of months ago, our committee 
responded, and we thank the gentleman from California for helping in 
that massive effort to re-equip our Army as was necessary, and 
hopefully we will be able to do more in the future.
  But where are we today? Yesterday regarding the issue of readiness of 
our Army, the Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker, said that the 
increase of 17,500 Army combat troops in Iraq represents only the tip 
of the iceberg and will potentially require thousands of additional 
support troops and trainers as well as equipment, further eroding the 
Army's readiness to respond to other world contingencies.
  In the last 30 years, there have been 12 military engagements, some 
large, some small, that our country has engaged in. The Pentagon says 
they would only need some 2,500 support troops for the 20,000-plus 
combat troops. The Congressional Budget Office says there is going to 
be a necessary 13,000 in additional support troops. But the issue of 
readiness is real, it is there today because of additional combat 
troops, and that is what we are debating today. That is exactly the 
issue today. The readiness of tomorrow is contingent upon what happens 
today.
  I yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, as we wind up this debate on escalating the 
war in Iraq, I wish to thank Speaker Pelosi for allowing Members of 
Congress to express themselves on the most serious debate that will 
occur in the 110th Congress. Perhaps more importantly, we should thank 
the American people for voting for a new majority which has allowed a 
free and open debate on the President's plan to escalate the war. With 
their votes, the American people have clearly demanded a new direction 
for the war in Iraq. Today's debate symbolizes more than just a debate 
on escalating the war, the debate symbolizes a new direction for 
America's policy in Iraq driven by the American people, not by a 
President who has lost touch.
  In October of 2002, just before the general election, President Bush 
insisted a vote be held on Resolution 114 which would allow the use of 
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and 
appropriate in Iraq. At that time, I argued that the United States did 
not have the moral, legal and ethical authority to go to war with Iraq 
and that our Nation would lose its moral authority to speak out against 
aggression throughout the world.
  It would be very easy for me to stand here and remind my constituents 
that I voted against the war in Iraq. It is sufficient, however, to 
simply note that the evidence to justify the war has been repudiated. 
Rationale for this war has been inadequate. And our Nation's 
credibility has been eroded.
  While some of us opposed the war in Iraq, our support for our troops 
has never wavered. Congress has appropriated the supplies and the 
resources to assure that our troops have what they need to accomplish 
their mission and return home safely. We know too painfully that more 
than 3,100 Americans have not returned home and more than 23,000 have 
been wounded. We have visited with the wounded and comforted the 
families of the fallen. We simply cannot allow the President to 
continue to fight this war as if there were no consequences for our 
troops, their families and our country. By standing up against this 
escalation of the war, we are supporting the troops.
  Because of this war, many lives have been shattered and broken. I 
speak of the lives of family members who have lost loved ones. I speak 
of the brave troops recovering from their wounds at Walter Reed Army 
Hospital or the recently dedicated amputee clinic in Texas. As a 
Nation, we are comprised of a reasonable, noble, compassionate and 
determined people.
  I believe that it is not in our Nation's best interest to leave a 
shattered and broken Iraq behind. Still, we cannot continue with a 
policy of military might and no diplomatic foresight. Instead of 
military escalation, our Nation should embark upon a diplomatic and 
political escalation. The current administration with its ``military 
might makes right'' philosophy is no longer applicable in Iraq. This 
administration has not seriously focused on the diplomacy and political 
persuasion necessary to end this war.
  I am struck by the recent news out of Korea. It is reported that 
after years of negotiation, the administration may have reached an 
agreement with North Korea on its nuclear threat. The journey was long, 
discussions were difficult, diplomacy was frustrating, but we may have 
accomplished our goal without having to go to war. There is a lesson to 
be learned here, reflected in the words of an American journalist, Anne 
O'Hare McCormick, who said:
  ``Today the real test of power is not the capacity to make war but 
the capacity to prevent it.''
  I call on the Bush administration and this Congress to escalate 
diplomacy. I call on the Bush administration and this Congress to 
escalate political pressure. This war is a mistake and what we need now 
is a President who has the courage to admit his mistake. We need a 
President who will bring peace and stability to Iraq through diplomacy 
rather than military force.
  In an earlier time, in an earlier war, a young man spoke out. That 
young man was Bobby Kennedy and his words have lived with me for many 
years. So to our service men and women, to my colleagues in the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and to those whose hearts are burdened by 
war, I leave you Bobby's challenge:
  ``Diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped 
each time a man stands up for an ideal or strikes out against 
injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each 
other from a million different centers of energy and daring those 
ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest wall.''
  Our vote for this resolution will not stop the war in Iraq. It will 
not restore the shattered and broken lives here in America and in Iraq. 
It will not bring peace and stability to Iraq. But it will send a tiny 
ripple of hope.
  I still believe in that tiny ripple of hope.
  I still believe in diverse acts of courage.
  I still believe in the greatness of America.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for 4 minutes.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Our uniformed men and women have given great service to the Nation by 
ending a tyrant's rein and fostering elections in a region that only 
knew dictatorship. In my judgment now, the time for decisive military 
action led by American and British forces is ending and the Iraqi stage 
should be delivered to new political leaders to work out their own 
differences. I will support the House resolution that recommends 
against the troop surge because the United States should increase the 
responsibilities of the elected Iraqi government to solve its own 
problems while reducing the number of American combat troops sent 
overseas.
  I did not come to this conclusion lightly. The long-term security of 
our country depends on the United States not being defeated in the 
Middle East. To prevent the collapse of democracy,

[[Page 4462]]

tolerance and supporters in our region, we need a policy that relies on 
America's key strengths and builds additional support among our 
citizens and allies.
  Looking back on the last years, our troops in Iraq achieved two major 
objectives: First, they ended the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, a 
leader that invaded two separate United Nations member countries and 
ordered the murder of several hundred thousand Iraqis. Second, they 
backed the United Nations' sponsorship of Iraq's three national 
elections that approved a new constitution and government.

                              {time}  0900

  Iraq is no longer a military threat to her neighbors or minorities, 
especially her Kurdish families, who no longer fear that a third 
genocide campaign will be launched by their very own government. These 
are major achievements, worthy of the bravery and sacrifice of 
Americans in uniform.
  But Iraq now faces new challenges that should be solved by Iraqis, 
not the U.S. military. Iraq's government, led by a Kurdish president 
and a Shia prime minister, faces a daunting enemy composed of people 
that would restore the old dictatorship, or worse. But this struggle is 
primarily political, not military. Foreign troops, be they American or 
British or otherwise, are not well-suited to advance the elected 
government's writ.
  In the coming months we should build a longer term plan for the 
United States and our allies in the Middle East. Man for man, Iraqi 
combat troops operating under the authority of their own elected 
government are better suited for this mission than Americans on the 
front lines of Iraq.
  The U.S. military can offer unique advantages to the Iraqi government 
in our ability to provide the Iraqi army and police with logistics, 
communications, training and intelligence, in a way that only Americans 
can provide. Over the coming months, Americans should be focused on 
these missions, making sure that our Iraqi allies are more effective in 
extending the authority of their government. By winding down the combat 
duties of Americans, we will dramatically lower the risk to our men and 
women stationed overseas while providing a decisive advantage to the 
elected government of Iraq. This is how to win the battle and secure a 
lasting government for the Iraqi people.
  Our plan should be strengthened by a diplomatic initiative among 
Iraq's neighbors and the World Bank to support the elected government 
in its plans for reconstruction. To date, the World Bank has been 
``absent without leave'' in delivering help to this founding member of 
the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development.
  Our efforts, based on the key American advantages, while reducing the 
number of American combat troops, will improve the prospects for peace 
and build support for our goals here and among our allies.
  Mr. Speaker, I join with many Members today to say if it were up to 
us, we would recommend a different course of action that involves less 
risk to Americans. As a military man, I am fully aware that the 
Constitution does not place 535 Members of Congress in the direct 
military chain of command, and Americans who wear the uniform are also 
not shy in debating various courses of action. They have as many 
opinions on various issues as any civilian community, and that is their 
birthright as Americans. But as volunteers who wear the uniform, they 
take on an additional heavy obligation to make a decision, to bring an 
end to the debate, and to confront the enemies of the United States as 
brothers and sisters united by a common bond.
  In coming days, our troops will face danger, not as Democrats, 
Independents or Republicans, but as Americans.
  We in Congress should draw on their strength once our decision is 
made. When a course of action is set, we are not neutral in the 
contest. If Americans are engaged in combat, we are for the Americans 
winning. We will give them the tools to bring an end to the conflict as 
rapidly as possible. The debate in Congress will soon close and the 
course will be set. For those Americans who serve farthest from home, 
they should know that after a vigorous debate, their democracy will 
make a decision, and we will back those charged with its implementation 
with everything needed to succeed.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the chairman of 
the Budget Committee and also a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and rise 
to support the resolution and to talk about something the President 
seldom mentions, the cost of the war in Iraq. In deciding what we 
should do, cost is not the determining factor, but it is considerable, 
and with costs overall approaching $500 billion, it has to be a factor.
  During the first Persian Gulf War we had real allies, Britain, 
France, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, and our gross cost was around 
$80 billion in current dollars. But Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States 
contributed in kind about $16 billion, and allies like Germany and 
Japan and Saudi Arabia contributed in cash around $60 billion, so the 
net cost to the United States was a mere $4 billion.
  Because we had allies willing to share the burden, the cost of the 
first Gulf War was minimal. But in this war our President was able to 
enlist only one major ally, Great Britain, and he chose to go it alone 
with a motley coalition. That is one reason this war is proving more 
costly than the first, in lives and in dollars.
  So far, over 3,100 service men and women have been killed in action; 
so far, over 23,000 have been wounded in action, many of them 
grievously; and so far, Congress has appropriated $379 billion for the 
war in Iraq.
  As we speak, two supplemental appropriation bills are on deck. One is 
to cover operations in Iraq for the rest of fiscal 07, and it provides 
$100 billion to the $70 billion provided last year. The other 
supplemental is to cover operations in Iraq during fiscal 08, and it 
provides $145 billion. These bills, when passed, will push 
appropriations for the war in Iraq over $600 billion. $600 billion. 
When the 08 supplemental is added to the 08 base budget, these two will 
push appropriations for fiscal year 2008 alone to $643 billion. In 
constant dollars, that is more than we spent at the peak of Korea or 
Vietnam.
  In a few weeks we will enter the fifth year of our engagement in 
Iraq. You would think after 5 years spending would come down. But 
spending over this time has not come down, it has gone up. Three years 
ago, 2004, the Pentagon was obligating money for Iraq at the rate of 
$4.8 billion a month. Today the Pentagon is obligating money for Iraq 
at the rate of $8.6 billion a month, and considering the supplemental 
for 07, with $170 billion, and the surge in Baghdad, the obligation 
rate will probably rise to $10 billion a month by the end of this year.
  To support this surge, the President has called for five brigades, 
21,500 additional troops. He sends a supplemental of $3.2 billion to 
pay for these troops. The CBO says, how about the support troops? How 
about the staff? This will cost billions more.
  CBO has also looked out 10 years and tried to figure what future 
costs might be. By its estimation, future operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan together could come to $824 billion between 2008 and 2017. 
Mind you, this assumes that the troops deployed in these theaters will 
be declining from a little over 200,000 today to a steady state of 
75,000 in 2013.
  If future costs are split 75-25, then over the next 10 years that is 
another $600 billion in store for us. Surely, surely at this juncture, 
as spending surges head upwards to more than $10 billion a month, 
surely we should ask whether we want to raise our commitment of troops 
and thrust them into a civil war with no clear exit, no timetable for 
completion, and, worse still, an urban war.
  The Pentagon will say they can't see past 2008 and they don't know 
what the budget is for the outyears, and they will probably dispute 
this end state of 75,000 troops in the two theaters 10 years from now. 
And I hope they are right.
  But there are other costs, the cost of ``reset,'' of refurbishing or 
repairing

[[Page 4463]]

our equipment, which our commanders have told us could easily be $60 
billion to $70 billion. And I haven't talked about the toll on our 
troops and their families, where some will soon be going for their 
third tour. The dwell time between tours is now 1 year instead of 2 
years.
  Whenever you go into the field to visit these troops, you have to be 
impressed with their attitude, with their readiness to serve and their 
willingness to sacrifice. I have always come away from these 
experiences saying thank God there are such Americans. They deserve our 
admiration and support, but they also deserve something else. They 
deserve not to be asked to do what Iraqi troops and Iraqi police should 
do themselves.
  For the past 2 years, the Bush administration has said to us just 
forebear, just wait, because we are training Iraqi forces, and as soon 
as these forces are stood up, ours can be stood down. Well, 118 Iraqi 
battalions have been stood up, and none of ours have been stood down.
  In the Defense Authorization Act for 2006, Congress enacted this 
policy into law. We called for 2006 to be a year of transition. The 
resolution before us embodies that notion. The resolution heeds that 
advice. It does not call for pulling out our troops. It does not call 
for cutting off our funds. It says simply but solemnly that we disagree 
with the surge of our troops, thrust into what the Intelligence 
Estimate has called ``self-sustaining sectarian violence,'' especially 
when there are more than 118 Iraqi battalions trained to take on that 
task.
  It is time for them to stand up and us to stand down, and Baghdad is 
a good place to start.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63 and in 
support of a just cause that is facing a critical turning point. The 
outcome hangs in the balance, and, Mr. Speaker, we should not kid 
ourselves into believing that victory is foreordained.
  Churchill once said that there would not be war if both sides did not 
believe that they could win it. The enemy we face in Iraq and in the 
broader war against the radical Islamists is driven by an apocalyptic 
vision of God, and because such apocalyptic visions are rooted in faith 
and not facts, they are very hard to dispel. We, therefore, face an 
opponent who is neither open to reason nor to compromise, nor will he 
necessarily be defeated by calculations of military strategy and 
prudence.
  We face the paradox of a perilous time. At the opening of the 21st 
century, we are opposed by an adversary who preaches the savagery and 
barbarism of the 12th century. We face in Iraq an enemy that will allow 
us absolutely no quarter, and, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that I 
think we in this chamber, and, indeed, even in the country at large, 
have been slow to grasp that fact.
  However, the difficulty of the fight should not dissuade us from 
waging it if the cause is just, and the cause is just.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the sad duty to attend the funerals of 
several of the servicemen killed in Iraq who come from my district. 
There are those who say that we should not withdraw from Iraq because 
to do so would mean that they died in vain. That is not correct. 
Nothing that we have done or will do will ever subtract one ounce from 
the valor and nobility of those who have died in the service of their 
country.
  As Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, ``We cannot dedicate, we 
cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living 
and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor 
power to add or detract.''
  However, we should pause to note that our service men and women are 
fighting and sometimes dying because they know the terrible price that 
will be paid if our adversaries prevail. They have seen, as I have seen 
when I traveled to Iraq, what a world our enemies would have us live 
in. It is a world filled by a grotesque and distorted vision of God. It 
is a world of slavery and submission, where the Almighty is not a 
benevolent and loving creator of his children, but rather is a pagan 
idol that demands blood sacrifice and glories in the murder of the 
innocent.
  You need look no further than the carnage in Baghdad, or Kabul, or 
Mogadishu, or never let us forget the Twin Towers, to see the truth in 
that axiom. That is what our enemy, for all his talk of God, seeks to 
do, and we are all that stands between our adversary and the 
realization of this nihilistic vision.
  Mr. Speaker, there are those in this House who are far better versed 
than I in the strategy and military calculations that are the essence 
of this conflict. There are those who say that we mistakenly entered 
the war in Iraq on the basis of flawed intelligence. This, I think, 
underestimates the nature of our adversary.
  Given the expansiveness of our enemy's nightmare vision, I think it 
is safe to say there would have been a war in Iraq no matter what we 
did. That, of course, will be for historians to decide. But this much I 
do know: We stand for hope. We fight for peace in a world that is free. 
We sacrifice now so that the little children that I met when I was in 
Iraq might live in a better world tomorrow, and because they will have 
a better world, we Americans will live in a safer one. To quote 
DeGaulle, ``Behind this terrible cloud of our blood and tears here is 
the sun of our grandeur shining out once again.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do have one concern. I think that we in this Congress 
have allowed too wide a gap to develop between the society we help to 
govern and the war we have been compelled to wage. We have to correct 
this, because we will not win this war in Iraq or beyond unless we as a 
Nation come to grips with what we face and begin to act accordingly.
  We must never forget, to quote Lincoln again, ``Public sentiment is 
everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, 
nothing can succeed.'' Right now I look around me and I see a Congress 
and a country distracted, and nothing could be deadlier to our security 
and our hopes for a better future.
  To some extent, this is understandable. America is and has every 
right to be tired of conflict. In 1917, for the first time we went 
``over there'' to make the world safe for democracy. In 1941, in 
Churchill's evocative phrase, the new world stepped forth, yet again, 
to the rescue and liberation of the old.

                              {time}  0915

  Then after 1945, we stayed on to wage the long twilight struggle that 
came to be called the Cold War.
  Then, in 1989, a miracle. We stopped holding our breaths. The Berlin 
Wall came down and the Soviet Union disappeared. The hair trigger 
nightmare of the nuclear world seemed to recede. We came off of the 
figurative tip-toes on which we had been standing for nearly 50 years. 
We had grown so accustomed to it that when the Cold War ended, we 
scarcely realized just how nerve wracking, and what a strain, it had 
all been.
  Now here we are again. More war, more sacrifice, more death. It is 
not a pleasant picture but it offers this. It offers hope. It offers an 
alternative to yet another in a long line of obscene and perverted 
visions that seem to be forever conjured in the minds of men.
  Mr. Speaker, I have dared to say today something that very few of us 
seem to be willing to say. We could lose this war.
  There is nothing in the stars that says we must prevail. In history, 
freedom is the exception, not the rule. So I say to my colleagues, we 
must press on in Iraq. We must fight wisely, but we must not falter.
  Churchill once said in the midst of another terrible war, ``Give us 
the tools and we will finish the job.'' Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of 
this House and of this Congress and of this Nation to give our men and 
women the tools they need to see this conflict through to the end. We 
must send them the reinforcements they need to win this war--and that 
is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided 
resolution.
  Most of all we must stand together. That way, when our children and 
grandchildren look

[[Page 4464]]

back at this moment in history, they will say that at the threatened 
nightfall the blood of their fathers ran strong.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. The gentleman my friend, Mr. McKeon, raised a very 
interesting issue about who is really involved in this war in this 
country. My opinion is those in uniform and their families.
  All one has to do is to go to Walter Reed and the Bethesda hospitals, 
go to visitation or a funeral, and those are the ones, and the saying 
good-bye to the National Guard and Reserve units, the active duty 
units, the farewells and the welcome homes, those and their families 
are those that are involved.
  And I am afraid the gentleman is correct, that they are the only ones 
that are actually involved with this war.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I have 
great respect for him, and I know of his strong dedication to the 
troops and to the people serving.
  I had in my office yesterday a constituent, a young man that played 
football for my brother at home. I introduced him to the chairman. He 
has spent the last 3 years at Walter Reed. He says he is like one of 
those dinosaurs that has a big mouth and two hands that he can't use, 
and he does struggle, and he has a bad leg. He was a master sergeant 
and he protected his troops but he took rounds from mortar. In talking 
to him he said, this debate is very distracting and hard for the morale 
of the troops.
  I pray that they will understand that all of us have different 
feelings, but we do understand their devotion and their commitment to 
duty, and they understand our commitment. We just see things 
differently, and at the end of the day, I hope what we end up doing is 
what will be best for our troops and for our country and for the world.
  Mr. SKELTON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. He reiterates 
what I have been saying, that it seems like the members in uniform and 
their families are the ones truly involved in this war.
  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157, and as 
the designee of the majority leader, I request that the time for debate 
be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the leaders or 
their designees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, that will be the order.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
  I fundamentally disagree with the President's plan to add thousands 
of troops to the Iraqi conflict. It is time for a new course in Iraq, a 
rational course, a more humane course of action. It is long past time 
to start a phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is about policy and direction. Surely, the 
facts on the ground cannot be used to support continued or increased 
combat involvement in Iraq. Iraq is in a civil war. That is the truth, 
and it is time we accept the implications of that fact. Our soldiers 
have no business acting as unwanted umpires or surrogate police 
officers.
  The latest National Intelligence Estimate concludes the term ``civil 
war'' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict. If this 
is the state of the current conflict, what do we expect the U.S. 
military to do about it? Settle centuries of theological or religious 
disagreement? Become diplomats? Whose side do they choose and what 
would their mission be?
  I do not believe combat forces permanently stop such conflicts. The 
troops themselves tell us they are untrained for this role, a role that 
puts them at extreme risk.
  Yet, the President mistakenly continues to believe we are fighting 
illusionary battalions on phantom battlefields. So, in his mind, we 
need more troops for victory, a surge that will overwhelm and destroy.
  Well, that is how he sees it, but he ignores the evidence and reports 
of our generals, our troops, our Iraq Study Group, our diplomats, most 
of our allies, the views of the Iraqi people and anyone else who 
actually tries to find out the nature and state of the conflict.
  He rapidly and recklessly proceeds ahead with one policy shift after 
another.
  He searches for a light at the end of the tunnel, but there is no 
light. It was extinguished long ago. There is only darkness and 
despair. The chaos deepens daily, and the President sits in the Oval 
Office hoping that somehow, somehow it will turn out all right in the 
end.
  This is neither policy nor leadership. The administration's policies 
are the stuff of dreams and fantasies, not hard core determinations of 
our Nation's interests or the best course for addressing strategic 
threats.
  Mr. Speaker, hope is not a strategy. The escalation of troop levels 
makes no strategic sense. We must not hesitate to describe the 
President's policy in words that are honest and clear. We confront a 
policy that is wishful thinking, not realistic assessment. The 
administration's policy is like a conjuring trick of denial, delusion 
and determined folly, which will only deepen the disaster. We are given 
the vision of a make-believe story instead of a responsible and 
realistic policy.
  Civil wars are solved through diplomacy, negotiation and political 
compromise. These are the types of developments identified by the NIE 
that will make a difference in Iraq. While the NIE warns against the 
rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, American forces can come home in 
a careful, safe and deliberate manner.
  As the Nation's Representatives, it is our constitutional duty to 
stop this madness. It is our constitutional mandate to conduct 
oversight, and it is our constitutional imperative to act. That is what 
the Founding Fathers wanted. They constructed the Constitution to 
provide checks and balances. They did not give the President a blank 
check.
  The Constitution is a sacred document to this body. We swear to 
uphold it and to defend it. We do just that when we demand 
accountability from the President. We honor our constitutional 
requirement when we scrutinize policy. We defend our constitutional 
process when we demand that the President listen to the American people 
and end unilateral actions that undermine our Nation's strength and 
place our troops in an untenable, lethal and unwinnable situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to ignore my oath to the American 
people. I did not come here to watch our Constitution be rewritten by 
presidential arrogance and disregard. And I did not come here to 
relinquish my sworn duty to protect and defend this sacred document. I 
did not come here to ignore the American people who want this war 
stopped now.
  Mr. Speaker, support this resolution and begin a phased withdrawal.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), a member of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, when the original resolution 
that brought our military to intervention in Iraq came to the Congress, 
I interpreted it as asking the Congress to turn over to the President 
our military to use anytime he wished, anywhere he wished, against any 
country he wished, now and forever more.
  Feeling that this was patently unconstitutional, I was very pleased 
when the International Relations Committee, chaired at that time by 
Henry Hyde, revised the resolution and narrowly focused it on Iraq. 
That resolution had strong encouragement for the President to obtain a 
U.N. resolution so that when we went into Iraq it would be a part of a 
U.N. coalition. The U.N. would own that war; we wouldn't own it.
  When the President did not get the U.N. resolution so strongly 
encouraged by that original resolution that we voted on, I then voted 
for the Spratt

[[Page 4465]]

substitute because I felt that if we were going to send our young men 
and women into war, that it needed to be with the full support of the 
American people through their elected officials, and we needed to have 
that additional debate. That didn't happen. I felt that we went in with 
unrealistic expectations.
  There is no country around Iraq that has anything like the government 
that we would like for them to have. Several of the countries have 
dictatorships. We call them royal families. Saudi Arabia, the Arab 
Emirates, Kuwait, but they are dictatorships. Several countries, Jordan 
and Syria, have kings. Iran is essentially a theocracy ruled by the 
mullahs. The only country that comes even close is the vestiges of the 
Ottoman Empire, Turkey, where they have a sort of democracy, but 
several times in the last few years the military has thrown out the 
civilian government, telling them they need to start over, hardly the 
kind of government that we have in this country and that we envision 
for Iraq.
  So I thought that there were very unrealistic expectations. That was 
a very steep hill to climb; that success was unlikely, and therefore, I 
wanted to go in under a U.N. resolution.
  What now? I hope I am wrong, but I believe that there will be one of 
two likely outcomes, either another strong man, hopefully more 
benevolent, than Saddam Hussein, or three loosely federated states with 
an overarching entity that pumps the oil and distributes the revenues 
on a per capita basis.
  Now, we have a resolution before us and how should one vote? If you 
believe that the President is the Commander in Chief and has a right to 
pursue the war in the way he chooses, then you would vote ``no'' on 
this resolution.
  If you believe that this resolution sends the wrong message to the 
enemy that we are losing our resolution, our resolve, then you would 
vote ``no.''
  If you believe this sends the wrong message to the troops, I know the 
first clause says we support our troops, but then one might argue that 
the right hand is taking away what the left hand gave because in the 
second clause we say that we do not support the surge, which some may 
interpret as not supporting our troops; then you would vote ``no.''
  But if you believe that the Iraqis need to stand up so that we can 
stand down, then you would vote ``yes.''
  If you believe that the surge will not help, which is very likely, 
then I think you need to vote ``yes.''
  If you believe the surge might actually hurt by placing more of our 
brave young men and women in harm's way, I understand that a fair 
percentage of the violence over there is directed against us, if that 
is true, then how do we reduce the violence by putting more of us 
there, then you would vote ``yes.''
  If you want to send a message to the President, the Congress and the 
American people, that this war can't go on forever, then you would vote 
``yes.''
  If you want to send a message to the troops that we are watching, 
that you won't be there forever, that you have the support of your 
citizens and your Congress, then you would vote ``yes.''
  This is obviously a very complex vote. Whether you vote ``yes'' or 
whether you vote ``no,'' there will be unintended, unwanted messages 
that will be sent. Being required to vote either ``yes'' or ``no'' on a 
resolution like this is a little bit like requiring the husband to 
answer the question, ``yes'' or ``no,'' ``Have you stopped beating your 
wife?''
  If that is true, then perhaps the best vote on this is a ``present'' 
vote.
  It is so true here that what you see depends on where you stand. 
There has been a lot of quite intemperate rhetoric on both sides. It is 
hard sometimes to imagine that we are debating the same resolution.
  It is so true here that he who frames the question determines the 
answer.
  Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be here. After the debate, this vote is 
somewhat irrelevant. Indeed, the listening Americans have each cast 
their own vote. In spite of all the divisive rhetoric, I want one thing 
to be certain, that all 435 of us want only what is best for America, 
what is best for our troops, a good and bright future for the Iraqis 
and especially want to assure our brave young men and women there that 
they have the total thanks of a grateful Nation.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I wish this resolution of 
disapproval articulated our disapproval of the administration's failure 
to accomplish certain chores in preparation for our fine troops 
undertaking this new mission under General Petraeus.
  Everyone, including the President, now acknowledges mistakes over the 
past 4 years, but those well-documented errors are not the mistakes I 
am talking about. Now, today, mistakes are being made. Now, today, 
high-ranking officials in the administration fall short in their 
performance.
  Why, after 4 years of the Iraq war, is the Secretary of State unable 
to get the appropriate reconstruction, economic development, and other 
necessary personnel to Iraq? Why did the State Department recently have 
to request the Defense Department to help fill in these necessary 
positions? Why have the efforts of political reconciliation been so 
ineffective? Why has the American diplomatic effort in the region been 
so ineffective? Where are the trained police and judges who will need 
to deal with all the detainees to be arrested in Baghdad? Why aren't an 
adequate number of property detention facilities not available for 
these future detainees that are sure to come from an aggressive effort 
to decrease the violence in Baghdad?
  General Petraeus, clearly one of America's finest military leaders, 
during his recent opening statement before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, felt an obligation to plead for the help and commitment from 
other U.S. government agencies commensurate with what our troops give 
24 hours a day, day after day, week after week, month after month.
  I have had references being made to Winston Churchill, but I remind 
those speakers who make such comparisons that we are not a 
parliamentary system. If we were, the Secretary of State and other 
high-ranking officials would be gone because of their failures. We are, 
thankfully, the American system; and in our responsibility to support 
our troops, we know we must not just equip and train them. We know that 
all agencies of American government, the nonmilitary agencies, must 
pull their load if our fine troops are to be successful.
  So we now have a situation where our new commander on the ground, 
General Petraeus, says he needs the additional troops. On the other 
hand, he says he needs all the other agencies of government to step 
forward with, in his words, ``an enormous commitment.''
  It is clear this commitment of other agencies is not yet being made. 
Regardless of the result of this vote today, our troops will still be 
in Iraq needing the commitment of all government agencies.
  The House leadership has stated that this resolution today is the 
first step of other legislation to come. This other legislation to come 
must address the issues of the shortcomings of other agencies of U.S. 
government, the nonmilitary agencies of U.S. government. Our troops 
deserve the help.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden) 7 minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, since learning we would consider a 
resolution regarding troop levels in Iraq, I have spent considerable 
time listening to veterans of this war and other wars questioning some 
of America's top national security officials, reading every e-mail, 
literally every letter on this most serious issue of this day that has 
come into my office from my constituents. I have listened to voices of 
leaders of other nations who surround Iraq. I have read the National 
Intelligence Report. I have read the Iraq Study Committee Report. I 
have been given books such as ``Fiasco'' to digest, and I have reached 
out to the parents of brave Americans who are on their way into this 
conflict, and I have

[[Page 4466]]

heard from the parents of sons who were lost in this conflict. I have 
heard strong opinions on both sides of this issue, and I have reflected 
upon my own vote to authorize the war in the first place.
  To say the least, it has been an agonizing experience. Agonizing, 
because I want to do what is right for America with minimal sacrifice 
to the brave Americans who wear our Nation's uniform. I want to do what 
is right to protect our freedom and our security.
  I will always remember the days and nights when the smoke from the 
burning Pentagon wafted into the apartment I lived in just blocks from 
that building. I remember the images of that day when rescue personnel 
were trying to save lives, only to lose their own. I remember the 
pledge I made to myself that I would never let that happen to America 
again if I had my way.
  So I supported implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report. I 
supported efforts to improve our intelligence gathering and processing 
efforts so that America does not miss key indicators of danger or, 
worse, misinterpret the data that is gathered.
  Policymakers must be given accurate, reliable intelligence if we are 
to make responsible decisions. Had Congress been given an accurate 
intelligence assessment, I doubt the vote to invade Iraq would ever 
have come to this floor in the first place, and I certainly would not 
have cast the vote I cast because the threat was not what we were told 
it was, despite the horrific brutality of Saddam Hussein and his 
henchmen sons.
  Unfortunately, though, we cannot edit history; we cannot change the 
past. Our responsibility is to the present and even more so to the 
future, America's future.
  In some areas of the world, America has made strong diplomatic 
progress on the most difficult issues facing our planet. I speak of the 
recent agreement with North Korea coming out of the Six Party talks. I 
am reminded of the willingness of Libya to give up its weapons of mass 
destruction and come into line with the world community. And while much 
work remains regarding Iran's nuclear development, America's work with 
other countries and through the United Nations is having an effect on 
Iran.
  Meanwhile, our troops and our work internationally in Afghanistan 
continues to show progress, even in light of the recent resurgence of 
the Taliban. Consider the historic role NATO is playing to bring peace 
and stability to that far-off land.
  So if we are accomplishing good in Afghanistan and elsewhere, why is 
the situation in Iraq still such a mess? And what can or should America 
do there now that will hasten Iraq's move towards stability and hasten 
the bringing home of our troops to America?
  As my colleague from New Mexico, Heather Wilson, so eloquently and 
forcefully asked this week: What are America's strategic interests in 
Iraq, and how can we best achieve them?
  These are the serious questions of our day, and these are the issues 
tragically missing from this nonbinding resolution.
  In this new world where war is not waged by armies in uniform with 
codes of honor but by terrorists who blow up food markets and behead 
journalists, how do we respond in an effective way to prevent the 
insanity from coming again to our shores? How best do we prevent a 
whole region from ripping apart at the seams and perhaps taking much of 
the world with it?
  While Congress has a clear constitutional role and responsibility 
when the Nation is at war, where is the line that Congress should not 
cross? Are we really best equipped to decide precisely how many 
reinforcements are sent into which battle? Isn't that a decision best 
left to the commanders in the field? Can Congress really give General 
Petraeus a unanimous vote of support to lead our effort in Iraq and 
then turn around and deny him the strategy he told us he believes is 
necessary to win?
  A former colonel in the Air Force wrote to me recently on this very 
topic. She said, ``Some in Congress say they support General Petraeus 
but don't want them to undertake the mission they were confirmed to do. 
It seems right out of Alice in Wonderland.''
  And if Congress is going to make these decisions, then have we really 
carefully analyzed where the other 134,754 troops in Iraq are, what 
they are doing, and what they should do?
  Another of the e-mails I received was from a veteran of the Vietnam 
War who, like many other veterans of that conflict, urged me to vote 
against this resolution; and he wrote, ``Our troops need unqualified 
support. They don't need to be told they are participating in a lost 
cause.''
  Indeed, this two-sentence nonbinding resolution does send a very 
mixed message to our troops. Moreover, this resolution is a lost 
opportunity to address at least five major issues that a serious 
Congress needs to address.
  First, this resolution fails to even mention the Iraqi role. Where is 
the siren call for the Iraqi government to keep its word and perform as 
promised? We cannot expect for long to do for Iraq what it is unwilling 
to do for itself.
  Second, this resolution fails to even mention the need for this 
administration to embrace the Iraq Study Group Report's call for 
aggressive diplomatic initiatives with Syria, Iran, and other nations 
in Iraq's neighborhood. Where is the call for enhanced diplomacy?
  Third, this resolution fails to even mention the need to replenish 
the equipment that our National Guard units have left behind while 
serving our country overseas. My State's own National Guard's ability 
to conduct training is deeply affected by lack of equipment.
  Fourth, this resolution fails to call on Iran, Syria, and other 
nations to stop directly or indirectly supplying the weapons and 
explosives to those who detonate car bombs in Baghdad and elsewhere in 
Iraq, killing women and children as they try to buy food in local 
markets. Where is the condemnation of their actions?
  Fifth, this resolution fails to define what our strategic national 
interests are in Iraq and how we can best achieve them.
  I know that I stand alone in my State's delegation by opposing this 
resolution. I have been told by some I should just vote for it. It 
would be easier politically for me because then the problem is off my 
back. It is someone else's. They will own it. I cannot do that and look 
at myself in the mirror.
  I cannot ignore the counsel recently given to us by diplomats in the 
region whose advice we ignored when America took on this challenge in 
Iraq and who now counsel us with most seriousness in the strongest of 
terms against leaving Iraq before the country is stabilized. They have 
made it clear to this Member of Congress that failure in Iraq will have 
grave and dangerous consequences to the entire region. In short, we 
broke it, we need to fix it before we leave it.
  But fixing Iraq does not mean ending religious differences, 
differences that have ripped apart that region for 1,300 years or more. 
Fixing Iraq does not mean installing our form of democracy. Fixing Iraq 
means ensuring a new terrorist haven is not created or allowed to be 
created from which they can train and plan safely to carry out attacks 
against the West. Fixing Iraq means ensuring their government can stand 
on its own and not collapse into a sinkhole that drags other nations in 
the region into an abyss.
  Given the glaring shortcomings of the non-binding resolution we have 
before us today, I will vote ``no'' for as many of those who served in 
Vietnam have told me its message does undercut our troops. Moreover, it 
fails to call for the increased diplomatic initiatives in the region, 
it fails to call for Iraq to do its part, it fails to define our 
strategic national interests of stabilizing Iraq so as to prevent the 
creation of another terrorist training haven, and it fails to address 
the very real needs of our National Guard.
  It is unfortunate that the opportunity to actually affect these very 
serious policy choices was not allowed on the Floor of the House today. 
It is, indeed, a missed opportunity for America.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members not to 
traffic the well while another Member is under recognition.

[[Page 4467]]


  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on January 23 of this year, the President 
in his State of the Union address said, ``This is not the fight we 
entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in.''
  Nearly 4 years after President Bush took us to war, 4 years, that is 
longer than our involvement in World War II, it is fair to say that 
this is not the debate we expected to have, but it is the debate we 
must have. We owe it to our troops who have fought honorably and 
valiantly, and we owe it to the American people.
  More than 3,100 American soldiers dead, more than 23,000 American 
soldiers injured, $500 billion in costs, 14,000 weapons that our Nation 
bought for the Iraqi Army missing, $9 billion in reconstruction funds 
missing. Mr. Speaker, stay-the-course has failed, and sending 20,000 
more troops is no more than stay-the-course on steroids.
  The American people would know this had the previous Republican 
Congresses exercised their oversight responsibilities to tell the 
American people what was going on. They would have known, for example, 
that we have already tried three previous troop surges. In each case, 
between 17,000 to 21,000 troops. Have we seen the improvement? What are 
things like today? Where were the hearings to find out how those troop 
surges went? Where are the reports? Mr. Speaker, this is a debate long 
overdue.
  The truth is, Iraqis must take responsibility for their own future. 
When General John Abizaid met with commanders on the ground in Iraq, he 
was asked, ``If we get more troops, will we succeed?'' And here is what 
he told them: ``They all said no. And the reason is because we want the 
Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this 
work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing 
more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.'' That, 
General Abizaid said on November 15, 2006.
  U.S. troops are sitting today in the crossfire of a civil war. We 
have no guarantee that an Iraqi Shi'a soldier will defend an Iraqi 
Sunni civilian and that an Iraqi Sunni soldier will defend an Iraqi 
Shi'a civilian. Iraqis must decide what future they want. Only Iraqis 
can save Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to redeploy our troops responsibly, to continue 
training Iraqi soldiers, and to refocus our efforts on 
counterterrorism. And we need a surge in diplomacy, not troops.
  The consequences of stay-the-course are real. Just yesterday, 
President Bush exhorted our allies to help us, not in Iraq, in 
Afghanistan. The U.S. is sending more troops and billions of dollars 
more. His words were telling yesterday. Quote, ``The Taliban and al 
Qaeda are preparing to launch new attacks.'' New attacks. ``Our 
strategy is not to be on the defensive but to go on the offensive.'' 
1,985 days since the 9/11 attacks, and Usama bin Laden remains free, 
and we hope to go on the offensive in Afghanistan.
  Americans deserve to hear the truth and the consequences, not 
slogans. ``Mission accomplished'' wasn't true. ``Stay the course'' 
didn't work. And this new Congress will not be paralyzed by those who 
argue that we must stay the course in Iraq to support the troops. The 
troops didn't chart this course, the troops didn't ask to be plunged 
into the middle of a civil war, and the troops didn't under-man and 
under-equip.
  It is time that the buck for the debacle in Iraq stops where it 
belongs: Here in Washington, D.C. And if the President won't accept 
that reality, then guess what? This new Congress, this new Democratic 
leadership is prepared to stop the buck here.
  This is a debate we must have. This is a debate about us. Us, those 
of us here in this Chamber. Will we lead? Will we be responsible 
overseers of this war? Will we heed the call of the American people?
  Today, with this vote, Mr. Speaker, we will tell our troops, our 
generals, our beloved people: We hear you loud and clear. It is time 
for a new direction in Iraq.

                              {time}  0945

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with mixed emotions. I am 
proud of our troops and the sacrifices they have made in Iraq, their 
dedication, their perseverance and the love and support of their 
families here at home. I am disappointed that the strategies employed 
thus far have not been more successful and that our progress in Iraq 
has been too slow, and I am saddened that those who have drafted this 
resolution are offering no alternatives of their own for our mission in 
Iraq. Indeed, they are prohibiting consideration in this Chamber of any 
alternative.
  Therefore, I will vote against this resolution.
  I believe most Americans share the same goal for Iraq, a stable 
government that can serve its people, a strong security force that can 
protect its people, and a growing economy that can encourage prosperity 
for its people.
  We want the Iraqis to succeed, and we want our troops to come home. 
There is no question and no denying that mistakes in the planning and 
execution of the war have led us to where we are today. Hindsight is 
20/20, and we can all offer suggestions for how things should have been 
done differently, done better, done more effectively during the past 4 
years.
  But that is not what is going on in this Chamber here today. Members 
are being cynically asked to vote on a resolution that does not address 
victory or success. It does not offer a pathway toward the peace and 
the prosperity that are vital to the region. It simply plays politics 
with the war and, in so doing, does our troops and their families here 
at home a terrible disservice.
  While no one in this Chamber or any general in uniform can guarantee 
the success of this new initiative in Iraq, we can safely say that not 
pursuing it and continuing the status quo will lead to failure. Iraq 
then likely would fall into further chaos and transform itself, much as 
Afghanistan did a decade ago, into a breeding ground for terrorists, 
who plot attacks not on our troops in Iraq but upon our civilians here 
at home.
  Make no mistake, failure of the U.S. mission in Iraq will not end the 
war. It will only shift the battlefield. The terrorists are at war with 
us, whether we fight back or not.
  The consequences of failure in Iraq would be as dramatic as the 
fruits of victory. An Iraqi government stable enough to take the lead 
role in providing for its own internal security will allow us to 
achieve our collective goal, the return of U.S. troops. Rather than 
being allied with terrorists, Iraq would be an ally with America and 
the war on terror. In so doing, it would honor the more than 3,000 
American men and women who have died fighting for its freedom and 
countless more who have been wounded and will bear for their lifetimes 
the scars of battle.
  The status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. We need a new strategy, new 
tactics, new commanders on the ground, and a new and sustained 
commitment from the Iraqi government that they will do more of their 
share.
  We know that the road ahead will be difficult and that the prospects 
for success are dwindling. But I believe a renewed and amplified effort 
by U.S. forces and Iraqi troops to retain security in Baghdad may offer 
the best hope we have for the lasting success of the U.S. mission and 
for the future stability of Iraq's government. It may also be, I 
believe, our last chance for victory. The President knows this, and I 
believe the Iraqi government and its people know this, too.
  It is in that spirit and with that understanding that I will vote 
against this resolution. Our collective prayer is for the safety of our 
troops, for their success, and that they will be reunited with their 
families here at home as soon as possible.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend 
and colleague from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I love America. America means

[[Page 4468]]

something to me. No one loves the Constitution more than I. No one 
believes in the Declaration of Independence more than I. No one 
respects the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance more than I. No one 
appreciates the American soldier more than I.
  So I stand here today in the well of the United States House of 
Representatives as a proud American who understands that it is not the 
Constitution that gives us or protects government of the people, by the 
people, for the people. It is not the Declaration of Independence that 
preserves the concept of all persons being created equal. It is the 
soldier.
  It is not the Pledge of Allegiance that preserves liberty and justice 
for all. It is the soldier. It is the soldier who shields those who 
would make real the great American ideals. Regardless as to how we feel 
about the war, we should all thank God for the American soldier.
  Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have done their job. More than 84,000 
National Guard and Reservists have been deployed more than once since 
2001. More than 170,000 soldiers in the Army have served more than one 
tour of duty. More than 23,000 soldiers have been wounded, and more 
than 2,200 of these from Texas were from Texas alone. More than 3,100 
soldiers have died, including more than 200 from Texas.
  Our soldiers have liberated Iraq from a ruthless, brutal dictator. 
Our soldiers have answered the clarion call for help for which too many 
will never come home for the holidays and far too many will never see 
home again.
  So for this I say, God bless the American soldiers, their friends, 
their families, and their loved ones.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have been that friend, indeed, in 
Iraq's time of need. In addition to blood, sweat and tears, the 
American people have spent more than $267 million, not per year, not 
per month not per week, but more than $267 million per day on this war.
  Mr. Speaker, with this money, according to CNN and the National 
Priorities Project, we could have hired 6.4 million public school 
teachers. We could have built 3.3 million public housing units. We 
could have insured 220 million children for 1 year.
  On a more lofty level, America has helped the Iraqi people develop a 
constitution. We have helped the Iraqi people establish democratic 
elections. We have helped the Iraqis reconstitute their military and 
overhaul their constabulary.
  Mr. Speaker, after all that we have done, more than 23,000 wounded. 
After all that we have done, 3,100 are dead. After all that we have 
done, more than $267 million per day. After all that we have done, 
whenever we leave, it will not be cut and run. We have helped the Iraqi 
people to have the opportunity to embrace freedom and democracy.
  It is now time for the Iraqi people to seize upon this precious, 
priceless opportunity and have a free and independent Iraq, something 
that all the money in the world cannot buy and not even the most 
powerful military in the universe can impose.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot want liberty and justice for all Iraqis more 
than all Iraqis want liberty and justice for themselves.
  If the Iraqis want government of the people, by the people, for the 
people, then their soldiers, not ours, must provide it. We can stay in 
Iraq forever and never have a free and independent Iraq, not as long as 
the Iraqi people engage in an uncivil war with each other. You can 
debate whether it is a civil war or not, but there is no debating that 
it is an uncivil war that they are having with each other.
  Mr. Speaker, because I support our soldiers and oppose the 
President's policies, I will vote for the resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to this resolution condemning the President's proposal for 
achieving success in Iraq and overall victory in the global war on 
terror. We are not formulating policy today. We are not offering the 
President an alternative. All this resolution is saying is that we do 
not support our Commander in Chief, and all it is doing is emboldening 
the terrorist enemies we are facing today.
  I am the first to welcome an open discussion about our involvement in 
Iraq. But, without the opportunity to consider an alternative, this is 
not open discussion. Why isn't this an open discussion? Because 
although the majority party has the authority to govern, they have no 
plan to lead.
  For over a year, the majority party criticized the President for not 
making changes in his strategy in Iraq. Well, the President has made 
changes, and the majority party still is not satisfied.
  We can all agree that our progress has not been as swift and decisive 
as we once hoped. We all recognize that the war in Iraq has carried on 
longer than we wanted and consumed more resources than we expected. 
However, we all knew from the beginning that it would not be easy, that 
the war against terror would not be a quick fight.
  But when the going gets tough, it does not mean that we should give 
in and come home. As we cannot and must not turn back, we need a fresh 
approach to move forward. The President, along with his generals on the 
ground, have proposed a way forward. He has put forth a strategy to 
suppress the sectarian violence in Iraq and allow democratic reforms to 
take hold and economic institutions to flourish.
  His plan is the only plan that provides for a way forward in Iraq. 
For us in Congress, it is not our job to become involved in tactical 
decisions that will lead to success in our mission. It is our 
responsibility to help shape the parameters of the mission and to 
conduct oversight on our progress in achieving the mission.
  Republicans in Congress have proposed setting verifiable benchmarks 
with which we may measure our progress in Iraq. Such benchmarks will 
help us hold the Iraqi regime responsible for the progress made towards 
democracy, stability and peace in the country. We should be discussing 
our responsibility as oversight today, but we are not. We are left with 
debate on an empty and nonbinding resolution.
  I am a proud cosponsor of Congressman Sam Johnson's bill to ensure 
that funding is not cut off or restricted for members of the Armed 
Forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must support every effort 
in our fight against terrorists. If the majority allowed us an 
opportunity, I would have gladly supported a vote on that bill to 
reaffirm that the House will not abandon our Armed Forces under any 
circumstance.
  Whether the majority would like to acknowledge it or not, the fight 
we are engaged in against terrorists in Iraq is not a new fight. It has 
been waged for a decade. We have faced terrorists in Beirut, we have 
faced terrorists in Saudi Arabia, and we have faced terrorists here on 
our own soil on September 11, 2001.
  We have learned it is absolutely essential to confront terrorists 
abroad before they attack us at home. Despite what some of you may say, 
our withdrawal will not end the terrorist threat. After all, it is they 
who have declared Iraq to be the central front in the struggle.
  We cannot withdraw. We cannot send our troops and other allies the 
message that we will quit when the going gets tough. Instead, we must 
move forward with the operations in Iraq, with the Iraqi people, to 
ensure that peace and stability take hold. We must change our strategy 
as the situation in the field dictates. To do otherwise would be 
foolish.
  But by maintaining our commitment in Iraq, we preserve the prospects 
of peace. By withdrawing, we surrender our chances of permanent 
stability in the Middle East.
  This resolution in so many words says that we cannot be successful, 
and we are bound to fail. I refuse to agree. I refuse to undercut the 
brave work of our troops by questioning their abilities and refuse to 
allow terrorists to flourish and our enemies be emboldened and thereby 
let you, the American people, down.
  Our brave men and women risk their lives to provide peace and 
security here at home, and we are all proud to know such patriots. 
These young men and

[[Page 4469]]

women, full of promise, voluntarily defend our Nation wherever they are 
called.
  It reminds me of a young man in my district, and I presented him with 
his Eagle Scout awards when he was 17 years old. It was in 2003. A 
little less than 2 years later than that, in 2004, I attended the 
funeral for Lance Corporal Abraham Simpson, who made the ultimate 
sacrifice in Fallujah. He was just 19 years old.
  When I went to the parents of Abraham and presented a flag that was 
flown over our great Nation after the funeral, it was honestly one of 
the most moving experiences I have had, not only in my congressional 
career but of my life. When I looked at Abraham's father in his car, I 
couldn't talk. All I could say to him was, ``I voted to send him 
there.'' Abraham's dad looked me square in the eye, with as serious a 
look as he could get, and he said, ``Congressman, it was the right 
vote.''
  Like so many families across our country, the Simpson family has made 
a great sacrifice for our Nation. This resolution, however, says that 
the world, that the men and women like Lance Corporal Simpson, gave 
their lives for, was worthless, that America cannot be successful in 
the pursuit of which they nobly sacrificed themselves. I believe that 
we can. I know that if we stand firm in our principles and remain true 
to our convictions, we can succeed.
  For that reason, I am going to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  I rise today in opposition to this resolution condemning the 
President's proposal for achieving success in Iraq and overall victory 
in the Global War on Terror.


                             Flawed Process

  I know I join many of my colleagues in lamenting the process by which 
we are considering this resolution. We are not formulating policy; we 
are not offering the President an alternative. All this resolution is 
saying is that we do not support our Commander in Chief and all it is 
doing is emboldening our terrorist enemies.
  While the valiant men and women of our Armed Forces are fighting for 
freedom abroad, the majority party has cut off democracy here in the 
House of Representatives so that we may consider a partisan resolution.
  I am the first to welcome an open discussion about our involvement in 
Iraq, but without the opportunity to consider alternatives, this is not 
an open discussion. And why is there no open discussion? Because 
although the majority party has the authority to govern, they have no 
plan to lead.
  For over a year, the majority party criticized the President for not 
making changes to his strategy in Iraq. Well, the President has made 
changes, and the majority party is still not satisfied. Today, the 
majority party still opposes the President's strategy, but they have 
not offered any alternatives. They continue to criticize--destructively 
and not constructively.


                        Winning the War in Iraq

  We can all agree that our progress has not been as swift or as 
decisive as we once hoped. We all recognize that the war in Iraq has 
carried on longer than we wanted and consumed more resources than we 
first thought.
  However, we all knew from the beginning that it would not be easy--
that the war against terror is not something that would be a quick 
fight, but that it would take years. As history has taught us, war is 
not an easy prospect and sometimes does not go according to plan.
  But when the going gets tough, this does not mean that we should give 
in and come home. That is not the American way--that is not how America 
honors its commitments and carries out its obligations. And it is not 
how America pays respect to those who have fallen in its service.
  As we cannot--and must not--turn back, we need a fresh approach to 
move forward. The President, along with his generals on the ground, has 
proposed a way forward. He has put forth a strategy to suppress the 
sectarian violence in Iraq to allow democratic reforms to take hold and 
economic institutions to flourish.
  His plan is the only plan that provides for a way forward in Iraq. 
While the majority party proposes to stand still and do nothing, the 
President's plan aims to allow American forces to stand down as the 
Iraqi people stand up.
  For us in Congress, it is not our job to become involved in the 
tactical decisions that will lead to success in our mission. It is our 
responsibility to help shape the parameters of our mission and to 
conduct oversight on our progress in achieving the mission.
  Republicans in Congress have proposed setting verifiable benchmarks 
with which we may measure our progress in Iraq. These strategic 
benchmarks, concerning the transfer of military operations to Iraqi-led 
units, the development of democratic institutions and the rule of law 
in Iraq, and increased regional cooperation and stabilization, are 
important in moving forward in Iraq. Such benchmarks will help us hold 
the Iraqi regime responsible for the progress made toward democracy, 
stability, and peace in their country.
  There is, however, no attempt at oversight in this resolution. Once 
again, all the majority party is doing is complaining without providing 
an alternative. We should be discussing our responsibility at oversight 
today. But we are not. We are left with debate on this empty and 
nonbinding resolution.


                       Troop Support and Funding

  No matter what, we must support funding for our troops that are 
serving in harm's way--with no ifs, ands, or buts. I am a proud 
cosponsor of Congressman Sam Johnson's bill to ensure funding is not 
cut off or restricted for members of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq 
or Afghanistan. We must support every effort in our fight against 
terrorists.
  If the majority allowed us the opportunity, I would have gladly 
supported a vote on this bill to reaffirm to our troops, our 
constituents, and our enemies that the House will not abandon our Armed 
Forces--under any circumstances. Unfortunately, Republican voices were 
shut out of this process and we are left to consider this empty and 
non-binding resolution.


                       Consequences of Withdrawal

  All we heard on this floor for the last year was talk about 
bipartisanship and cooperation. The talk was about the need to be more 
bipartisan. Boy, we sure do have short memories. Despite the partisan 
atmosphere here in the House, the fact is that we have to be successful 
in Iraq because the consequences of our withdrawal would be disastrous.
  Whether the majority would like to acknowledge it or not, the fight 
we are engaged in against terrorists in Iraq is not a new fight--it has 
been waged for decades. We have faced terrorists in Beirut. We have 
faced terrorists in Saudi Arabia. And we have faced terrorists on our 
own soil--on September 11, 2001. We have learned that it is absolutely 
essential to confront terrorists abroad before they may attack us at 
home.
  If we withdraw from Iraq, we give our terrorist enemies--and they are 
our enemies--a safe haven from which to plan their attacks against us 
and our allies. Despite what some of you may say, our withdrawal will 
not end the terrorist threat. After all, it is they who have declared 
Iraq to be the central front in this struggle. If we withdraw, it will 
only encourage the terrorists. They will not rest until their agenda of 
violence and hatred is advanced worldwide. We cannot withdraw. We 
cannot send our troops and our allies the message that we will quit 
when the going gets tough.
  Instead, we must move forward with operations in Iraq--with the Iraqi 
people--to ensure that peace and stability take hold. We must change 
our strategy as the situation in the field dictates. To do otherwise 
would be foolish. But by maintaining our commitment to Iraq, we 
preserve the prospects of peace. By withdrawing, we surrender our 
chances for permanent stability in the Middle East.


                               Conclusion

  The United States has a long and proud history of championing 
liberty. As a Civil War history enthusiast, I am reminded of the 
parallels between this generation's fight against terrorism and the 
Civil War. Both wars brought new and grave challenges to our people and 
our way of life. Both struggles were fraught with opposition in the 
press and in Congress. But imagine what would have happened to our 
nation if President Lincoln did not continue the fight to preserve our 
union.
  Just as Lincoln fought against all odds and in the face of grave 
danger to ensure freedom for all people and to preserve democracy, our 
troops are doing the same today. Just as Lincoln was successful by 
standing firm in his commitment to liberty and democracy, I strongly 
believe that we can--and will--be successful in Iraq if we are to 
ensure our freedom for the future.
  This resolution, in so many words, says that we cannot be 
successful--that we are bound to fail. I refuse to agree. I refuse to 
undercut the bravel work of our troops by questioning their abilities. 
I refuse to abandon our Iraqi allies when they need us the most. And I 
refuse to allow terrorism to flourish and our enemies to be emboldened 
and thereby let you, the American people, down.
  Instead, we must go forward. We must continue to support our troops 
and their important work in Iraq. We must tell them loudly and clearly 
that the American people stand with them as they fight to bring liberty 
and security to Iraq.
  Most importantly, we must honor our troops and the memory of those 
who have made the

[[Page 4470]]

ultimate sacrifice for freedom by rejecting this empty resolution. 
These brave men and women risk their lives to provide peace and 
security here at home and we are all proud to know such patriots.
  As members of Congress, we all understand the responsibility we have 
when our nation calls our best and brightest to serve in harm's way. 
These young men and women, full of promise, voluntarily defend our 
nation wherever they are called.
  One such brave young man from my district was Marine Lance Corporal 
Abraham Simpson from Chino, California. In early 2003, I presented 
Abraham with his Eagle Scout award to recognize his achievement of the 
Boy Scouts' highest rank. A little less than two years later, in 
November 2004, Lance Corporal Simpson made the ultimate sacrifice 
during the Battle of Fallujah. He was just 19 years old.
  When I presented his parents with a flag flown over the Capitol of 
this great Nation, it was one of the most moving moments not only of my 
congressional career, but of my life. All I could say to Abraham's 
father was, ``I voted to send him there.'' He looked me square in the 
eyes and he said, ``Congressman, it was the right vote.''
  To honor his cousin's sacrifice, Marine Sergeant Jonathan Simpson, 
who had originally joined the Marines as a flight navigator, asked to 
be transferred so he could fight on the front lines. Jonathan Simpson 
was killed during combat operations in Iraq in October 2006.
  Abraham and Jonathan Simpson, true American heroes, gave their lives 
in service to this Nation, and for that--and for all of our fallen 
heroes--I will always be humbled and grateful. Like so many other 
families across our country, the Simpson family has made a great 
sacrifice for our Nation, our ideals, and our freedom.
  This resolution, however, says to the world that men and women like 
Lance Corporal Simpson and Sergeant Simpson gave their lives for 
naught--that America cannot be successful in the pursuit for which they 
nobly sacrificed. I believe we can. I know if we stand firm in our 
principles and remain true to our convictions we can succeed.
  For this reason, I wholeheartedly oppose this empty resolution and 
strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1000

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of debate 
time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida has 10 minutes 
remaining and the gentlewoman from California has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental questions we face 
in voting on this resolution: First, is it appropriate for Congress to 
express its views on the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq? And second, 
is the escalation the best use of military forces in our war on 
terrorism?
  First let me say that it is wrong for anyone in this debate to 
question the patriotism of someone on the other side of that issue. 
That tactic was tried by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. It was 
wrong then, it is wrong now.
  In our democracy, there is nothing patriotic about questioning the 
patriotism of someone with an opposing view. We all love our country; 
we all support our troops; and we all want to defend America from 
terrorism.
  On the appropriateness of this resolution being before the House, I 
believe this debate is consistent with our Founding Fathers' deep 
commitment to the constitutional checks and balances of government. 
They chose to make the President our Commander in Chief of the Armed 
Forces. At the same time, they chose not to give the President the 
authority to declare war or to fund a war. Those solemn 
responsibilities were given to the Congress in article I of the 
Constitution.
  It is noteworthy that on the most solemn act of government, to put 
citizens into harm's way, our Founding Fathers clearly chose to put in 
place constitutional checks and balances on the executive branch. This 
resolution is a proper exercise of that constitutional principle, 
especially given this war has now lasted longer than America's 
involvement in World War II, with no end in sight. Blind allegiance to 
the executive branch is not a constitutional principle.
  The second question before us is whether the escalation in Iraq is 
the best use of U.S. military forces in our war on terrorism.
  After nearly 4 years of combat, two facts are indisputable: First, 
our service men and women have served our Nation with courage and 
professionalism. They and their families have sacrificed above and 
beyond the call of duty, and I salute them.
  Second; there have been major mistakes made by policymakers in 
Washington that have complicated at every step the challenges our 
troops have faced in Iraq, dead wrong intelligence on weapons of mass 
destruction and Iraq's involvement with September 11; rejecting General 
Shinseki's call to send an adequate amount of troops to Iraq in 2003, 
the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, the de-Baathification process, 
inadequate armor for our troops; and the repeated assertion that the 
insurgency was on its last leg, despite facts to the contrary.
  Given mistakes made in the build-up to this war and its management, 
and the enormity of this issue in terms of lives at risk and our 
Nation's future, it is time for Congress to give a voice to the clear 
majority of the American people who oppose escalation in Iraq.
  Since the President has already started the escalation, I personally 
hope and pray that he is right, and that more U.S. troops in Iraq will 
lead to long-term stability there. However, in good conscience, I must 
express my profound concerns for this policy for several reasons.
  First; I believe until the Iraqi government creates a government that 
is respected by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, no amount of U.S. forces can 
stop sectarian violence there in the long run.
  Second; I want U.S. forces fighting terrorists, not standing on 
street corners in Baghdad as target practice for Sunnis and Shiites 
locked into deep-rooted sectarian violence.
  Third; I believe it is necessary to send a blunt wake-up call to the 
Iraqi political leaders that America has sacrificed our sons and 
daughters and hundreds of billions of dollars for their nation, but we 
will not do so forever for an incompetent government that is rife with 
corruption and sectarian bias. This is not a test of America's will, 
rather, it is a test of the Iraqi government's will to make the tough 
choices to ensure its nation's own future.
  Fourth; with the increasingly serious situation in Afghanistan, where 
al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurging, we will definitely need 
additional U.S. troops there to prevent the kind of chaos that is 
rampant in Iraq.
  For these reasons I believe this resolution is the appropriate and 
the right thing to do. This resolution will send an unequivocal message 
to the Iraqi political leaders that the time to end their corruption, 
their incompetence, and sectarian favoritism is over. When that message 
is truly heard, then and only then will there be real hope for stable 
and lasting peace in Iraq.
  I urge support of this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to my 
colleague from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
resolution. I oppose the resolution not for what it says, but for what 
it does and what it will lead to.
  As someone who enlisted at the age of 18 and spent 6 years as a 
member of the Air National Guard, I can tell you firsthand that this 
resolution will undermine our troops' morale and diminish their ability 
to accomplish their mission.
  Passage of this resolution is also a first step towards cutting 
funding for our troops, and that is something that I absolutely cannot 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is an important part of the global war 
on terror. Failure in Iraq will go beyond being a disaster for American 
foreign policy. Failure would destabilize the country, destabilize the 
Middle East, and make America less safe.
  The American people are well aware of al Qaeda's plans to turn Iraq 
into a

[[Page 4471]]

staging area to spread global terrorism. Failure in Iraq would also 
result in diminished influence and credibility for America at a time 
when global alliances are critical to address threats from Iran and 
North Korea.
  Mr. Speaker, this week I have been briefed by the U.S. intelligence 
officers, foreign ambassadors from the region, and I have reached out 
to many of my constituents, including Colonel John Saputo, who served 
in Iraq, and Colonel Lee Kitchen, who served in Vietnam. We all agree 
that although legitimate questions can be raised about whether this 
surge strategy will prove successful, the stakes are too high, the 
threats to America too great to walk away without giving our troops one 
last chance to restore order in Iraq. Passage of this resolution would 
deny our military leaders and our troops this one last opportunity.
  Like all Americans, I want to bring our troops home safely, 
successfully and soon, but now is not the time for an immediate 
withdrawal. Now is the time to support our troops, support the values 
they fight for, and do everything possible to give them the best chance 
to succeed in their mission. This resolution does nothing to help in 
those efforts. In fact, it does the opposite. It is for this reason 
that I must oppose this resolution.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 
157, and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time 
for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
leaders or their designees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, that will be the order.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am honored to yield 5 
minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this week on the floor, the House will provide our 
Nation with a clear, unambiguous answer to the most important question 
facing the country: Will this body side with the President's approach 
to the war in Iraq, or will we demand change?
  Since Tuesday we have been debating President Bush's plan to escalate 
the war in Iraq. It is a debate that was long overdue and one which the 
American people and our troops risking their lives in Iraq and 
Afghanistan deserve.
  The simple reality is that two-thirds of the American public, 
including myself, do not trust the President's judgment when it comes 
to the war. It is a conflict that has been defined by mismanagement and 
misinformation since it began, and the results have been devastating 
for the Iraqi people and for our men and women in uniform.
  We know that top administration officials, men like Douglas Feith, 
abused the public trust and misused the work of the intelligence 
community when making the case for the war. Since then, every piece of 
evidence suggests that the strategy employed by this administration has 
failed in Iraq. Sectarian strife in Iraq has not abated, with routine 
bombings that kill dozens of civilians daily. The unemployment rate in 
Iraq is as high as 25 percent and 40 percent. Baghdad has only a few 
hours of electricity per day.
  Our troops have continued to pay the price of being caught in the 
middle of another nation's civil war. 84 troops were killed last month, 
48 more have been killed already this month.
  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, corruption, fraud and lack of 
oversight have haunted every aspect of our involvement in Iraq. Stuart 
Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, has 
uncovered $10 billion in reconstruction funding that simply disappeared 
once it was sent overseas. Projects critical to the rebuilding and 
stabilization of Iraq society have been handed out to private firms, 
using no-bid contracts, firms that failed to live up to their 
responsibilities.
  To cite one example, the construction of a new Baghdad police college 
to train Iraqi security officers, a $75 million project of vital 
importance to stability, was completely undermined by a private 
construction company. The work was so shoddy that the classrooms it 
built posed a health risk to the students and had to be abandoned. That 
same fraud and lack of oversight for years have posed mortal risk to 
our soldiers.
  In January of 2006, we learned that 80 percent of the U.S. Marines 
who had died of upper body wounds in Iraq would have lived if they had 
had the proper armor. A Pentagon report released last month stated once 
again that our troops have been sent into battle time and time again 
without proper armor equipment, a reality which still exists today.
  This simply hasn't been a case of going to war with the army you 
have, as Mr. Rumsfeld said. We have faced these shortages in part 
because the Pentagon contracts were given to companies who weren't up 
to the job and couldn't meet the demands of the conflict.
  A legitimate question might be, are we funding the troops or are we 
funding crooked contractors and Iraqi government officials? Hundreds of 
dollars have simply disappeared. These are borrowed dollars, ladies and 
gentlemen, mainly from China.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle made two arguments against 
the resolution. They have told us that to condemn the President's surge 
means that this Congress is giving up in Iraq, and they told us that we 
cannot support the troops without supporting their mission.
  Our troops have done their job in Iraq and they have risked their 
lives countless times, but now they are being asked to do something 
that no army can do, find a military solution to a political problem. 
If the mission we have given our brave soldiers is the wrong one, and 
the past 4 years prove that it is, why would we help our enemies by 
refusing to change course? If that mission is the wrong one, how is 
supporting the mission that is wrong supporting the troops? If the 
mission is the wrong one, then how is demanding a change giving up? 
Giving up means just the opposite, it means insisting on a continuing 
failing strategy.
  This escalation of the war is the same failed strategy, all it will 
do is put more and more of our young men and women in harm's way. That 
reality has led it to be opposed by a bipartisan majority in this 
House. A Republican Representative recently said, ``This is not a fresh 
approach, it is just more of the same.''
  The plan has been publicly opposed by numerous high-ranking generals, 
such as General John Abizaid, General Colin Powell and General James T. 
Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. He recently said that the 
Joint Chiefs ``do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of 
adding numbers, just thickening the mix, is the necessary way to go.''
  We need to stop this escalation and change what we are doing in Iraq. 
We need to promote a political solution and a diplomatic solution to 
the problems.
  I urge the passage of this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. 
Fossella, who represents the families of multiple victims of the 9/11 
attacks on our Nation.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the lady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the question before us is whether the front line in the 
war on terrorism moves from Baghdad back to America.
  Although this resolution is nonbinding, the message it sends to our 
troops on the battlefield and to our enemies is crystal clear. Our 
words have consequences, as powerful as our actions. We must choose 
them carefully, for they are being listened to all over the world. And 
the words this Congress speaks today will send a message to both our 
allies and enemies about our resolve.
  It is not a contradiction to support our warriors in battle and also 
to seek a lasting peace. That principle has guided us through tougher 
times than this. Indeed, it is America's gift from one generation to 
the next that we create a Nation that is stronger, freer, more 
prosperous, and more likely to enjoy God's world in peace.
  To abdicate this responsibility for political expediency is a 
dereliction of

[[Page 4472]]

duty and a sign of lost faith in the promise of America.
  Throughout history, it has been proven that you cannot surrender the 
battlefield and still win the war. This war on terrorism was thrust 
upon us. America and other free nations were attacked by evil forces. 
To leave these forces unchecked would stoke the insatiable appetite of 
the beast. We know this because we have seen it before.
  Regarding the fall of Cambodia, Henry Kissinger wrote:
  Sirik Matak, who was the prime minister, was asked by then Ambassador 
John Dean if he would like to be evacuated, as the United States had 
just announced it was leaving. The prime minister responded, in part: 
Thank you for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, 
alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion.

                              {time}  1015

  As for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you 
have the sentiment of abandoning people which have chosen liberty. You 
have refused us your protection and we can do nothing about it. You 
leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness 
under the sky. But mark it well, that if I shall die here on this spot 
and in my country that I love, it is no matter because we are all born 
and we must die. I have only committed this mistake in believing in 
you, the Americans.
  The very next day the New York Times reported the evacuation with the 
following headline, ``Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better 
Life.''
  As for the Prime Minister, he was shot; and it took him 3 days to die 
without medical help. Every other government official and their 
families were executed, and one to two million Cambodians were rousted 
from their homes and led to the slaughter like cattle.
  Is this the fate we wish to leave millions of Iraqis who have tasted 
freedom after decades of oppression?
  Is this the fate we wish for our allies and the leaders who are 
nurturing an infant democracy?
  Is this the legacy we choose for our airmen and our soldiers and for 
those heroes who have fallen?
  With an open mind I have spent hours this week listening to the 
debate. Like many Americans, I was willing to listen to new ideas and 
explore a new course in Iraq. But an opportunity was wasted, because 
all I have heard is no from the other side. I have not heard a plan, 
nor have I heard a strategy.
  And let me be clear. It is not my place to question one's motivation 
or patriotism. But I can question judgment. This resolution is either 
an endorsement of the status quo or a clarion call of retreat, and 
neither is acceptable to me or to many in this Chamber.
  Some now talk about a slow bleed strategy to cut off funding for our 
troops. I ask, if we surrender this battlefield, which battlefield will 
our enemy choose next? Will it be New York? Will it be Los Angeles? 
Will it be Washington, D.C.? Appeasement does not work. Just look back. 
The World Trade Center in 1993, Somalia, the Khobar Towers, Kenya and 
Tanzania, the USS Cole and, of course, September 11, 2001.
  This copy of the Staten Island Advance, my local paper, shows the 
faces of some of the victims, 240 on this sheet alone. These are the 
people I knew, and they were the people who we promised, these 240 
people who left 450 children without parents because they perished 
because evil people attacked this country. We made a promise to them 
that we will never let this happen again. I ask you, do we break that 
covenant? Do we surrender to the beast? To that I simply respond, no.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Fanaticism, George Santyana famously said, is ``redoubling 
your effort when you have forgotten your aim.''
  Let us measure our efforts against our aims in Iraq. After great 
effort, Saddam is dead. After long effort, we have established there 
are no WMD. We have eliminated Iraq as a threat to its neighbors. We 
have achieved the President's Iraq war aims.
  Why are we sending 21,000 more troops there, rather than redeploying 
all our troops out of Iraq? Because we have forgotten our aims. Now we 
referee a civil war between the peoples of Iraq. The President admitted 
as much in his State of the Union, saying ``This is not the war we 
entered but the war that we are in.''
  The use of force resolution we passed in 2002 nowhere authorizes our 
participation in an Iraqi civil war. It has, therefore, expired. The 
President must come back to Congress for reauthorization if he wishes 
to war further in Iraq or to extend the war to Iran.
  The fact that we are in a civil war is backed up by our own national 
intelligence estimate, as well as my conversations with soldiers who 
served, serve or who will serve in Iraq.
  I share with you a typical comment: ``I joined the Army, and I will 
go as many times as they send me. But I will tell you what. These folks 
have been killing each other for 1,000 years. They are killing each 
other today and may kill each other for another thousand years. I just 
don't see what good we are doing there.''
  This loyal soldier deserves our support and our protection.
  John Murtha's efforts to craft an emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill to protect our troops is commendable. No soldier 
should be repeatedly deployed to Iraq without being rested, retrained 
and ready. To do so otherwise is an abuse of our citizen soldiers. It 
is a criminal dereliction of duty. It is an abuse of power.
  The Constitution gives Congress the express power to regulate the 
military. We must exercise this responsibility and stop the abuse of 
our troops by building thoughtful guidelines into our defense 
appropriations bills.
  Some want us to believe that we must either stand aside and let the 
President have his way or use the blunt axe of cutting off all funding 
for the Iraq war. Not true. Not only does the Constitution give to 
Congress, not the President, the power and responsibility to regulate 
the military, there is ample precedent to support Congress's authority 
in wartime.
  In the 19th century, Congress went so far as to require President 
Andrew Johnson to obtain the signature of General Ulysses S. Grant to 
any of the President's military orders before it could become valid. 
The President obeyed.
  President Truman was forced in the Youngstown Steel case to recognize 
that his powers as Commander in Chief were severely limited when they 
undermined congressional decisions. Even though a steel strike 
seriously affected our ability to fight the Korean war, the Commander 
in Chief could not act independently of Nation's laws.
  President Bush needs to learn that we are a Nation of laws and that 
no one in America is above the law. He needs to listen to the American 
people. He should heed our professional military, rather than shop for 
a convenient opinion.
  The American people understand the challenges in Iraq are political 
and that no amount of military force can retrieve the situation. Only 
the Iraqis can solve the problems of Iraq. Our staying merely delays 
their day of full responsibility, and that is why this Iraqi government 
asked us not to escalate until, like our own generals, they were 
browbeaten into submission by President Bush.
  We must end this war with a minimum of domestic recrimination, a 
maximum of motive and opportunity for the many peoples of Iraq to solve 
their own problems without genocide, one last chance to win the war in 
Afghanistan, the last known mailing address of Osama bin Laden, and we 
must begin the long task of rebuilding America's foreign policy on its 
traditional bipartisan basis.
  We must forsake fanaticism and never forget our national aims.
  My colleagues, this President has never had the authorization from 
Congress to enter a civil war in Iraq. Our mission is done. Bring the 
troops home.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

[[Page 4473]]


  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent 
Resolution 63.
  This proposal sends a dangerous message to the terrorists in Iraq. It 
informs them that they have succeeded in dividing us, that they should 
continue training their fighters, rebuilding their resources, and then 
they should attack with their full force when we leave.
  There is no denying the difficulty of our current situation in Iraq. 
Terrible fractures exist along ethnic and religious fault lines. The 
need to stabilize Baghdad has never been more apparent.
  All these realities are reflected in the President's new way forward, 
which is much more than just an increase in troop strength.
  On January 10, the President changed the strategy on how we will 
fight this war. The President has laid out in great detail a plan for 
the Iraqis to take a leading role in their own security, a plan to 
isolate violent extremism and protect Iraq's citizens, a plan to make 
room for political and economic progress.
  Most importantly, though, this is a plan for victory, to stabilize 
Iraq, to secure Iraq's democratic future, and then to bring our troops 
home.
  In testimony before the Senate Armed Forces committee, General David 
Petraeus, the commanding officer in Iraq, described the implementation 
of the President's plan, as ``a test of wills.''
  General Petraeus confirmed that the congressional action against the 
President's new plan would only encourage our enemies. Today, the will 
of the House of Representatives is being put to the test.
  Underpinning the resolution before us today are calls to defund our 
military in a time of war. This proposal most certainly does not pass 
the test of wills. Rather, it puts us on a path to defeat.
  The expulsion of U.S. troops from Iraq is critical to al Qaeda's plan 
to spread their deadly jihad beyond September 11, 2001, beyond Iraq's 
borders, and into the greater Middle East and the rest of the world.
  Failing to achieve victory in Iraq will roll back the clock in the 
war on terror, giving al Qaeda the opportunity to establish a base in 
the heart of the Arab world, a place to train, rebuild resources, and 
plot the demise of American citizens across the globe.
  A rapid U.S. withdrawal would lead to chaos, sectarian genocide, and 
military intervention by Iraq's neighbors.
  We can, as the President has proposed, pass the test of wills and 
implement our plan for victory. The alternative to the President's plan 
is to retreat from our objectives, setting the stage for regional 
conflict in which terrorist agitators like al Qaeda, Hamas and 
Hezbollah will thrive.
  Radical Islamists have declared war on the United States. This is a 
harsh and striking reality. We did not choose to be put in the cross-
hairs of terrorists, and yet we have been for decades.
  We do have a choice, however, in whether or not we have the will to 
win this war. My choice is to provide for the safety of our citizens 
and the security of future generations. My choice is to oppose today's 
misguided and dangerous resolution. My choice is to vote ``no,'' and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 
minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Clarke).
  Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in unwavering support of our 
troops. I support our troops who are stationed around the globe and, 
particularly, those stationed in harm's way in places like Iraq and 
Afghanistan. That is why I wholeheartedly support H. Con. Res. 63 which 
disapproves of the President's decision to deploy more than 20,000 
additional combat troops to Iraq, because support of our troops means I 
must vote to move them out of harm's way.
  This 110th Congress debate marks the beginning of the end of the U.S. 
invasion and occupation of Iraq and a realignment of our strategy 
utilizing America's might against the war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, we now know that nothing said in justification of this 
war was fact. It was all fiction created by this administration to 
justify the unjustifiable.
  Our military service men and women are doing their duty. They have 
accomplished their mission. They have brought Saddam Hussein to 
justice. Remember, ``Mission Accomplished.''
  This administration has distracted us from the real war on terror, 
the war with al Qaeda. When are we going to bring Osama bin Laden to 
justice?
  In Afghanistan, U.S. Central Command General Tommy Franks, the war's 
operational commander, misjudged the interest of our Afghan allies. He 
ran the war from Tampa, with no commander on the ground above the rank 
of Lieutenant Colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until 3 days 
into the fighting.
  It is noted that Osama bin Laden slipped through the cordon 
ostensibly placed around Tora Bora as U.S. aircraft began bombing on 
November 30, 2002. More precisely, bin Laden was in Tora Bora on 
November 26, 2002, spoke to his fighters about the fight being a holy 
war, then, as quickly as he had come, bin Laden vanished in the pine 
forest with four of his loyalists walking in the direction of Pakistan.

                              {time}  1030

  Bin Laden escaped somewhere between November 28 and November 30, 
2002, in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, Department of Defense Secretary Paul 
Wolfowitz said, ``He,'' meaning Osama bin Laden, ``doesn't have a lot 
of good options.'' Obviously, that was false.
  Further, it was reported that the administration pays bin Laden no 
attention, and that is evidenced by the fact that official reports no 
longer identify Osama bin Laden as a threat. The administration 
anticipated that they would have bin Laden erased by September 11, 
2002. They failed at that mission.
  Again, the failure of this administration to get the job done, to 
secure our homeland, and to get the man who masterminded the attacks 
upon us and continues to recruit and train al Qaeda agents is parallel 
to the failures of the mission in Iraq. The administration did not plan 
to fail; they failed to plan.
  I support the men and women who put their lives on the line for our 
liberty. I am indebted to them, the sacrifices that they have made, and 
that is why I support this resolution. We must redeploy and make 
preparations to leave Iraq today.
  As the representative of the 11th District from New York, I and my 
constituents deeply resent the lies and deceptions thrust upon us to 
justify this war by creating a distraction away from homeland security 
we all require as an inalienable right. The fire that I witnessed that 
refused to die was stamped out by the resilience of New Yorkers, 
Americans who believe in our democracy and the ultimate victory of good 
over evil.
  The question I have and the question of the people from New York and 
the rest of America wants answered is: When will Osama bin Laden be 
brought to justice?
  Thanks to the failed policies of this administration, Iraq is now in 
the midst of a civil war. Due to the lies and deceptions, the civil war 
in Iraq is now raging. We must redeploy our troops now. Thus far, there 
are 135,544 troops deployed in Iraq today.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), with whom I had the 
opportunity to visit his Pennsylvania troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable, and allowing our 
enemies to win is unacceptable, too. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this House Democrat leadership resolution, H. Con. 
Res. 63, for three specific reasons:
  First, the language of the resolution is essentially meaningless. Its 
passage will place the Congress on the side of the status quo.
  I heard the Speaker say a few days ago that it is time for a ``new 
direction'' in Iraq. But where is this ``new

[[Page 4474]]

direction'' in this resolution? It doesn't demand that all the troops 
return home. It doesn't advise the President to send more troops or 
even to reassign or relocate one soldier who is in the field today. It 
simply states, in essence, the current plan is bad. That may be good 
politics for some in this Chamber, but it is highly irresponsible and 
is certainly no way to fight a war.
  If Congress wants to be a true partner in this fight, we must offer 
clear guidance, not mere criticism of the Commander in Chief. 
Unfortunately, this resolution is irresponsibly silent on what the 
``new direction'' ought to be.
  The second reason to oppose this resolution is that it is 
fundamentally vague and ambiguous. By only saying that Congress opposes 
the President's troop surge proposal of January 10, the resolution does 
not differentiate between the positive aspects of what the President 
called for on that date and the more controversial elements as well.
  For example, I continue to have a tremendous concern over the 
President's plan for increasing our military force level in Baghdad to 
fight the sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shi'a factions of 
the Iraqi population. With the current lack of commitment of some Iraqi 
security forces and police forces to deal effectively with this 
violence, I am not confident of success of this surge into Baghdad. 
Nonetheless, I do think the strategy is correct in calling for 
additional American troops to go to Anbar Province to fight al Qaeda 
terrorists in that part of Iraq and to add more troops along the Iraq-
Iranian border to interdict the flow of arms and more terrorists.
  But, unfortunately, again, this resolution does not differentiate 
between these critical elements of the President's strategy and, 
therefore, on its face is weak and flawed.
  The third reason to oppose this resolution is that it serves to 
undercut the morale and the support of our fighting men and women at 
the very time they are carrying out their orders. The President's 
decision of January 10 is now being implemented. Our troops are already 
carrying out this mission in the field.
  I know of no instance in our Nation's history when Congress has 
passed a resolution disapproving a mission while that mission is in 
progress in the field. Can any proponent of this resolution come to the 
floor and cite a case where Congress has undertaken this type of action 
while a mission is already under way?
  Any politician, it seems to me, who openly disapproves of an ongoing 
mission in the field only undercuts troop spirit and morale as they 
move forward, and that clearly lends support to the aims and the goals 
of our enemies. But don't accept my view on this. Listen to Gary 
Kurpius, the National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who 
states that this resolution debate is ``a major distraction to U.S. 
forces because it does nothing to improve the morale or strength of 
their resolve.''
  So while I cannot support this resolution for these reasons, I do 
believe there is a ``new direction'' for us, as Republicans and 
Democrats, to unite behind and support. H. Con. Res. 45, introduced by 
Congressman Frank Wolf, would declare Congress's support for the 
numerous recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, a 
distinguished group of Republicans and Democrats that have set forth a 
plan of action deserving of administration, congressional, and public 
support.
  Included in the group's recommendation is the call to establish 
milestones of success for military training, government stability, 
national reconciliation, which would result in Iraqis taking control of 
their country and allowing our troops to withdraw; number two, to 
create an Iraq International Support Group to work with the Iraqi 
government to achieve these milestones; and, three, to focus U.S. 
assistance on training of Iraqi police forces and military personnel 
with the goal of completing the training by early 2008 so American 
troops can return home.
  Contrary to the flawed, simplistic, and purely political resolution 
before us, the Wolf resolution offers clear, bipartisan, and 
nonpolitical direction for Congress to support and to promote in this 
very difficult time in our involvement in Iraq. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to vote down H. Con. Res. 63 and for the Democrat leadership 
in the House to immediately allow H. Con. Res. 45 to be voted in the 
full House. Because the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable and victory 
for our enemies is also unacceptable.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy at this time to yield 5 
minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  My colleague from Pennsylvania is concerned about victory for our 
enemies. Well, the victory for our enemies is made possible by our 
pursuing a failed policy.
  We are creating an inevitable situation in which our country 
continues to lose prestige and support around the world. But, much more 
importantly, we are losing the precious lives of our young people; and 
tens of thousands have been injured.
  I was over at Walter Reed. I met and visited with some of the wounded 
soldiers. And I will never forget the day I met Cassandra Bryant, 20 
years old, who lost both her legs to an improvised explosive device in 
Iraq. She was in a mechanical unit that was supposedly nowhere near the 
front line, but, nonetheless, for the rest of her life, she will have 
to go without her legs. Her sacrifice on behalf of our country, if in 
the face of a national security threat, would be understandable, and 
she was prepared to even give more. But to sacrifice so much. Our young 
people have done it in a place in a war that we should have never 
fought, we should have never been in.
  There was ample information and evidence that Saddam possessed no 
weapons of mass destruction. The international inspectors were forced 
out of the country when, first of all, they found none and they wanted 
to continue their work.
  This administration rushed to judgment into a war in which we have 
spent hundreds of billions of dollars and in which over 3,000 young 
people have lost their lives. And in Philadelphia, for Mrs. Zappala and 
for Mrs. Jeff Coat and for other mothers and fathers who have lost 
their sons and daughters in Iraq, this war and this effort in Iraq, 
which some suggest if we would just prosecute it more vigorously would 
somehow overnight become a success, we need to look at the conduct of 
this war on behalf of our Armed Forces.
  This administration has failed our troops on the ground on so many 
occasions. On one occasion, there was a shortage of bullets. On others, 
we have seen reports that they were not having access to enough long 
rifles. We know that they have never had, in the 4 years now, enough 
up-armored vehicles to be able to do their patrols. We have failed to 
provide the body armor and Kevlar vests that are necessary and in the 
quantities that are needed.
  The embarrassment of the conduct of this war is only equal to the 
stupidity that took us to Iraq in the first place. And what we need to 
do is not just vote in support of this resolution but this Congress 
would do better if we would understand that our young men and women 
don't wear Democrat or Republican dog tags. They are sons and daughters 
of our country. They are precious. Their willingness to sacrifice on 
behalf of our Nation should not be taken for granted.
  We should move to redeploy. Forget the question of an additional 
surge. Why would we want to have our young people in a situation where 
the only time the Sunnis and the Shiites stop killing each other is 
when they both are willing to turn their weapons against our young 
people?
  We are in the middle of a civil war. Clearly, in the case of a civil 
war, the definition suggests that we are unwelcome visitors. We should 
redeploy.
  And if there are needs, and I think there are, for peacekeeping and 
stabilization forces, we should ask some of our friendly Arab countries 
in the region to provide some of their troops. We provide over $1 
billion a year to the

[[Page 4475]]

Egyptian military, one of the largest in the world and the largest in 
the Arab world. They do joint training with our troops and have done so 
for decades. If there is a need for troops, let us get our young people 
out of the way. And since the President said we went there in part to 
stabilize the region for our friendly Arab neighbors, let them step 
forward now and secure the region.
  Our young people have done the hard work. They have done the heavy 
lifting. They have died on the fields of battle in Iraq, and it is time 
for this Congress to act responsibly. Let us rise on this day and speak 
not just in symbol but in substance on behalf of the fighting men and 
women of the American military.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, the vote today is very simple: Will 
America give up and walk away from the fight to preserve American 
civilization? Are we proud of our military and will we support them and 
protect them in time of war?
  The people of Houston's District Seven are immensely proud of the men 
and women of our Armed Forces. We want our soldiers and their 
commanders and our Commander in Chief to know that we will always 
support them and to know that we will do our best to protect them, 
especially in time of war; and we thank them for keeping us safe and 
free from another terrorist attack for 1,985 days.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Houston's District 
Seven, I will vote no, to tell our enemies and our friends that 
Americans will never quit and Americans will never surrender in the 
fight to preserve, protect, and defend American freedom.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored at this time to yield 5 
minutes to my friend and colleague from the great State of California 
(Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank my good friend for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration has mishandled the situation in Iraq 
from the very beginning.
  It misled the country into a war based on false and misleading 
statements about the threat from Iraq.
  It failed to plan for the aftermath of the military victory.
  It assumed that we would be greeted as liberators, the occupation 
would be brief, and that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
  It sent our troops to battle with dangerous shortages in body armor 
and devices needed to defuse remote-controlled bombs.
  It sent in too few troops to Iraq to provide security, leaving the 
Iraqi people to rely on their sectarian militias to give them some 
protection from the chaos.
  It disbanded the Iraqi army and, through an anti-Baathists campaign, 
gave the Sunnis a sense that the U.S. was aiding the Shiites against 
them.
  It refused to take on war profiteering, even as auditors, 
investigators and inspector generals unearthed massive graft, fraud and 
abuse by reconstruction contractors.
  It alienated the Iraqi people with the shameful and criminal acts of 
Abu Ghraib prison.
  What we now have in Iraq is a defeat. We cannot achieve the illusions 
of the Bush administration that we will be able to create a stable, 
unified, liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. Instead, we 
have sectarian fighting, death squads and a destabilized Middle East 
that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare that we have unleashed.
  The administration's mistakes have weakened our fight against al 
Qaeda. In fact, the war has enhanced the group's terrorist recruitment. 
The planned escalation in Iraq will divert more troops, resources and 
attention from the pursuit of Osama bin Laden's operation in 
Afghanistan; and we have enhanced the influence of Iran, not just in 
Iraq but throughout the region.
  The President proposes an escalation of a failed policy. The fighting 
now only prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. We 
are trying now to mediate a civil war, which is impossible. Instead, we 
are being drawn into that civil war by trying to prop up a government 
that, in the final analysis, cannot unite the country.
  Politically, this administration has tied the faith of American 
soldiers to a Shi'a-dominated government that lacks the authority, the 
will and the manpower to stop the roving gangs and insurgent militias 
that have shattered Iraqi society. Instead of acknowledging these 
failures and embarking on a new course of action, the President gives 
us more of the same: Send more troops to Iraq.
  We need to redefine our mission and our hopes for ``success.'' Our 
goal should be to try to stabilize the situation, stop the killing, 
contain the violence.
  We cannot do it alone, and we cannot do it militarily. We must seek a 
diplomatic strategy with Iraq's neighbors and the international 
community.
  Certainly, it will take more action than just the resolution before 
us to bring about the policy changes that we need. The Congress must 
stand ready to use the checks and balances necessary to extract 
ourselves from the morass we face in Iraq. We can do that through more 
oversight, but it is also time for Congress to use the appropriations 
process to end this war.
  We should pass this resolution and make it clear to the President 
that we will not stand for more of the same.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Gallegly), a member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs and the ranking member of a subcommittee.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my concern about the Iraq resolution offered by my 
friends on the other side of the aisle is what impact it will have on 
our troops and our mission and its consequences on our mission. How can 
you say support our troops when you don't support sending in the people 
necessary to back them up to do the job that we sent them there to do 
to start with?
  Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, about who the real enemy is. We are at 
war with the Islamic jihadists. Jihadists have vowed to destroy 
America, the West and all sympathizers with democracy. We are at war 
for our very existence against jihadists who have vowed to enslave us 
with a fundamentalist philosophy that rejects all human rights.
  The consequences of failure in Iraq are not just failure in Iraq. 
Iraq's stability has direct repercussions on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel 
and all of the Middle East. If our efforts to bring peace and stability 
to Iraq are successful, we will accomplish a great deal. If not, if 
Iraq fails, it will provide Islamic jihadists with a sanctuary similar 
to the one we removed from Afghanistan, only the sanctuary in Iraq 
would be many times worse, as the terrorists would have access to 
billions of dollars of oil resources to carry out their evil plans. 
Such a sanctuary would threaten Europe and the United States.
  If we are in support of our military men and women, we must support 
their mission against Islamic jihadists. The alternative is defeat in 
Iraq and a greater threat of attack here at home.
  A defeat in Iraq would not just be a defeat for the United States. It 
would also set back any chance for peace and stability in the Middle 
East. It would empower terrorists to unleash greater sectarian 
violence, which would draw all of Iraq's neighbors into a Sunni versus 
Shi'a conflict for control of Iraq.
  I am also concerned about the resolution because it does not offer 
any alternative whatsoever that could lead to a successful outcome for 
the United States in Iraq. All the resolution does is to criticize the 
President's plan to augment our existing force in Iraq by 21,000-plus 
troops.
  The Democratic resolution offers no other plan. It does not address 
what should be the right strategy or the right tactics. In effect, and 
I think this is the real issue, it endorses the status quo in Iraq, a 
position that I certainly

[[Page 4476]]

can't support, and I hear lots of those that are supporting this say 
they can't support either, but they are de facto supporting the status 
quo by supporting this resolution.
  I look forward to the majority offering a comprehensive proposal that 
would set forth a specific course of action. Then we could have a real 
debate on the pros and cons of the Democratic plan versus the 
President's plan to secure Iraq and defeat the terrorists in that 
country. Unfortunately, the resolution before us fails to do this, and 
therefore I can't support it. It should be rejected.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, as this debate comes to a close, much has 
been said. Certainly not everything. The House is considering a 
resolution concerning the Iraq war. It expresses the unequivocal 
support of this body for the American troops serving in Iraq and for 
their families. This resolution expresses opposition to the President's 
planned surge, escalation, augmentation. Call it what you will. But, 
more than anything else, this resolution opposes the administration's 
deeper commitment to a fundamentally and deeply flawed military 
strategy.
  The fact is that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki lacks the authority or 
the will to confront Shi'a militias. To do so would result in a major 
confrontation with the militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, without whom the 
Iraqi government has little support. These dangerous Iraqi alliances 
and compelling evidence of a strong Iranian alliance demonstrates how 
weak the National Unity Government is and how pathetically dependent we 
are on them for success in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve much better. Surging troop 
levels in Iraq was tried in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Each time, it failed 
to reduce violence and only served to inflame anti-American sentiment.
  Under the President's plan, it is still the American troops that do 
most of the fighting and, regrettably, will do most of the dying. For 
any decent outcome in Iraq, the President has to be serious about 
setting and enforcing deadlines. The President needs to demand that 
Prime Minister Maliki stop protecting the militias and make clear there 
will be serious consequences if he continues to do so.
  The problem in Iraq is the same as it was when the conflict started: 
American war planners never provided the resources to successfully 
create a vital and secure center from which a functioning society could 
evolve.
  The history is clear. Modern Iraq was born out of a strong 
nationalist aspiration in the early 20th century. Shi'a, Sunni, 
Christians and Jews stood united against the British and peacefully 
created and coexisted in a new, ethnically diverse Iraq.
  Then, Iraqis prayed at each other's mosques. Today, Shi'a and Sunni 
militias bomb each other's mosques with impunity. Last month, 70 
college students were slaughtered by a car bomb in Baghdad. Iraqi 
weddings, funerals and schools are the regular targets of suicide 
bombers. These are called ``revenge killings.'' They are carried out in 
the name of destiny and in the name of God.
  Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation for these atrocities 
in the Arab Muslim community? Nowhere does the Koran talk about revenge 
killings, violence, hate or intolerance. The Koran describes the 
Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet of Mercy. At the core of Islamic belief 
is compassion, forgiveness and tolerance: To you your faith and to me 
mine.
  Absent the real possibility of a functioning government, a 
functioning society, a functioning economy, the National Unity 
Government of Iraq cannot succeed because it lacks legitimacy in the 
very eyes of those it seeks to govern. Elections and forming 
governments are the symbols of democracy. Legitimacy in the eyes of the 
governed is the substance of democracy and that of free and open 
societies throughout the world.
  Madam Speaker, I don't stand here as a partisan. I am an American, 
and I want my country to succeed. I want my President to succeed, 
regardless of party affiliation, regardless of who he or she may be.
  The fact of the matter is, we have an obligation to tell the truth to 
the American people at every level, militarily and politically. This 
strategy, advanced and sustained by this administration, has been an 
abject failure.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of our Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to express our appreciation to the brave 
men and women of our Armed Forces. I have met with our troops in Iraq 
and in Afghanistan and our wounded soldiers in Walter Reed and Bethesda 
Naval Hospitals and the families of those who have paid the ultimate 
sacrifice defending our freedoms. We thank them for their unwavering 
commitment to our country and believe we owe it to them to have an open 
and honest debate regarding our next steps in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the war in Iraq has been 
challenging. We are fighting a war against terrorists and radical 
Islamic militants who are determined to kill as many Americans as 
possible. They believe that killing American soldiers will drive us out 
of Iraq and out of the Middle East, allowing radical terrorists free 
rein and a base to expand their influence around the world.
  These are the same radical Islamic militants who bombed the World 
Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the embassies in Kenya 
and Tanzania in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. We surely can't forget 
the slaughter of 3,000 innocent American citizens on our soil. And just 
last year a couple arrested in Britain planned to use their 6-month-old 
baby as a human bomb to destroy a civilian airliner over the Atlantic 
Ocean.

                              {time}  1100

  We must recognize that we are dealing with irrational, radical, 
maniacal monsters who will not respond to diplomatic niceties.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that the vast majority of Americans do not 
support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, just as they do not support 
a never-ending deployment of U.S. forces there. They want us, they 
expect us, to work together and with the President to find a way to win 
the war on terror while bringing our troops home as soon as possible.
  We should be past the point of political posturing when it comes to 
Iraq. Yet this resolution is more of the same, once again placing 
politics over policy. Instead of encouraging substantive discussion on 
options in Iraq, the majority has once again shut us out of the process 
and refused to consider any alternative to their point of view. That is 
truly unfortunate because this nonbinding resolution does nothing to 
increase the accountability of the Iraqi government or provide for our 
troops or even propose a new course in Iraq.
  We all agree that this administration has made mistakes in Iraq. Most 
harmful, I believe, has been the slow pace of training Iraq troops and 
security forces to take responsibility for their own country. Early 
lapses in this area are a principal reason why our troops remain in 
Iraq today.
  But the administration has taken action to accelerate this training 
and better prepare Iraqi forces. So now it is time for the Iraqi 
government to demonstrate that it has the ability to confront the 
problems facing their country, both politically and militarily. That is 
why it is so important that we hold the Iraqi government accountable 
for what they say they are going to do and require them to take the 
lead in securing their Nation. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi 
people must recognize that they, not American troops, are responsible 
for the future of their country.
  With that being said, we must continue to support our troops and 
commanders on the ground by giving them the resources they need to be 
successful. It would be a tragic mistake to cut

[[Page 4477]]

off funding or limit support for our troops fighting against terrorists 
abroad. We also must be very careful about the message we send to our 
allies and our enemies and, most importantly, to our troops in the 
field who have performed with great courage.
  The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has stated that it could support a 
shorter 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, and 
that is a quote from the Iraq Study Group report. Well, General 
Petraeus says that it can be effective.
  Clearly, the path forward must include military and political 
strategic benchmarks so that we are in a position to measure the 
progress and commitment of the Iraqi government, but we must also be 
willing to give our troops, who have sacrificed so much for our Nation, 
the opportunity and the resources to be successful and provide the 
short-term support needed to achieve increased stability in Iraq.
  There are serious consequences to our national security if we fail in 
Iraq. Cutting off funding, limiting military options or pushing for 
immediate withdrawal will only make our future more dangerous. It is 
time to stop the politics, stop the games, stop the finger pointing, 
and do what is best for America. Let us put partisanship aside and 
discuss concrete plans on how we can defeat radical terrorists and 
protect our Nation from those who mean us great harm.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The Democratic side has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) has 13 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 
157 and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time 
for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
leaders or their designees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, that will be the order.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a 
member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing my deepest 
appreciation and gratitude to the men and women of our Armed Forces, to 
the families of those who have died, who have been wounded or are 
presently in harm's way.
  My prayers and all of my efforts as a United States Congressman are 
devoted to ensuring the well-being and support of our military, as they 
fight to protect our Nation, to honoring their memories, and to helping 
them when they return to our country.
  Mr. Speaker, after we deposed Saddam Hussein and removed him from 
power, it became clear to most Americans and most people around the 
world that so much of what our President had told us about Iraq was not 
true. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam had no 
intention of sending Iraqi agents to slaughter Americans on our shores, 
and Saddam had precious little, if any, contact with foreign terrorists 
or anyone else who wanted to do harm to America.
  Mr. Speaker, now after nearly 4 years and the death of more than 
3,100 American servicemen and -women, after more than 23,000 American 
men and women have been wounded, and after the United States has spent 
almost one-half a trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq, I believe we 
have met our moral obligation to the people of Iraq.
  We have given the Iraqi people an opportunity over nearly 4 years to 
decide whether they will live together with themselves in peace, 
neighbor to neighbor, Iraqi, Sunni, Shia and Kurd.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi people have not yet decided they 
want to live together with one another in Iraq in peace.
  Our having our United States brave young men and women standing 
there, being shot at, being blown up is not encouraging the Iraqis to 
live together in peace. Not only are our troops dying and being 
wounded, but 80 percent of the Iraqi people say they want us to leave 
their country immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush implies that al Qaeda will take over Iraq 
if we leave. In my opinion that is nonsense. Today, you have less than 
1,500 al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq has a population of 25 million people. 
Today, you have not only Iraqi Shiites killing al Qaeda Sunnis, you 
have Iraqi Sunnis killing al Qaeda Sunnis. They don't like foreigners 
in Iraq, whether they be Sunnis, and especially if they are al Qaeda or 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the only hope that our enemies have to destroy the 
United States is to have us remain bogged down in the swamp of the 
Iraqi civil war. Are we smart enough to pull ourselves out of that 
swamp of the Iraqi civil war? Or are we going to continue to allow our 
Nation to have our soldiers bled, our resources taken away, our 
equipment destroyed, taking our attention away from the other military 
threats and realities in this very hostile world?
  I believe that the United States' vital national interests will only 
be served if we withdraw all of our troops out of Iraq as quickly as 
possible for the safety of our troops being uppermost in our minds. 
Then we can leave several thousand in the region just in case. We can, 
more importantly, encourage the regional players, through diplomacy, to 
come together to help the Iraqis decide to live in peace.
  Mr. Speaker, leaving Iraq's civil war will serve America's vital 
national interests by allowing us to rebuild what is now a depleted 
U.S. Army and U.S. Marines, a military that is not fully up to its 
strategic requirements to deal with all the possible threats in the 
world.
  We need to refocus on Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban. 
We need to be prepared militarily for the potential threats from North 
Korea, Iran and, yes, even the People's Republic of China.
  It is also important that we take these resources that we have been 
spending in Iraq not only to rebuild our military but to spend the 
money here at home. There is al Qaeda in 60 Nations in the world. They 
have pledged to come to America and harm us; yet we have spent more 
money in Iraq since 9/11 than we have spent on our homeland security 
needs.
  Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth and that has to 
change.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this resolution. Iran and Syria and 
Saudi Arabia have an interest in stabilizing Iraq. They will not permit 
the destruction of that country. They are afraid of refugees coming 
into their countries and destabilizing their Nation.
  We need to vote for this resolution and withdraw from Iraq.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate all week, and I must say 
I admire the seriousness and the civility of most, if not all, of those 
who have come to this floor in this historic week to address the issue 
and express themselves on this resolution. But I rise respectfully to 
urge my colleagues in both parties to vote ``no'' on this no-confidence 
resolution.
  I support the President's call for a surge of 21,500 forces in 
Baghdad because the President has not just asked for more troops for 
more troops' sake. Despite what has been said again and again on this 
floor, Mr. Speaker, this is a new strategy. It involves new tactics and 
new rules of engagement on the ground.
  This surge of forces in Baghdad, designed to quell violence in that 
capital city and enable a political solution to take hold, was part and 
parcel of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which said, as 
Americans could see for themselves on page 74 of the Iraq Study Group, 
and as Chairman Lee Hamilton of Indiana said before the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, the

[[Page 4478]]

Iraq Study Group concluded that a temporary surge, and they used the 
word ``surge,'' a temporary surge of forces in Baghdad would be 
acceptable to them to quell violence.
  But while I must tell you that many of my colleagues have no 
confidence in the President's new way forward in Iraq, I say with 
respect, I have no confidence in the ability of Congress to conduct 
war. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said hundreds of years ago, ``I 
would rather face 20 brilliant generals than one mediocre one.''
  I would assure you today, Mr. Speaker, that our enemies would rather 
face 435 commanders in chief rather than one.
  Our forefathers rejected war by committee when they enshrined the 
power to conduct war exclusively in Article II of the Constitution of 
the United States. In Article I, where this House finds its home, is 
the power to declare war. It is the power to appropriate funding and to 
set essentially military rules of conduct by statute. But the ability 
and the conduct of the war of the Commander in Chief is exclusively 
vested in the President of the United States, in that document upon 
which we all swear our oath of allegiance.
  So I stand with our Commander in Chief, but also in a very profound 
sense, Mr. Speaker, I stand with the Constitution.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution and embrace our Constitution as 
written.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a 
chief deputy whip.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California, and I rise to thank our young men and 
women in our armed services and their families, those who have 
understood the sacrifices that they have made on behalf of our great 
Nation.
  But Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak out in strong opposition to 
President Bush's misguided escalation of troops in the Iraq War and to 
commend the Democratic leadership of this House for holding a real 
debate on our involvement in Iraq.
  Since January 4, when Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, the Democratic 
majority has delivered on its pledge of oversight and accountability of 
this war in Iraq, and Democrats have changed the direction of the 
discussion and have changed this war to lead us to the ultimate goal of 
all Americans, that is, to bring our troops home.
  For too long, Congress has taken a backseat on the President's 
handling of this war, but this majority has held more hearings on Iraq 
than the Republican-controlled Congress did since this war began.

                              {time}  1115

  This debate is about not about trying to embarrass our President for 
political purposes. We are debating the escalation because the American 
people have demanded a change in direction. The President has failed to 
recognize the will of the people and many of the top military and 
foreign policy thinkers around the country who view this escalation 
with little hope of success.
  Our constituents spoke with their voices loudly on Election Day, and 
they have been even more vocal since about the dissatisfaction with the 
way this war has been managed. Many in this country want to see a 
deescalation of America's forces, not the increase the President has 
proposed.
  The President and his advisors created this problem, and it is now on 
the Congress to find a way to disengage Iraq without causing the 
country and the region to be engulfed in a further outbreak of 
violence.
  In the last week, we have seen some of the most horrific bombings 
that cost the lives of hundreds of Iraqis and the downing of several 
U.S. helicopters. Over 3,000 of our young American men and women have 
lost their lives; tens and thousands have been physically and mentally 
maimed; and hundreds of Iraqi citizens, the vast majority of them 
trying to live normal lives, have been killed or injured.
  This was not how this war was to be conducted.
  Four years ago, when this President came to the Congress for 
authorization to invade Iraq, he stated that Iraq posed a clear and 
present danger. He talked about how invading Iraq was part of the 
greater war on terror and how, if Saddam Hussein was not toppled, he 
would attack our allies and maybe even on our own soil.
  After seeing the death and destruction al Qaeda did to my city on 9/
11 and to our Nation, I wanted to trust our President and all the 
President's men and women. When I sat across the table in the Roosevelt 
Room in the White House from Condoleezza Rice and then-CIA-Director 
George Tenet, I thought I could trust them. Because of them and the 
false intelligence they gave, I voted for authorization of this war.
  As the only Member of this Congress to lose a relative on 9/11 and as 
someone who has lost 125 constituents to the attacks of the Twin 
Towers, I do believe that America must always act to defeat threats 
before those threats act against us.
  As they say, in life, there are no do-overs; and if I could turn back 
time, I am sure that most of the Members of this House and most of my 
colleagues in this House would never have given this President this 
authority to wage this war in Iraq.
  This war has cost us a fortune from our national treasury, a fortune 
in American lives lost and ruined, and a fortune in our ability as a 
Congress to trust our Commander in Chief and our President.
  Today, we have an opportunity to stand as a group and to say what our 
constituents want us to say, to say what the Army generals want us to 
say, to say what many of them, those men and women in our Armed 
Services in uniform on the front line want us to say: ``Mr. President, 
adding more troops is not the answer. Adding more troops to fight what 
has become a civil war is not the answer.''
  The answer is we need to start to begin to bring our troops home, 
reducing our presence in Iraq, and create the conditions for the Iraqi 
people themselves to stand up and secure their own country.
  The Iraq Study Group set out a plan that many of us support, but the 
President continues to believe that history will judge him favorably.
  As the Iraqi government attempts to clamp down on the Shi'a and Sunni 
militias, it has become abundantly clear these forces are not as strong 
as we have been led to believe, those being the Iraqi government's 
forces. I believe we need to look strongly on redeploying our troops in 
Iraq along the border and in the Kurdish north, removing American 
citizens from harm's way in Baghdad and Anbar Province, and forcing the 
Iraqis, both politically and militarily, to secure these areas. U.S. 
troops should only be used in an advisory role, not in direct combat.
  Mr. Speaker, I have more to submit for the Record, but I want to send 
our young men and women home as soon as possible and an end to putting 
them in harm's way.
  Only when the violence stops should the U.S. in small numbers work 
with Iraqi and multinational forces in keeping the peace, building the 
military infrastructure and securing long term stability.
  Right now, with the exception of Great Britain and a few other 
countries we are doing all the work, taking all the risk, and losing 
our best and our brightest while the Iraqis lay waste to their country.
  It is time for us to get back to our roots and be the beacon of 
freedom and democracy that we are.
  We need to increase our conversations with the moderate Arab states 
and get them invested before Iraq, and possibly the whole region, is at 
war.
  The focus should be making sure that countries like Iran and Saudi 
Arabia are not funding Sunni and Shia extremists, respectively.
  Diplomacy is not the end all fix, but it is a start.
  Whether or not my colleagues want to refer to the President's plan as 
a surge or escalation, I see it as a target on the backs of our armed 
forces.
  This resolution clearly states that the House does not support the 
escalation, but we will not abandon the safety of our troops by cutting 
off the supplies they need for force protection.
  I do not support this escalation.
  Instead of bringing our troops home President Bush has decided to put 
even more of

[[Page 4479]]

our overburdened arm forces in an increasingly sectarian bloodbath.
  Our country has been asking for answers to why our men and women of 
the armed forces continue to die in Iraq and we have not received any 
answers.
  Until these answers are forthcoming, I will not support the 
President's escalation and I wholeheartedly support this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to my 
Florida colleague, Mr. Stearns, a senior member of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member 
of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  And I want to have the opportunity to speak. I have spoken earlier on 
this debate, but I thought I would bring some simple common sense to my 
colleagues that perhaps was best brought forward by David Broder in the 
Washington Post. Now, David Broder obviously is more sympathetic to the 
Democratic point of view than they are to the Republicans, but I think 
he makes three points which I will also echo in my conversation today.
  Basically, we are at the end of the debate, but we are all moving 
towards a decision most of us already have decided, but I have some 
simple common sense that I would bring to the attention of my 
colleagues.
  When General Petraeus was unanimously supported by the Senate, it was 
with the idea that he would bring his new thoughts, his new strategy to 
this plan in Iraq. So don't you think, as members of this body, we 
should give General Petraeus an opportunity to implement his plan and 
not immediately come forward with a resolution that says that it is a 
disapproving of the decision to deploy more troops to Iraq?
  When we deployed more troops for the Iraqi elections, why didn't you 
complain then? That happened twice before. We went up to almost 
160,000. When we deployed more troops to ratify the Iraqi constitution, 
why didn't you complain back then? That went up to almost 160,000.
  So now you are coming against a simple new strategy with the best we 
have in America who actually has written the manual on how to do it. 
You are not even willing to give him a chance. No breathing space. This 
nonbinding resolution shows your motives, which are to eventually 
reduce all funding for Iraq.
  My third point is, you are so willing to do this, you are not even 
willing to look at what could happen with this new strategy. Let's say 
it works. Are you still going to offer these resolutions to cut off 
funds even though this strategy works and General Petraeus is 
successful? No matter what, you seem hell bent on reducing funds for 
Iraq. Yet we didn't hear any time before when we increased the surge 
for the Iraqi elections or for the ratification of the Iraqi 
constitution.
  You know, in a way, Bush went to your retreat with a willingness to 
listen to your ideas. He is showing bipartisanship. In fact, he has a 
quote here which I think illustrates what the American people are 
saying. ``What really matters,'' quote, ``is what happens on the 
ground. I can talk all day long, but what really matters to the 
American people is to see progress.''
  So he realizes also that he must show progress. And we are asking for 
this new strategy to have a chance, and we owe it to them.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from New York, the chairwoman of the Small Business 
Committee, Ms. Velazquez.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, first and foremost, to praise the courage, 
performance, and commitment of our troops stationed in Iraq and 
elsewhere. We are immensely grateful for their sacrifices.
  Because of this war in Iraq, today the lives of the 135,000 military 
families are disrupted, and 125,000 civilian contractor families are 
divided. Nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers and civilian contractors have 
already given their lives. We have lost over 140 young New York 
military men and women in Iraq.
  I voted against this war from day one. It was a mistake then, and it 
is a mistake today. This week, we have a chance to act. Escalation is 
wrong, and we must take it upon ourselves to make things right by 
seeking a political solution to this war.
  This administration's flawed foreign policy has damaged our 
relationship with our allies. The public opposes this war, Iraqis 
oppose this war, the world opposes this war, and this Congress should 
speak loudly against this war, too.
  Our military has been stretched to the brink of breakdown. Our 
actions in Iraq have set back the war on terror and made problems in 
the Middle East much worse.
  This war has distracted us from our responsibilities at home, too. 
Poverty is raging. Millions have lost their jobs and health insurance. 
Families struggle to pay for the cost of transportation, energy, and 
housing. Yet we choose to spend $8 billion of hard-earned money every 
month in Iraq, not at home.
  While the cost of the war escalates, our most important social 
programs for our kids, the elderly, and the poor get slashed to pay for 
it. We have dug a deep hole of debt to finance this war in Iraq, and we 
will ask the children of working families to pay off that debt. These 
priorities are misplaced. We should be investing in our children, not 
borrowing against their future.
  Our young men and women return from Iraq with all sorts of health 
problems, both physical and psychological. The trauma of this war will 
affect the lives of our veterans forever. This resolution expresses our 
commitment to supporting our veterans' needs. We must honor the 
sacrifices that our veterans have made for this Nation. We must provide 
for them from the moment they get home to their families.
  I believe this war is more wrong today than ever before. We must 
stand forcefully for what is right, for our troops, for the victims of 
this war, and for the priorities we are neglecting at home.
  Let this body send the world a powerful message that the United 
States is changing course in Iraq. We must end this war.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise for the second time during this 36-hour marathon to strongly 
oppose this, I almost want to say, meaningless resolution, Mr. Speaker. 
But make no mistake about it, this is not a meaningless resolution. The 
consequences of failure in Iraq are drastic, and let me just read to 
you what some of those are.
  Number one, collapse of a democratic Iraqi government, likely, very 
likely leading to mass killings and genocide in the nation.
  Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would use this defeat to boost 
recruitment. They would use Iraq as a staging ground for deadly attacks 
paid for with Iraqi oil revenue.
  Iran and Syria would exert tremendous influence over the region. You 
think they are bad actors now, you just wait until this scenario plays 
out. And, indeed, and they have said that Israel would be pushed into 
the sea.
  Mr. Speaker, the real Democratic plan is coming later. And if you 
don't believe me, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle just 
read a recent article this week in Roll Call. I am not going to stand 
up here and read it to the Members. You can read it.
  But the Progressive Caucus of the House Democratic Conference, the 
Out of Iraq Caucus of the House Democratic Conference, led by Ms. 
Woolsey and Ms. Waters, basically say that this is just the first step. 
They say that in this op ed article. This resolution is not 
meaningless. It is the first step, my colleagues, toward cutting off 
funding for the troops and pulling the rug out from under them.
  What does this say then to our brave fighting men and women who are 
trying to defend this country? We have heard over and over again from 
the other side that, ``Look, we can't afford this war anymore. It is 
costing too much in lives and money. We are making too big a commitment 
there, and

[[Page 4480]]

we need to bring our troops home because some other conflict may break 
out in this world.''
  Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues. What is more important 
than the current war? What indeed are we going to save our troops for? 
Working the rope lines at 4th of July parades, helping senior citizens 
cross the street? We have got to stop this and stop it now.
  And listen to what the terrorists themselves say about the message 
that that would send. And this is a quote, Mr. Speaker, from bin Laden 
himself: ``Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and I am 
confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called 
superpower that is America.''
  His top deputy, bin Laden's deputy Zawahiri, says, ``The Jihad in 
Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the 
Americans from Iraq.''
  Make no mistake about this. What we are doing with this resolution is 
not a salute to GI Joe, it is a capitulation to Jihadist Joe.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend from California, the gentleman who is also the chairman of the 
Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I thank him for all of his hard work in struggling on this issue 
and our troops and force strength, Mr. Speaker.
  But I rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution regarding 
the Iraq war. I rise in strong support to this resolution to say to the 
President, no more. I rise in strong support of this resolution to say 
to the President, your policy is wrong. Yes, you have tried the surge 
before, and the surge has not brought peace to Iraq. It has not brought 
an end to the insurgency. It has not brought an end to the sectarian 
war that is going on in that country every day.
  Yes, this is the fourth time that the President tried this policy, 
and it has not worked in any of those times. When we pass this 
bipartisan resolution, the President should pause. Because, at that 
moment, the President will not have the support of the United States 
House of Representatives; and, at that moment, the President will not 
have the superintendent of the people of the United States.
  The President better think long and hard about he really believes 
that he should commit these troops, and continue to commit these 
troops, without the authority of the people, without the authority of 
this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, American men and women have been 
fighting in Iraq, and they will soon begin their fifth year. In 5 
years, they have done all that we have asked them. But what we have 
asked them to do cannot be accomplished by the military.
  We have known for some time that Iraq now requires a political 
solution, and it requires the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, the 
Iraqi society and the communities to take hold of their country and to 
decide whether they want a future of continued sectarian violence or 
whether they want an orderly society. They must make that decision.
  The President has had it wrong for many, many months, for many years. 
He has continued to say that, as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand 
down. Mr. President, you have it wrong. As we begin to stand down, they 
will begin to stand up.
  The fact that our military troops are on the streets of Baghdad and 
Anwar Province and elsewhere enables people to continue a level of 
violence that randomly and wantonly takes the lives of men, women and 
children, innocent bystanders, for almost no good reason at all, no 
good reason at all. It allows that to continue because each knows, if 
it gets out of control, the American troops will ride to the rescue, 
the helicopters will come, and the missiles will fly. We are the 
enablers of the continuation of this violence.
  Once they have to take responsibility for their actions, once we 
leave, this is no longer an insurgency. This is crime on crime, Iraqi 
against Iraqi. Somebody has got to take the responsibility for that, 
and that will not be us. We will not be able to bring it to an end. The 
Iraqi government will be.
  The time has come for our troops to leave. The time has come for us 
to understand that we cannot cure what is wrong in Iraq.
  But for these troops that are there and for the troops that are being 
sent in spite of the will of the American people and the will of the 
Congress, we ought to understand that they should be fully equipped. We 
should not repeat the history of this administration in this deployment 
where men and women were sent into the theater without proper vehicle 
armor, without proper body armor, without proper interpreters and 
without proper training.
  Many Members have come to this floor for many hours now and said, 
what is the message you are sending to your troops?
  What was the message the Congress is sending?
  What was the message this Congress sent to the troops when the 
President allowed them to go to war without enough troops to secure the 
peace?
  What was the message this Congress sent when it allowed the troops to 
go to combat without proper vehicle armor?
  What was the message that the Congress sent when it allowed our 
troops to go into combat without proper protective armor?
  What was the message this Congress sent to the troops when it allowed 
this President to continue this failed course with no adjustment over 
the past 4 years?
  And what was the message that we sent to the troops when it allowed 
the President to effectively draft American volunteers by continuing 
their tours, shortening their time at home, shortening their time with 
their families and sending them back without proper training, shortened 
training and without proper equipment?
  We cannot do that to the troops. The message of this resolution is we 
are not going to do that. We are not going to do that. We will make a 
pledge to you that we will not let you fight and die forever with no 
plan to get you out, with no exit plan for you, with no change in the 
policy that has led tragically to so many deaths and so many wounded.
  That is what this resolution is about. That is the message we must 
send to the troops, and that is the message we must send to the Iraqi 
people, that they must take responsibility.
  This surge is not an election-day surge. This isn't a constitutional-
day surge. This is a surge for the purpose, this is an escalation for 
the purposes of door-to-door combat, street by street, block by block, 
house by house.
  Yet today we see General Schoomaker saying in the paper that these 
troops that are getting engaged in this up-close battle in the midst of 
the Iraqi people will not have enough interpreters. They will not have 
civil affairs soldiers. They will not have enough translators. So now 
we are putting them again where they are at greatest risk, and this 
Congress is agreeing to go forward and repeat history and put them at 
risk when it is not necessary.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. We have been discussing this 
now for days here in the House, but I want to tell you that I am 
opposed to this resolution, because it doesn't do anything.
  I want to see our troops home, and I want to see our troops safe. I 
would venture to say that, with the exception of, maybe, Mr. Murtha, I 
have seen and visited more wounded troops, soldiers and Marines at our 
military hospitals than anybody in this Chamber; and I don't want them 
to be in harm's way any longer.
  The problem is, I have strong recollections of September 11; and even 
before September 11, I remember the bombing of the USS Cole where our 
military, our sailors were killed and wounded. I remember the bombings 
of

[[Page 4481]]

the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I remember the bombings 
of the Khobar Towers, where American airmen were housed in Saudi 
Arabia. I remember the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. I 
remember the hostages taken by terrorists and held for 444 days in 
Iran.
  I remember all of that, but what I remember, that I will never, ever 
get out of my mind, is September 11, being on the highway immediately 
next to the Pentagon when the airplane hit the Pentagon and killed many 
of our friends and colleagues.
  I remember going to Ground Zero just a few days after September 11 to 
deliver satellite telephones to the police and the firefighters because 
their existing communications didn't work due to all of the confusion, 
because of the disruption to the communications lines.
  I remember the smoke was still rising, the dust was still flying.
  I remember the American people demanded that something be done. They 
were tired of us being subjected to terrorist attacks, Americans being 
killed, and nothing being done about it.
  The American people demanded that something be done, and they 
demanded through our Congress that something be done. The President was 
under this pressure and demanded that something be done. Congress 
debated then and two-thirds of the Members who were here at the time 
voted to give the President legal, lawful authority to do whatever had 
to be done.
  This Congress should be prepared to do whatever has to be done to 
eliminate the terrorist threat. I don't care whether it is in Iraq, 
whether it is in Afghanistan, whether it is in Somalia, whether it is 
in Mogadishu, wherever it is, we have got to protect Americans from the 
threat of terrorism and from terrorist attacks; and we need to support 
our troops who are out there on the front line making sure that we at 
home are being protected.
  Now these soldiers have been promised by the Commander in Chief that 
they are going to have some reinforcements, that they are going to have 
some help to fight this fight, the aggressive fight that is now finally 
taking place. The Maliki government was finally pressured to allow us 
to attack the targets that were real targets, to allow us to attack 
whether they were politically harmful to the Maliki government or not.
  What about the soldiers in the field who were expecting that they 
would get some reinforcements and that maybe, with those 
reinforcements, they might get an extra night's sleep?
  What about the soldier who had hoped that reinforcements would allow 
him or her to sit down to a hot lunch, rather than having to grab an 
MRE and eat that MRE on the run?
  What about the soldiers in the field who hoped that reinforcements 
would allow them to find time to read their mail or send a letter to 
their loved ones back home?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. If this House is serious about 
Congress bringing home our troops, then do it right. This resolution 
doesn't bring any troops home. It doesn't provide any safety or 
security for our troops. It doesn't provide anything to help with the 
mission in the global war on terror.
  If you want to do it right, bring a resolution out here to the floor 
that does it right, that brings them home, that stops whatever it is 
that we are doing there in Iraq.
  But, if you know anything about what our military troops are doing, 
you know that once you get into a battle, once you get into a fight, it 
is easy to get into a war. You can almost slip into it without 
recognizing you are getting into it. But once you are in the fight, 
getting out is not easy.
  Once you are in the battle, you have several options. You win or you 
lose or you surrender or you retreat or you negotiate. Who do we 
negotiate with? Negotiating would be nice if we could end this by 
negotiations. Who do you negotiate with? You can't even find Bin Laden, 
if, in fact, he is alive.
  The problem here is, once you get into the fight, which we did with 
the support of the American people and with the support of this 
Congress, once you get into the fight, it is just not that easy to get 
out of it unless you win or you lose. Winning is better than losing.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, today is, indeed, a day for thoughtfulness 
and courage in this House. As we debate the future of our involvement 
in Iraq, we must not forget that our troops are engaged in armed 
conflict a half a world away. It is their future and their sacrifice 
which necessitated this debate today.
  Now is the time when this hallowed institution must dig deeply within 
its own conscience and rise above the politics and the platitudes which 
have plagued us for far too long. The American people and our troops 
demand and expect no less of us. Yet no simple solutions face us.
  Let's look first at the decisions we have made.
  We were advised that the conflict in Iraq would require more troops, 
a longer engagement, and an exit strategy. We did not heed that advice, 
and now we face an escalating insurgency and civil war.
  We were told the cost was $50 billion. We were wrong. It cost more 
than $380 billion and climbing fast, and we have not been good stewards 
of the taxpayer money, as there has been much corruption and waste in 
our spending.
  We were told of eminent success in Afghanistan, and we pulled out our 
troops in order to provide an earlier surge in Iraq. We were wrong, and 
we have seen a rise in violence in both countries.
  We must break this pattern. We can ill afford any further 
misjudgments, because it is our obligation in this deliberative body to 
consider every option available.
  We stand here today to engage in the first substantive discussion of 
the policies we need to implement in order to succeed in Iraq and bring 
our troops home. It is abundantly clear that Iraq has been and remains 
deeply embedded in the conscience of the American people. As this world 
watches, we must demonstrate from the well of this House that democracy 
flourishes only when honest and open debate occurs.
  In this difficult decision, I believe this body has two primary 
obligations to the American people: one, to fully support our troops 
with resources they need in order to accomplish the missions they are 
assigned; and, two, to ensure full accountability for the vital 
resources that we have sent to Iraq. This House has neglected both of 
these obligations for too long, and it is time for us to exercise our 
responsibilities on behalf of our troops, the American people, and the 
world.
  I stand here today in opposition to the proposed troop surge. We all 
agree that cutting off funding for our troops currently serving in Iraq 
is an untenable option that will send the wrong message to our partners 
and our enemies alike.

                              {time}  1145

  I will never vote to leave our troops stranded. But the question 
facing us now is, how can we vote to put upwards of 20,000 additional 
troops in harm's way without adequate resources and without a clear and 
detailed plan?
  Because I stand in support of our troops, I cannot support this 
proposed surge. It is clear that the burden of our Nation's current 
struggle continues to rest with the brave men and women in our armed 
services.
  It is no longer fair to our troops to rubber-stamp this war. I want 
them to know that we were deliberative in our decision. I fear this 
surge will not by itself be sufficient today. It is time for Members of 
both parties to listen to the experts for whose opinion we have asked, 
yet have ignored: our military leaders past and present, the bipartisan 
members of the Iraq Study Group, and soldiers returning from Iraq.
  It is time for a strategic change in course in Iraq, one including 
diplomacy and education and an honest reconstruction effort. These 
actions partnered with the actions of the military will show our 
dedication to improving the lives of all Iraqis in making their nation 
one of peace, freedom, and democracy.

[[Page 4482]]

  I am not here today to criticize the President or to engage in 
partisan grandstanding. This war is not a partisan issue. I have no 
doubt that one day the actions of our Nation will help bring peace and 
democracy to the Middle East. However, the strategy we are here to 
debate today remains flawed. Too many questions remain unanswered. 
While my loyalty to and my confidence in our troops remains steadfast, 
this Congress and this Nation must today seek a new direction.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I support the troops wholeheartedly and 
without reservation, but I cannot support a resolution that simply 
opposes a new strategy without offering an alternative plan to win. 
There is too much at stake.
  Many of you know that I was a cop in the Seattle area for 33 years. I 
was the sheriff for 8 years. And as the sheriff I had an opportunity to 
attend a remarkable ceremony. Every year a group of naturalized 
American citizens gathered to remember the circumstances of their 
arrival in the United States.
  The group is comprised of police officers from Vietnam, men that 
fought side by the side with our American soldiers. These Vietnamese 
officers assumed the greatest risks, risking their lives and 
endangering their families, to join the United States in their fight 
for freedom.
  When the United States pulled out of Vietnam, there were dire 
consequences for these brave men who risked everything to fight for the 
United States. The officers were rounded up. Some were imprisoned for 
15 years or more and some were executed.
  Those who managed to flee and escape death made their way to the 
United States. They left everything in Vietnam, and made new lives in 
the United States. And they were able to enjoy the freedoms that they 
had fought for, but not in the country that they had hoped for.
  Let me just take a moment to set the stage for this ceremony. As the 
sheriff, I sat down at a round table with many of these Vietnamese 
soldiers and police officers. They came in their uniforms that they 
brought along with them, those that were able to escape, those that 
spent 15 to 17 years in a prison camp where they were beaten, where 
they were tortured, where they lost their freedom. They lost their 
dignity, but they never gave up hope.
  When they came here to the United States of America and they come 
together on this evening to celebrate their freedom, and the American 
flag is brought into that room, those men stand at attention and they 
salute. But you know what else they do? They cry. When the American 
flag is brought in, they cry because they lost their freedom. But now 
they know what it is like to have it back. It is a dramatic scene.
  If we leave too soon in Iraq, what happened to these Vietnamese 
officers could certainly happen to those Iraqi soldiers who bravely 
fought side by side with our troops today. I don't use this example as 
a way of comparing this conflict with Vietnam, as some have done. I 
believe that the two wars are very different. I use it because it could 
happen again.
  I never want to attend an event where former Iraqi soldiers are 
attending a similar ceremony. The fact is that we are engaged in a 
global war with people intent on killing us, killing Americans. And 
regardless of how we got into Iraq, Iraq is now the central front of 
this war.
  I understand that there are many who think we should not have entered 
Iraq. We now know there was faulty intelligence that led us into Iraq 
and to make that decision. But the war is upon us nonetheless. I am 
elected to deal with what is happening now.
  The consequences of declaring an end to the war in Iraq without 
victory would be felt for decades. Our enemies around the world would 
be emboldened. Iran and al Qaeda would declare victory. Our allies in 
Iraq would certainly face bloodshed and our allies around the world 
would question our resolve to help protect them.
  Our troops are clear about their dedication to their mission; they 
want to succeed. American soldiers dutifully responded when we asked 
them to go to Iraq and oust a dictator, establish an infrastructure, 
and train the Iraqis so that they are able to protect themselves.
  Now we must do what the troops have asked of us. They have given us 
their service, and in too many cases they have given us their lives. We 
must give them the opportunity for victory.
  Our current strategy in Iraq is failing. And yet failure is not an 
option, not only for the United States' security, but also for the 
security of the Iraqi soldiers and police officers that still fight 
today, side by side with our troops.
  In November the American people told us that they wanted a new 
strategy, not because they wanted to lose, but because they want to 
win. And now we have a new strategy before us. Is this new plan going 
to work? I don't know. No one in this body that will vote on this 
resolution, this nonbinding resolution, knows whether or not this plan 
will work.
  But what I do know is that we first must find a way to achieve 
victory. And simply saying ``no'' to a plan without offering an 
alternative won't work, and it sends a terrible message to our enemies 
and to our soldiers. This is an historic war. America is engaged in a 
war for our freedom on a scale that we have never experienced before.
  I understand the dissension, the questions, and the uncertainty. I 
understand the cost is high and the way is unclear. As a cop, I have 
lost partners, I have lost friends in the line of duty. I know the pain 
that causes. I understand the loss. It is sad. It is tragic, and you 
never forget. But we must remain focused, ladies and gentlemen. Please 
don't let those sacrifices be in vain.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution 
and let us send a message to our enemies and our troops alike, we will 
always support our young men and women who put their lives on the line 
for freedom and that we will give them what it takes to succeed in the 
missions that we have given them.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes 
to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, our brave men and women in Iraq have answered 
every call, accomplished every task, won every battle. Our brave men 
and women in Iraq have fought valiantly. They have executed their 
mission with quiet dignity and with honor that is worthy of our praise.
  In looking back at all that our military has done, there has been no 
task that these brave men and women have not accomplished. They have 
risen to every occasion. However, we are not here today just to applaud 
our troops' performance. We are here today to ask if the surge 
direction that the President is taking us is the right direction for 
these brave troops. Is it the right direction for our country, and is 
it the right direction for the people of Iraq? The answer is 
unequivocally ``no.''
  For the last 4 years of this conflict, the President has relied on 
the judgment of his military to execute this war and to follow their 
advice. Now at this critical hour, he has chosen to ignore their 
expertise and advice. The Joint Chiefs have unanimously disagreed with 
the surge.
  General James Conway, commander of the Marine Corps, is quoted as 
saying, ``We do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of 
adding numbers, just thickening the mix, is necessarily the way to 
go.''
  General John Abizaid has met with every divisional commander and 
asked, ``If we were to bring more American troops now, does it add 
considerably to our ability to achieve success?'' They all said ``no.''
  General Colin Powell has said the surge will not work. General Wesley 
Clark, Ambassador Holbrooke, Oliver North, Michael Vicker, Lawrence 
Corb, Richard Haas, have all said the surge will not work. And the list 
goes on and on and on.
  Why does the President, Mr. Speaker, choose to ignore expert after 
expert,

[[Page 4483]]

soldier after soldier, who say the surge will not work? Even General 
Petraeus has said, and I quote, ``The way ahead will be neither quick 
nor easy, and undoubtedly there will be tough days. We have a 
determined, adaptive barbaric enemy. He will try to wait us out. Any 
such endeavor is a test of wills and there are no guarantees.''
  Mr. Speaker, former Secretary of State James Baker has said, ``There 
is no magic bullet to solve the problem of Iraq. No single answer. No 
quick fix.'' From this microphone over the last 2 days, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have tried to frame this debate about 
success and failure in Iraq.
  That debate is for another day. Today and tomorrow, the debate is 
about the wisdom or the lack of wisdom for the surge. The President and 
the members of his party today need to listen to the experts who they 
have relied upon in the past. To do otherwise, casts doubts about who 
the President is listening to.
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that this surge in the troops is the 
wrong policy at the wrong time, in the wrong war. The actions that need 
to be taken to help the Iraqi people and ultimately bring our brave men 
and women home safely is not as simple as rushing more troops to the 
front lines.
  Mr. Speaker, a while ago I heard my good friend and colleague from 
Indiana speak about how the Iraq Study Group actually said that a surge 
is something that probably is necessary.
  But there is more to the story than just a military surge. They also 
recommended that there has to be economic surge, and diplomatic surges, 
not just military. I talked to one of the Iraq study members just 
yesterday, who told me that a military surge by itself will not work.
  The military has done all it can do, and they have done it very well. 
Now is the time to move in a different direction, Mr. Speaker. Vote for 
this resolution. Vote ``no'' to the surge.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
pretend, fake, disingenuous, cruel-to-the-troops resolution. It is 
impossible, despite what the Democrats have claimed, to both support 
the troops and not support the increase in troops necessary to win the 
war.
  With this nonbinding, fake, pretend resolution, Democrats maintain 
they support the troops but at the same time disapprove of their 
mission. This confusing message simply lends encouragement to the Iraqi 
insurgents and terrorists to believe that every roadside bomb brings 
them closer to their goal of a terrorist state in the heart of the 
Mideast.

                              {time}  1200

  The simple fact is the deployment of troops to secure Baghdad has 
already begun. In fact, soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division, who 
were deployed after President Bush's call for a temporary increase in 
troops, are already in Iraq doing critical work with the Iraqi Security 
Forces.
  The passage of this misguided, pretend resolution does nothing except 
demoralize these brave men and women in uniform and invigorate those 
who wish America great harm.
  The consequences of failure in Iraq could not be greater. The outcome 
in Iraq will directly affect America's efforts in the global war on 
terrorism for many generations. A victory for the Islamic militants, 
such as the al Qaeda members who are embedded in the Anbar Province in 
Iraq and the Iranians in Iraq who are provoking sectarian violence, 
would embolden the enemy to expand the reach of their efforts. Retreat 
would result in instability in the region, encourage radical Islamic 
terrorists and rogue regimes to expand into the region, and give 
terrorists a sanctuary from which to launch attacks against the U.S. 
and the West.
  The bipartisan Iraqi Study Group, a bipartisan group, recognized the 
need of a troop surge to secure Iraq. To this end, I submit page 27 
through 29 and page 73 of the Iraqi Study Group report for the Record 
on this issue to highlight the grave humanitarian consequences of a 
withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq.
  I am tired of hearing Democrats constantly criticize our plans for 
Iraq, yet they do not have a plan of their own. It is a shame that they 
have chosen to play politics with the men and women in uniform in Iraq. 
Democrats now have the responsibility to govern, but they lack both a 
plan for success in Iraq and the political will to advance a bill that 
cuts off funds for our troops.
  They say that the problems in Iraq can only be solved by a political 
solution. While this is true to some extent, you cannot solve the 
problems in Iraq diplomatically and politically without first providing 
security to the Iraqi people. Security must go hand in hand with the 
political solution.
  Democrats need to understand that their political choices and 
rhetoric hurt our troops and morale and give comfort, great comfort, to 
our enemy.
  We also agree that this is a time for Iraqis to step forward and end 
sectarian violence and build a responsible government. Iraqi Prime 
Minister Maliki has promised the American people that in this new 
campaign Iraqi troops will be the ones knocking down doors, arresting 
insurgents and patrolling streets, with U.S. troops in a supporting 
role. We cannot give up at a critical point in Iraq's fledgling 
democracy.
  Failure in Iraq is not an option. If we do not win in Iraq, we leave 
it up to our future generations to tackle the problems of Islamic 
terrorism in an unstable region. There is no short-term solution in 
Iraq because there is not a short-term problem.
  Today, our brave men and women in Iraq are rising to the challenge to 
secure Baghdad. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-
timed resolution.

                                Page 27

       The United Kingdom has dedicated an extraordinary amount of 
     resources to Iraq and has made great sacrifices. In addition 
     to 7,200 troops, the United Kingdom has a substantial 
     diplomatic presence, particularly in Basra and the Iraqi 
     southeast. The United Kingdom has been an active and key 
     player at every stage of Iraq's political development. U.K. 
     officials told us that they remain committed to working for 
     stability in Iraq, and will reduce their commitment of troops 
     and resources in response to the situation on the ground.


                             5. Conclusions

       The United States has made a massive commitment to the 
     future of Iraq in both blood and treasure. As of December 
     2006, nearly 2,900 Americans have lost their lives serving in 
     Iraq. Another 21,000 Americans have been wounded, many 
     severely.
       To date, the United States has spent roughly $400 billion 
     on the Iraq War, and costs are running about $8 billion per 
     month. In addition, the United States must expect significant 
     ``tail costs'' to come. Caring for veterans and replacing 
     lost equipment will run into the hundreds of billions of 
     dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final 
     cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
       Despite a massive effort, stability in Iraq remains elusive 
     and the situation is deteriorating. The Iraqi government 
     cannot now govern, sustain, and defend itself without the 
     support of the United States. Iraqis have not been convinced 
     that they must take responsibility for their own future. 
     Iraq's neighbors and much of the international community have 
     not been persuaded to play an active and constructive role in 
     supporting Iraq. The ability of the United States to shape 
     outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out.

              B. Consequences of Continued Decline in Iraq

       If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the 
     consequences could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the 
     region, and the world.

                                Page 28

       Continuing violence could lead toward greater chaos, and 
     inflict greater suffering upon the Iraqi people. A collapse 
     of Iraq's government and economy would further cripple a 
     country already unable to meet its people's needs. Iraq's 
     security forces could split along sectarian lines. A 
     humanitarian catastrophe could follow as more refugees are 
     forced to relocate across the country and the region. Ethnic 
     cleansing could escalate. The Iraqi people could be subjected 
     to another strongman who flexes the political and military 
     muscle required to impose order amid anarchy. Freedoms could 
     be lost.
       Other countries in the region fear significant violence 
     crossing their borders. Chaos in Iraq could lead those 
     countries to intervene to protect their own interests, 
     thereby perhaps sparking a broader regional war. Turkey could 
     send troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from 
     declaring independence. Iran could send in troops to restore 
     stability in southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oil 
     fields. The regional influence of Iran could rise at a time 
     when that

[[Page 4484]]

     country is on a path to producing nuclear weapons.
       Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they 
     fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes across 
     the Islamic world. Many expressed a fear of Shia 
     insurrections--perhaps fomented by Iran--in Sunni-ruled 
     states. Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a 
     Pandora's box of problems--including the radicalization of 
     populations, mass movements of populations, and regime 
     changes--that might take decades to play out. If the 
     instability in Iraq spreads to the other Gulf States, a drop 
     in oil production and exports could lead to a sharp increase 
     in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy.
       Terrorism could grow. As one Iraqi official told us, ``Al 
     Qaeda is now a franchise in Iraq, like McDonald's.'' Left 
     unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence 
     between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still 
     stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act 
     regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda will portray any 
     failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory 
     that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their 
     cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, 
     deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al 
     Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread 
     ``the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' 
     A senior European official told us that failure in Iraq could 
     incite terrorist attacks within his country.
       The global standing of the United States could suffer if 
     Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, 
     and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial 
     capacities. Perceived failure there could diminish America's 
     credibility and influence in a region that is the center of 
     the Islamic world and vital to the world's energy supply. 
     This loss would reduce America's global influence at a time 
     when pressing issues in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere 
     demand our full attention and strong U.S. leadership of 
     international alliances. And the longer that U.S. political 
     and military resources are tied down in Iraq, the more the 
     chances for American failure in Afghanistan increase.
       Continued problems in Iraq could lead to greater 
     polarization within the United States. Sixty-six percent of 
     Americans disapprove of the government's handling of the war, 
     and more than 60 percent feel that there is no clear plan for 
     moving forward. The November elections were largely viewed as 
     a referendum on the progress in Iraq. Arguments about 
     continuing to provide security and assistance to Iraq will 
     fall on deaf ears if Americans become disillusioned with the 
     government that the United States invested so much to create. 
     U.S. foreign policy cannot be successfully sustained without 
     the broad support of the American people.

                                Page 29

       Continued problems in Iraq could also lead to greater Iraqi 
     opposition to the United States. Recent polling indicates 
     that only 36 percent of Iraqis feel their country is heading 
     in the right direction, and 79 percent of Iraqis have a 
     ``mostly negative'' view of the influence that the United 
     States has in their country. Sixty-one percent of Iraqis 
     approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces. If Iraqis continue to 
     perceive Americans as representing an occupying force, the 
     United States could become its own worst enemy in a land it 
     liberated from tyranny.
       These and other predictions of dire consequences in Iraq 
     and the region are by no means a certainty. Iraq has taken 
     several positive steps since Saddam Hussein was overthrown: 
     Iraqis restored full sovereignty, conducted open national 
     elections, drafted a permanent constitution, ratified that 
     constitution, and elected a new government pursuant to that 
     constitution. Iraqis may become so sobered by the prospect of 
     an unfolding civil war and intervention by their regional 
     neighbors that they take the steps necessary to avert 
     catastrophe. But at the moment, such a scenario seems 
     implausible because the Iraqi people and their leaders have 
     been slow to demonstrate the capacity or will to act.

                  C. Some Alternative Courses in Iraq

       Because of the gravity of the situation in Iraq and of its 
     consequences for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the 
     world, the Iraq Study Group has carefully considered the full 
     range of alternative approaches for moving forward. We 
     recognize that there is no perfect solution and that all that 
     have been suggested have flaws. The following are some of the 
     more notable possibilities that we have considered.

                                Page 73


                    The Way Forward--A New Approach

       Deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria 
     and Iran.
       Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security 
     goals and to our ongoing fight against al Qaeda, we 
     considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 
     to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected 
     this course because we do not believe that the needed levels 
     are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding 
     more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects 
     of the security problem that are fed by the view that the 
     U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term ``occupation.'' 
     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.
       We believe that our recommended actions will give the Iraqi 
     Army the support it needs to have a reasonable chance to take 
     responsibility for Iraq's security. Given the ongoing 
     deterioration in the security situation, it is urgent to move 
     as quickly as possible to have that security role taken over 
     by Iraqi security forces.
       The United States should not make an open-ended commitment 
     to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq for 
     three compelling reasons.
       First, and most importantly, the United States faces other 
     security dangers in the world, and a continuing Iraqi 
     commitment of American ground forces at present levels will 
     leave no reserve available to meet other contingencies. On 
     September . . .

  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to now yield 5 
minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, like most Members of 
Congress, I have visited our men and women in uniform in Iraq. I have 
visited our wounded in the hospital at Ramstein Air Force Base in 
Germany and at the hospital in Balad Air Base in Iraq; and I have 
offered my condolences to grieving families who have lost loved ones in 
Iraq. I respect and appreciate our men and women in uniform in Iraq. 
They have served nobly, and they deserve our prayers.
  Mr. Speaker, they have done their duty, and now we must do our duty. 
Our duty to the Constitution, our duty to our country, our duty to our 
men and women in uniform is to look with clear eyes at the facts and to 
exercise independent judgment.
  For 4 years, this Congress has failed in that duty. For 4 years, this 
Congress has passed one resolution after another, offering uncritical 
support for the President's policies in Iraq.
  In June, Congress passed a resolution finding that we were well along 
the path to a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq and the Iraqi 
Security Forces were operating independently of our forces and were 
increasingly leading the fight to secure Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what Republicans did when they were in the 
majority. They played make believe.
  Americans knew better then, and we certainly know better down. The 
Iraqi Study Group report, just a couple of months ago, described the 
situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. The most recent National 
Intelligence Estimate, just a week ago, described the situation in even 
starker terms, ``The violence is now feeding on itself, and it is too 
complex to be called simply a civil war.'' The estimate concluded that 
all of the likely outcomes are grim.
  For 4 years, patriotic Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
have anguished over events in Iraq and have given deep and prayerful 
thought to alternatives, but the Bush Administration dismissed and 
insulted dissenters and often made fierce attempts to discredit them.
  Not even General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, or James 
Baker, Secretary of State for the first President Bush, was spared; and 
the Bush administration has treated criticism by Members of Congress as 
meddling, as sticking our nose in their war.
  House Democrats have offered plan after plan to alter our course in 
Iraq, and House Republicans have greeted every plan with strident 
attack.
  Let's consider the new plan that President Bush has proposed.
  The force initially committed to Iraq was well short of what General 
Shinseki said would be required to secure the country. When I visited 
Iraq 3 years ago, the presence of our forces in Baghdad may not have 
been enough to secure order, but it was more than enough to remind 
every Iraqi every day that there was a foreign army on their soil.
  When I visited Iraq a year and a half ago, our military forces in 
Baghdad were less noticeable. Our briefing officer explained that we 
had deliberately

[[Page 4485]]

reduced our footprint to lessen the resentment of Iraqis so that Iraqis 
would come into daily contact with Iraqi security forces, not our men 
and women. But the violence only increased.
  We tried twice last year to reduce the violence by increasing Iraqi 
and American forces in Baghdad. The Iraqi forces didn't show up, and 
twice the effort failed, and violence has continued to increase.
  Now we are trying it again and calling it a new plan: Less troops, 
more troops, less troops, more troops. House Republicans are playing 
make believe again to call that a new plan.
  The apocalyptic violence in Iraq will not be solved militarily. 
Congressman David Price and I introduced a resolution setting forth a 
comprehensive plan which Mr. Price described here the other day. We 
need to engage Iraq's neighbors through regional diplomacy to provide 
economic assistance, conditioned on a genuine attempt at national 
reconciliation, and to begin a phased withdrawal of our troops. Our 
plan includes many of the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group.
  The Iraq Study Group report was right: No path is certain of success. 
And after 4 years of failed policy, all of our options are grim. But 
the resolution we will vote on shortly is a first step toward doing our 
duty by looking realistically at events in Iraq and by forcing us to 
consider what our options really are.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, can you advise us as to how much 
time is remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from New York has 
16\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, Judge Poe.
  Mr. POE. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the narrow issue is: More troops to the front, or not? 
Many here say ``no more troops,'' but what are the consequences for the 
troops on the ground without more aid? What will happen in and around 
Baghdad where those troops are supposed to be sent? Their mission there 
will be more difficult without more troops.
  Does this Congress want to tell our troops on the ground, do your job 
with less, even though we have it in our power to send you aid?
  Mr. Speaker, 171 years ago this month, a somewhat similar call for 
aid was made; and it, too, was refused.
  In an old, beat-up Spanish mission in central Texas, Bexar, Texas, to 
be exact, 187 men from every State in the United States, 13 foreign 
countries, including Mexico, found themselves in a precarious 
situation. They were behind the walls facing an enemy. They needed 
help.
  Texas politicians, even so-called military experts, had it within 
their power to send more troops. And for all the similar reasons that 
are mentioned here, including the troops shouldn't even be in the 
mission and the plan was a bad idea from its inception, this plan is 
not working, your troops there should even leave, similar reasons we 
hear today, no help was sent.
  The place, Mr. Speaker, was the Alamo, and the time was February 24, 
1836. And behind the cold, damp walls of the Alamo, by candlelight, a 
27-year-old lawyer, commander by the name of William Barrett Travis, 
wrote this letter. I read it today:
  ``To the people of Texas and all Americans in the world, fellow 
citizens and compatriots, I am besieged by a thousand or more of the 
enemy under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and 
cannon fire for over 24 hours, but I have not lost a man.
  ``The flag still waves proudly over the north wall. The enemy has 
demanded surrender at its discretion. Otherwise, this fort will be put 
to the sword. I have answered that demand with a cannon shot. I shall 
never surrender or retreat.
  ``I call upon you, in the name of liberty and patriotism and 
everything dear to the American character, to come to my aid with all 
dispatch. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself 
for as long as possible, die like a soldier who never forgets what is 
due his honor and that of his country. Victory or death.''
  William Barrett Travis, Commander of the Alamo.
  Mr. Speaker, we know what happened at the Alamo. Those 187 men died 
because no help was sent. Later, Texans did provide troops and rallied 
and won independence from Mexico. But the answer then, as it has been 
in many wars in the past, is the answer now: More troops are necessary. 
We need to finish what we started. We need to do what it takes.
  Now, Baghdad will be no Alamo. We cannot lose in Baghdad. But this 
body has it in its power to prevent a victory in Baghdad and Iraq.
  So, Mr. Speaker, heed the warnings of the past, heed the history, and 
send aid with all dispatch.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House 
Resolution 157, and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand 
that the time for debate be enlarged by 1 hour, equally divided and 
controlled by the leaders or their designees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, that will be the order.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, before we respond to the 
President's call for an additional 20,000 troops in Iraq, we must put 
his call in the context of the history of the war, beginning with the 
discussion of what the current 130,000 troops are doing there now.
  The original reasons we were provided with the rationale for going to 
war, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraqi leaders were 
connected with the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq posed an imminent threat 
to the United States, all turned out not to be true. Saddam Hussein was 
captured and recently hanged, al-Zarqawi is dead, and Iraq held 
democratic elections over a year ago, and yet we are still in Iraq.
  Throughout the war, the President has attempted to associate our 
presence in Iraq with a so-called war on terrorism. The truth is that 
our presence in Iraq has actually increased our risk to terrorism.
  Furthermore, the term ``war on terrorism'' is a rhetorical term 
without any relationship to reality. Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a 
tactic. The enemy is al Qaeda. We attacked Afghanistan because al Qaeda 
was there, not in Iraq.
  The President is now saying he is laying out a new mission in Iraq, 
thereby clearly acknowledging that, whatever the old mission was, it 
was not working. But there is still no clearly defined end goal and no 
clearly defined explanation of how failure or success can be measured.
  If our mission now is to stabilize Baghdad, many military experts 
have already said that an additional force of 20,000 troops is woefully 
insufficient to accomplish that goal. The fact is that the 
administration has already increased troop levels on several occasions 
during this war. None of the previous surges in troop levels have had 
any lasting effect on the war, and there is no credible evidence to 
believe that this surge will be any different.
  And how can we have confidence in predictions of success? Before our 
invasion in Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld predicted that the war in Iraq 
would last ``6 days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' Vice President Cheney 
predicted we would be greeted as liberators.
  Almost 4 years ago, the President stood before a sign that said 
``Mission Accomplished'' and proclaimed major combat operations in Iraq 
have ended.

                              {time}  1215

  A year and a half ago Vice President Cheney said the Iraqis were ``in 
the last throes'' of the insurgency. And yet here we are discussing an 
increase, not a decrease, in troop levels.
  At the outset of this war, the administration predicted that the cost 
of the war would be so minuscule that it advised the House Committee on 
the Budget not even to include the cost of the war in the Federal 
budget. The administration official who suggested

[[Page 4486]]

that the cost of the war might exceed $100 billion was fired. To date 
we have appropriated nearly $400 billion, and the President has already 
formally requested another $200 billion more, with no end in sight.
  Over 3,100 courageous Americans and countless Iraqis have already 
lost their lives. How many more will die if this strategy falls as far 
from the predicted result as the original length of time and cost 
estimates of the war?
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as part of developing a mission and 
strategy, it is imperative that we ask where these additional troops 
are going to come from. Many will undoubtedly come from the National 
Guard and Reserves, but they have already been in Iraq for longer-than-
average deployments and many have already completed multiple tours of 
duty. Other troops must be redeployed from other assignments; so we 
must ask what moving these troops will mean to our global national 
security.
  Last November the American people sent a powerful message. They want 
a change in Iraq, not more of the same. They expect an honest 
explanation of why we entered Iraq in the first place, what the present 
situation is, what goal do we expect to achieve, and what the strategy 
will be to accomplish it. Only then can we intelligently discuss the 
troop levels necessary to accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, all we 
have gotten from this administration is essentially ``Don't worry, be 
happy, success is around the corner; and if you don't believe that, 
then you are not patriotic and you are not supporting the troops.''
  For my colleagues who say that failure is not an option, I ask what 
will happen if the President's so-called ``New Way Forward'' fails, as 
many experts predict it will? Are we then required to further escalate 
the war, further strain our military, sending thousands more of our 
troops to Iraq? How many more of our young men and women must die 
before the administration acknowledges what was in the National 
Intelligence Estimate? And I quote, ``The term `civil war' accurately 
describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict.'''
  Mr. Speaker, although the resolution before us is technically 
nonbinding, it gives the House an opportunity to call upon the 
President to work cooperatively with Congress to develop an effective 
strategy to bring our troops home. The American people and our 
courageous men and women on the front lines deserve a clearly 
articulated and sensible approach to ending the war. This resolution 
puts the House on record as saying that an escalation of military 
forces is a step in the wrong direction.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 5 minutes 
to the good gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the senior and 
esteemed leader, Mr. King from New York, for yielding to me.
  I want to start a point here, Mr. Speaker, that I would ask all 
Members to focus on to understand where we really sit in history, in 
this course of history. If you would go back to the most successful 
military known in history for the longest period of time, spanning 
centuries, it was the Roman legions. And the Romans had a statement 
called ``nosce hostem,'' which, of course, is Latin for ``know thine 
enemy.'' We need to do that here in this Congress. We are part of this 
effort, of course. Know thine enemy. Von Clausewitz wrote the book on 
war, his treatise on war, that everyone goes to because he boiled it 
down to understandable principles, certainly ``know thine enemy,'' but 
his point was the object of war is to destroy the enemy's will and 
ability to conduct war.
  Now, if you know your enemy and you are going to destroy their will 
and ability to conduct war, you wouldn't just go after their ability, 
you would go after their will as well. So that has been true throughout 
history. And if you were charged with the task of defeating the 
preeminent world's Superpower in, say, about the year 1963 under 
President Kennedy, ``How do you defeat undefeated America?'' was the 
question that was presented to the Vietnamese.
  Enter General Vo Nguyen Giap. He was the general that orchestrated 
the Vietnamese effort throughout the war in Vietnam. He certainly 
understood history. He understood the Roman legions. He understood 
nosce hostem. He also understood that you had to defeat the will and 
the ability of the United States if you were going to defeat them. He 
knew that he couldn't defeat our ability. He had to attack our will. 
And that is what happened.
  And he wrote the book. This is the primer, ``How Do You Defeat the 
United States of America?'' by General Vo Nguyen Giap. How We Won the 
War is the title of it. And in the primer he said, ``The beginning was 
when the United States failed to succeed in a complete victory in 
Korea, then we knew the will of the United States was weakened. On page 
18 he talks about how they went after the will of the United States 
through public opinion, how they supported it and encouraged the 
antiwar activists because they knew they couldn't win militarily. So 
their front on the war that had the greatest chance for success was 
with the will of the American people. Here is the primer.
  Our enemies read this primer, Mr. Speaker. They understand this. And 
one of our enemies over there is Moqtada al-Sadr, who laid it out for 
us when he said on June 11, 2004, and I saw this on al-Jazeera TV when 
I was in Kuwait, ``If we continue attacking Americans, they will leave 
Iraq the same way that they left Vietnam, the same way that they left 
Lebanon, the same way that they left Mogadishu.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is the message that his people heard. That is the 
message we should hear. I have heard it. I have put it on this floor 
many times. A couple nights ago I put Moqtada al-Sadr down here on the 
floor. In the night he went off to Iran to join up with the people who 
have been supporting him. He understands this.
  I will tell you this. If this resolution passes and if Mr. Murtha and 
the people who are working with him are successful in a slow bleed of 
our resources, then what you will see, Mr. Speaker, is you will see 
Osama bin Laden say, If we keep attacking America they will leave 
Afghanistan the same way they left Vietnam, Lebanon, Mogadishu, and 
Iraq. That is what is coming. That is what is being perpetrated by the 
rhetoric here on this floor. That is what is being staged in 
appropriations bills that we will certainly see coming after this 
resolution.
  The destiny of America is put at risk, Mr. Speaker, and this says to 
all of our enemies it is easy to take on the United States if you can 
just get Congress to lose their will, if you can get them to lose their 
spine.
  So I would then simply close with the reiteration of a request made 
from a major from Kentucky whom I met with in my last trip over there 
in Iraq. He loves his kids and his cows and he loves God and I know he 
speaks the truth. He said, ``We have everything we need. So when you 
pray for us, pray for the American people. Pray they understand the 
threat and pray they do not lose their resolve. We will not lose 
ours.''
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, America will hear 435 separate ideas about 
Iraq, but I want to note one great shining light about our country. The 
American people are absolutely unified, no matter what they think about 
the policy in Iraq, of holding American warriors and our sons and 
daughters close to our hearts. This is a unified position across this 
country, and it is a bright light for America.
  Now, I have heard some people have suggested that soldiers who fall 
in Iraq will have fallen in vain. That is wrong. Any American who falls 
in the course of the conduct of American wars, they do not fall in 
vain. They fall into our arms, and they fall into our hearts, and there 
they will always remain. And we are unified on this principle. And when 
I go to a memorial service for a young man from Redmond, Washington 
next

[[Page 4487]]

Monday, I will carry the unified American prayers and hearts of the 
650,000 people I represent.
  Now we are in a difficult situation in Iraq and none of us have a 
silver bullet, and none of us have a magic wand. And it seems to me 
that when we are in dark times, we should go back to fundamental 
American character to find a way forward.
  There are three parts of the American character we should think about 
here: first, the character of the American mission in Iraq; second, the 
character of American common sense; and, third, the character of 
American democracy.
  What is the character of our mission in Iraq? President Bush, when he 
started this war, said we have three missions:
  Eliminate WMD. Mission accomplished. They were never there.
  Second, eliminate any terrorist that attacked us on 9/11. Mission 
accomplished. They were never there.
  Third, eliminate Saddam Hussein as a threat. Mission accomplished. He 
is no longer a threat to anyone who walks the face of the Earth.
  Our proud men and women have fulfilled the three mandates of missions 
set forth by George Bush. And now we have one moral mission to 
complete, and that is the moral responsibility to give the Iraqis a 
reasonable chance to form a government. We have done that after 4 
years; and our investment of 3,000-plus lives and hundreds of billions 
of dollars of American money has fulfilled that moral obligation in 
spades.
  Second, what is the American character of common sense? Why did 
General Abizaid, when he asked all the divisional commanders whether 
this escalation would help and every single one of them say no, why is 
that? It is because they have common sense.
  I was on a walk a couple of months ago, and I met an old high school 
friend. His son was serving in Baghdad, and I asked him what he thought 
about Iraq. And he said, We have no common sense in our policy. He 
said, the fundamental problem in Iraq was that the Shiites were not 
agreeing with the Sunnis principally over oil revenues. And my son is 
serving in Baghdad today as a security blanket because the Iraqi 
politicians will not make the compromises necessary to form a 
government.
  That has to end. It is American common sense to understand the real 
enemy in Baghdad is sectarian intransigence. The real enemy in Baghdad 
is their failure to compromise. And the best weapon we have is a dose 
of reality to the Iraqi people of all sectarian faiths. You have to get 
a grip on your country because you will very shortly have your own fate 
in your own hands. The best weapon we have in Iraq is to tell the rest 
of the immediate region that they must become responsible for their own 
neighborhoods. That is the weapon of reality we should use.
  And, third, what is the character of American democracy? George Bush 
said that he was the decider. That is wrong. The decider is the 
American people. And the American people had a message to George Bush 
that there has to be a change in Iraq policy. And he is not listening 
to the generals, he is not listening to the bipartisan commission, and 
he is not listening to the American people.
  Congress has a responsibility coequal with the President under 
Article I of the Constitution to declare war, to raise and support 
armies, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and 
naval forces. It is time for Congress to stand up on our hind legs and 
take away the keys from the man who has driven our foreign policy into 
a ditch. It is time to restore the American mission to where it 
belongs, to American common sense where it belongs, and to American 
democracy where it belongs.
  Support this resolution. Prevent this escalation in Iraq.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 6 minutes 
to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has made 15 visits 
to Iraq.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 
thank you, Mr. Speaker, for conducting this debate.
  This debate has been constructive. I appreciate the thoughtful 
comments made on both sides. Speaking for the second time, I realize it 
may be tempting for some to support this resolution to somehow express 
our strong dissatisfaction with how the administration has conducted 
the war and to separate ourselves from an unpopular President.
  I do not believe, however, support of what is truly a ``stay the 
course,'' ``status quo resolution'' will be a constructive outcome of 
the debate. It sends the wrong message to our troops, to the Iraqis, to 
our allies throughout the world, and, in particular, to our enemies.
  Is it the American way to attack another country, disassemble its 
entire security forces--military, border patrol and police--and then 
leave before this broken country is capable to rebuild its security 
forces and stand on its own? The shame of this possibility haunts me.

                             {time}   1230

  And how can this resolution possibly help our troops on the 
battlefield who are there already who still have to carry out their 
mission?
  We, the Congress, are in effect telling our troops, we support you, 
but we do not want you to have the reinforcements you need to carry out 
your mission, and we do not trust the judgment of your new commanding 
officer, General David Petraeus. How destructive is that?
  Our troops deserve to know we have a plan to win. If we do not have a 
plan to win, we have a plan to leave. The resolution before the House 
neither helps us succeed nor gives us guidance on how to leave.
  It is so counterproductive for 535 Members of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate to micro-manage the war.
  It is the responsibility of the administration to conduct the war 
effort. It is Congress' responsibility to conduct tough oversight, 
holding the administration accountable for the implementation of the 
war.
  Having chaired 14 hearings on the operations in Iraq and been to Iraq 
15 times to conduct on-the-ground oversight, I will continue to ask the 
administration the difficult questions and provide my observations and 
recommendations.
  Regretfully, too few Members of Congress have fully considered the 
consequence of leaving Iraq prematurely. The Iraq Study Group warned, 
``If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequence 
could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region and the 
world.''
  The ultimate goal for me is to bring our troops home without leaving 
Iraq in chaos. This is achievable if Republicans and Democrats, the 
White House and Congress, agree on a bipartisan solution as outlined by 
this Study Group.
  Officially endorsing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and 
acting on them is the best way to make this happen.
  The only way I think we should leave Iraq is the same way we got into 
Iraq, together.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON. I certainly appreciate very much the gentleman yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as you would guess, I am an American, a very proud 
American. If I had selected my place of birth, I would have chosen the 
United States of America. It is just full of promise, full of 
democracy, full of patriotism.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the chorus of those who 
have said enough is enough. The President has had the chance to plead a 
case for victory in Iraq, but he has never clearly told us how or when 
we are going to get to this turning point and when we will be able to 
bring our soldiers home.
  Twenty-three thousand troops injured, over 3,100 dead and not enough 
armor to ensure that our healthy troops remain that way. I did not vote 
for the war, and I don't bemoan the fact that I did not. But I did say 
then, as I say now, that our soldiers did not

[[Page 4488]]

have enough armor nor equipment, and they did not have enough benefits 
at the time, and this Congress has turned some of that around.
  When we have soldiers on foreign soil depending on the kindness of 
strangers for the donation of armor and helmets because their President 
has failed to provide them with the life-saving tools after placing 
them in harm's way, we know something is not right. We have stretched 
ourselves too thin and used the awesome power of our military might in 
the wrong way.
  Mr. Speaker, our priorities are not straight. We have sent children 
into harm's way, and if the President had his way, we would send more 
recklessly into battle in Iraq without a clear exit plan or 
understanding of their roles.
  In Indiana alone, we have seen 76 Hoosiers lost to this and 511 whose 
lives were forever altered by injuries sustained in this war. 
Unfortunately, however, President Bush's interest in supporting our 
troops ends the moment they become veterans. Because, as he asks for 
more troops, he has cut the funding for the Veterans Administration to 
help them return to civilian life healthy and prepare for what lies 
ahead.
  On May 1, 2003, the President announced, ``Mission accomplished.'' At 
that time, we had lost 139. Yet over 3,000 have now died, and the 
mission still has not been accomplished. We will not know the mission 
has been accomplished until we have set the goals and benchmarks that 
allow us to place Iraqis in a position of being self-governing and 
allow our troops to come home.
  In short, I love our troops. I love them dearly. I love our veterans, 
and I love our country. It is time to begin to bring our loved ones 
home from overseas and not send more into the hostile battlefields in 
downtown Baghdad.
  We often sing a song in church that goes, we are soldiers in the 
army. We have to fight before we die. We have to hold up the 
bloodstained banner. We have to hold it up until we die.
  Let us not beat around the bush, so to speak. Our military presence 
in Iraq cannot diminish the violence there. It will only add to it. We 
have lost a lot of our support, a lot of our friendship with other 
nations because of our reckless behavior in Iraq. So to stay there, our 
military presence will increase violence there and bring on more around 
the world.
  They have suicide bombs; we have a suicide policy. And those who 
started this madness, not being the young Americans they sent to be 
slaughtered, strutted their vicarious, which is to say artificial, 
heroism.
  This bloody blunder was conceived in childish computer war-game 
fantasy and executed in unconstitutionality, borrowing billions from 
foreigners to borrow trouble from other foreigners, putting this land 
we love into international hock and its prestige into an international 
hodge-podge.
  There are a lot of bad-guy dictators in this world, some of whom are 
friends of this administration and one of whom was a friend of this 
administration's forbearers. That one was Saddam Hussein. But John 
Adams tells us, ``America does not go abroad in search of monsters to 
destroy . . .''
  When you realize you're making a mistake, sanity calls for stopping 
it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this vote and the debate that we are 
having is about politics and providing some political cover. It does 
nothing to help our soldiers win.
  Remember, it is a nonbinding resolution. What does that mean? It 
means that we could talk, as my mother used to say, until the cows come 
home. It has absolutely no effect. It has no power, no teeth and 
absolutely no effect.
  To be more specific, there is not one single mention in the Democrat 
resolution of how we will send more body armor for the troops, not a 
single mention of new tools to detect IED explosives, not one word 
dedicated to up-armored Humvees.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not one mention of the method to fund the 
health care needs of the veterans who come home. Not one mention. And 
this is important to remember: It has absolutely no mention of sending 
one soldier, let alone the 20,000 additional who are going over there 
or our fine young men and women who are already there, when they are 
going to come home one day sooner.
  In my district, Floridians have seen through this nonbinding 
resolution. The headline of the Orlando Sentinel calls it an ``empty 
measure.'' It says, ``The pointless House resolution on Iraq fails to 
set goals.'' The editorial goes on to say that the resolution ``isn't 
thoughtful policy; it's political cover.'' It is not just me saying it. 
This is certainly not a conservative newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel.
  My constituents know over the past few days we have debated a 
resolution with no teeth, no enforcement, delivered in a way that has 
no guts, no character and provides no leadership.
  Need to hear more? The Veterans of Foreign Wars said that, ``Other 
generations have learned the hard way when military decisions are 
second-guessed by opinion polls or overruled by politicians.''
  The VFW and the American Legion know what happens when politicians 
play politics with war. Our veterans' message to Democrats is to 
support the surge and give our soldiers a chance to win. That is really 
what they want. They want to win.
  In closing, I must echo the American Legion and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars with the words that ring in the hearts of veterans 
everywhere: Give our sons and daughters in this fight the chance to 
win. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what they are asking for.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my 
esteemed friend and colleague, the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are having this open discussion and 
this debate on Iraq, but let me first make my position very clear: I 
did not vote on this war. After 9/11, when the President urged military 
action against Osama bin Laden, I, like all other Members, was fully 
supportive of that position and voted to send our troops to 
Afghanistan. Despite the heroic efforts of our Armed Forces, Osama bin 
Laden, the mastermind of America's darkest hour, has yet to be brought 
to justice.
  While the search for bin Laden has not been completely abandoned, 
President Bush turned his attention away from our most deadly adversary 
and devoted our military resources into invading Iraq. The search for 
bin Laden was neglected for a search for weapons that were never found 
and perhaps may have never existed.
  One thing is very clear here, Mr. Speaker: All Members of this 
Congress support our troops. Many of us have been with families who 
have lost a loved one. Many of us have gone to visit them. And on 
Memorial Day I give special recognition to those whom I have lost in my 
district in the State of California. Also, I have a special community 
pride, where I give the names of all of those who gave the ultimate 
sacrifice. So let it be very clear that the Members of this Congress 
support our troops.
  Now, while the war has hindered our search for Osama bin Laden, it is 
shocking and regrettable that Iraq is more of a breeding ground for 
terrorism than it was before we invaded in March of 2003.
  So many Americans, in my district and throughout the Nation, have 
fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters who are being placed in harm's 
way by being deployed two or more times to Iraq. Transfixed and 
horrified, we watch an escalation in violence that has all the 
characteristics of a civil war. We recognize that on November 7 the 
American people asked for a new direction. But they also asked for the 
truth as we know it.
  We know that there is too much rhetoric surrounding this issue. But 
the truth is, first, the President's proposal for an escalation or 
resurgence is a flawed strategy that will put more than 21,500 more 
Americans in harm's way. In fact, this escalation leaves

[[Page 4489]]

Americans and Iraqis in a perpetual state of war, a condition that is 
not sustainable or supportable.

                              {time}  1245

  Secondly, Iraq's problems are best solved by Iraqis. While a number 
of American troops will be needed to continue training operations of 
Iraqi forces, it will only be successful if those living in Iraq, the 
Sunnis, Shias and Kurds alike, fully embrace democratic principles and 
work together to make their nation secure.
  Thirdly, I support the principal recommendations of the Iraq Study 
Group, that we engage Iraq's neighbors such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, 
Syria and others, in problem-solving. The President's plan should 
emphasize diplomacy. There is no Commander in Chief that I know of that 
does not, and did not, during a war engage in diplomacy. That is the 
answer, not military force. This type of position that the President is 
going, this is a brute force that will not deter the insurgency. Any 
viable solution must contain a diplomatic element.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has taken 4 days to debate the war because 
clearly we need a sensible resolution to this quagmire. Democrats have 
borne much criticism for bringing this resolution to the floor, but it 
is fair to remind our Republican detractors that they also brought 
nonbinding resolutions to the floor. What it is, is to really send a 
message to the American people that we are moving in the wrong 
direction. Stay the course is not the course to take. The resolution we 
are considering today is entirely straightforward, and the premise is 
simple: Do you or do you not support the President's escalation?
  The resolution before us marks the first time this Chamber will vote 
whether or not to disagree with the President's war plans. I hope that 
everyone who recognizes that this ``stay the course'' is not the issue, 
that we vote for H. Con. Res. 63. It is an important step.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise of the time remaining. 
The gentleman from New York has 31\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California has 16 minutes remaining. The Chair will try 
to even out the time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, various news organizations have now confirmed what the 
Democrats really have in mind with this nonbinding resolution, and that 
is, choke off funding for the troops.
  Though they haven't really said it on this House floor, they have 
said it to their political base, moveon.org, and I hold the transcript 
in my hand. Let's listen to the words of our colleague, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) who, as we all know, controls our 
military spending panel.
  ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the 
deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training 
and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my 
mind.''
  He was further quoted as saying, ``We have to be careful people don't 
think this is the vote.''
  Last evening, CBS News noted that our colleague's proposal ``is a way 
to get at the same goal without holding a vote to cut funding.'' Again, 
Mr. Speaker, that goal is to cut funding of the troops. The goal is to 
accept defeat.
  Now, I know the author of this proposal has served his Nation with 
great courage and great honor, but I for one fail to see the courage 
and the honor in this proposal.
  The Politico Magazine has called this proposal the ``Slow Bleed 
Strategy.'' The slow bleed strategy. I wonder who it is who is doing 
the bleeding.
  Mr. Speaker, how does anybody look one of our brave soldiers in the 
eye and tell them, I don't believe in your mission. I don't believe you 
can succeed and I have the power to bring you home; I have the power to 
bring you home today but I am not willing to do it because, if I did, I 
would have to take responsibility and I am concerned about political 
ramifications.
  Mr. Speaker, if my Democrat colleagues truly want to cut off funding 
for the troops and withdraw from Iraq, then let them vote on it today. 
Let them show the courage of their convictions and vote on it today. We 
cannot accept this slow bleed strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that fighting this war is costly. It is costly in 
terms of blood. It is costly in terms of money. Like many other of my 
colleagues, I have met with the mothers who have lost sons in Iraq. 
Their plight is profound; it is sad. But Mr. Speaker, I never, never, 
never want to meet with the mothers whose children might perish in the 
next 9/11 if we accept defeat in Iraq.
  Iraq must be seen in the context of this larger war we are having 
with radical Islam. The battle lines are drawn, and whether we like it 
or not, they are drawn in Iraq. Don't take my word for it. Listen to 
Osama bin Laden. ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in 
Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the 
failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in 
all their wars.''
  We have to soberly reflect on the enemy that we are facing. Listen to 
the number two in al Qaeda, al-Zawahiri. ``Al Qaeda has the right to 
kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children.'' As the father 
of a 4-year-old and a 3-year-old, I find that to be a chilling 
statement.
  Listen to Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guard's intelligence adviser 
to the Iranian President. ``We have a strategy drawn up for the 
destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.''
  This is the enemy we face, and we face him foremost in Iraq. If we 
leave Iraq before subduing him, he will follow us to America, make no 
mistake about it, and the consequences are immense. Read the National 
Intelligence Estimate. Read the report of the Iraq Study Group.
  Iraq has the potential to become what Afghanistan once was under the 
Taliban, and that is, a breeding ground and a safe haven for the 
recruitment, training, financing and sanctuary of radical Islamists 
bent upon attacking our Nation and attacking our families. There will 
be no greater event to empower the radical Islamists in our defeat in 
Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We are Americans. We can 
meet this threat. We can work together. Vote against this resolution. 
Let's support our troops. Let's protect our Nation and our children 
from this threat.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In an attempt to try to equalize the time, I 
recognize the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to work with the 
Speaker on this, and I recognize the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for 8 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the manner of our withdrawal from Iraq will dramatically 
affect the credibility of American foreign policy. Our actions must not 
lead to anti-Semites masquerading as the President of Iran with the 
misimpression that his thirst for nuclear weapons can ever end with the 
realization of his dream of nuclear holocaust, this time engulfing the 
Jewish national homeland. In the larger geopolitical context, like it 
or not, credibility is the currency of a global Superpower.
  The argument has been made on this floor that our engagement in Iraq 
has had the effect of diverting our attention from other threats to our 
security interests such as a nuclear North Korea or the military 
buildup of China or even a resurgent Russia.
  The recent glimmer of hope from the multiparty talks with the hermit 
kingdom demonstrates that it is possible for our Nation to, yes, walk 
and chew gum at the same time. The war in Iraq has not come at the cost 
of disengagement. However, perhaps more importantly, we cannot avoid 
the fact that the manner in which we turn control over their country to 
the Iraqis will send a message across the globe to

[[Page 4490]]

friend and foe alike of whether we are a reliable ally and a 
predictable adversary.
  It is simply not possible for us to divorce our role in the world 
from our credibility as a Nation. The stakes are great for Iraq, but 
they are just as great, if not greater, for those of us in the United 
States, for those of us presently in the United States and for our 
children and our grandchildren.
  Although everyone including the President has acknowledged the fact 
that things have not gone as planned in Iraq, this should not lead us 
to overlook the fact that the Iraqi people have chosen their Nation's 
leadership in democratic elections, three in a row, with more and more 
people participating, larger percentages of the population 
participating, in numbers and percentages that frankly would embarrass 
our country when you look at the turnout we have for elections. 
Sometimes we explain the low turnout in our elections because of bad 
weather. Their bad weather was not the question. It was the threat of 
death if they participated in elections, and yet they went forward to 
do so.
  They ratified a Constitution that represents a dramatic departure 
from the rule of one of the most repressive regimes of the globe, and 
we sort of slide by that and say, well, we got rid of Saddam Hussein, 
but look at the mess those people are in over there. It is a difficult 
proposition. This President warned us after 9/11 it would be a 
difficult proposition; it would take fortitude; it would take 
persistence; it would take resolve.
  At the same time, however, it is this very hope of democracy that has 
led those extremists who fear such a prospect to lash out in a wave of 
violence. In this regard, we must not fall prey to the error of failing 
to hold those responsible for violence accountable for their murderous 
actions.
  The idea that we are somehow responsible for violence in Iraq is both 
preposterous and the crassest form of moral ignorance. Those who commit 
the murders, those who drill holes in people's brains, screw fellow 
human beings to walls and consider decapitation a form of religious 
expression, they are the ones who are responsible for the atrocities 
and massive human rights violations concerning the people of Iraq.
  Charles Krauthammer aptly captures such moral illogic with the query 
of whether the police in America are somehow responsible and have on 
their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last 
year.
  The tragic irony of such logic is that it suggests that those who 
murder in order to manipulate the Western media and public opinion by 
the spectacle of mangled bodies and blood-stained streets should be 
able to realize their aim of driving us away from the scene of their 
crime. We must not reward these thugs by giving them what they want. We 
are in Iraq to protect the Iraqi people, and the blame for the violence 
should be placed where it belongs.
  As Prime Minister Blair so eloquently stated the proposition: ``Here 
is where we have to change radically our mindset. At present, when we 
are shown pictures of carnage in Iraq, much of our own opinion sees 
that as a failure, as a reason for leaving. Surely,'' Prime Minister 
Blair says, ``it is a reason for persevering and succeeding. What is 
the purpose of the terrorism in Iraq? It is to destroy the prospect of 
democratic progress. In doing so, they hope to deal us a mortal blow. 
They know victory for them in Iraq is defeat not just for Iraqi 
democracy but for democratic values everywhere.''
  The challenges before us relate to the formulation of policy, but 
this should not be considered in a vacuum. The most important asset of 
the United States in Iraq is the quality of the men and women of our 
Armed Forces. It is in this regard that the person in charge of the 
responsibility of implementing our new policy, General David Petraeus, 
is well-suited to perform such a task.
  In addition to his experience in the area around Mosul, he is the 
coauthor of the recently released Military Field Manual on 
Counterinsurgency Doctrine. History provides us with examples where 
military commanders have been brought into a theater of operations in 
order to turn around what seemed at the time less than promising, as 
illustrated by the appointments of General Grant, or even General 
Patton, to name just two examples.
  If there ever was a need for such leadership in Iraq it is now. 
General Petraeus is a critical component to our prospects for progress.

                              {time}  1300

  And I know everybody says they support General Petraeus, they support 
our troops. But it does seem odd that when the other body confirmed 
General Petraeus unanimously, they followed it up by suggesting what he 
was going about was a fool's errand. And I know everybody here supports 
our troops, but listen to what you are saying. On the one hand you say, 
``Godspeed, General Petraeus,'' and on the other hand you say, ``You 
are doomed to failure.''
  The need to meet the challenge of stabilizing Iraq, primarily in 
Baghdad and Anbar Province, is essential to the orderly withdrawal of 
American forces. Any precipitous action which fails to accommodate this 
concern would likely have untold consequences for innocents within 
Iraq, the broader Middle East, and ultimately the security of the 
American people.
  Again, however, it must be emphasized that the long-term success or 
failure of democracy in Iraq rests with the Iraqis themselves. As Faoud 
Ajami of Johns Hopkins University has pointed out, we have given the 
gift of freedom to the Iraqi people, which, by nature, entails the 
conclusion that their future is in their own hands.
  This new strategy, and I stress it is a new strategy, recognizes that 
our remaining days in Iraq must be dedicated to making this transition 
to a new political order possible, not just getting out, but getting 
out as we succeed in our effort to establish a stable democracy in 
Iraq.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my good 
friend and distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Congressman Marion 
Berry.
  Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to keep in your hearts and minds, 
certainly in your prayers, our men and women in uniform and their 
families, especially those on the battlefield today; and to reach out 
to them and their families, and let them know that you understand and 
appreciate the sacrifice and commitment that they make out of the 
goodness of their heart.
  Our Kansans have done their part to protect our freedom, contributing 
heavily to the war efforts since the conflict began. Our State alone 
has roughly 1,500 soldiers currently overseas, we have deployed 15,000 
since September 11, 2001; 45 of our Kansans have paid the ultimate 
price, and 350 more have been seriously wounded. Congress cannot forget 
the sacrifice of these men and women. We will continue to support our 
Nation's servicemembers and provide them with every resource that they 
need.
  After listening to President Bush's recent proposal to escalate troop 
levels in Iraq, I am even more concerned with his failure to recognize 
the severity of this conflict and what it really means.
  Recent short-term troop escalation proposals in Iraq have not stopped 
the violence from getting worse. President Bush has said nothing to 
convince me, or almost no one else, that his latest strategy will 
result in success.
  Our military forces deserve a policy commensurate with the sacrifices 
that they have been asked to make and have made. Regrettably, the 
President has not provided that policy or plan. Our leaders need to 
think long term and make strong commitments to diplomacy with all of 
the other countries in the region and the world community. Our 
credibility as a Nation must be restored.
  As the Iraq Study Group concluded, this is an international conflict 
that cannot be solved by U.S. military strategies alone. Furthermore, 
President Bush's proposals will create additional strain on our 
military readiness, as well as our military personnel and their 
families.

[[Page 4491]]

  There is already a shortage of military equipment that jeopardizes 
the safety of our men and women in uniform. We cannot and should not 
send more troops overseas without providing the equipment and support 
they need to safely and effectively accomplish the mission that is 
charged to them.
  I oppose this escalation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. 
God bless the men and women in uniform.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of 
time on each side be enlarged by 36 minutes.
  I think I have the authority to do that under the rule; it has been 
done in consultation with the minority leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize Mr. 
King from New York, the ranking member of Homeland Security, for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution 
and in strong support of our troops and their mission.
  This resolution is wrong in every respect. It is wrong 
constitutionally. Never before in our history has Congress attempted to 
control or restrict battlefield decisions. It is wrong as a matter of 
policy, and it will come back to haunt us for years to come.
  Madam Speaker, wars must not be waged according to opinion polls or 
applause meters. For instance, just look at the battle of Iwo Jima, an 
island in the Pacific where in less than 6 weeks, more than twice as 
many Americans were killed as have been killed throughout the entire 
Iraq war, and yet Congress didn't jump in to question the policies of 
the President.
  And look at the Korean War. There was no declaration of war. The 
United States and the overwhelming majority of coalition troops in the 
field, 36,000 Americans were killed and another 8,000 were missing. 
More than 70 percent of the American people opposed President Truman 
and his handling of the war. Yet today, President Truman is honored as 
one of our greatest Presidents, and the Korean War is looked upon as a 
key turning point in our struggle against communism.
  Madam Speaker, Iraq cannot be looked upon or looked at in a vacuum. 
This war in Iraq is an absolutely essential component of the war 
against Islamic terrorism which must be fought in many places 
throughout the world, including right here at home.
  As a Member of Congress who lost upwards of 150 friends, neighbors, 
and constituents on September 11, 2001, I have seen firsthand how evil 
this enemy can be. And al Qaeda itself has said that Iraq is a major 
battleground in this war.
  Madam Speaker, we cannot allow ourselves to do anything which would 
undermine our troops who are the frontline soldiers in this war against 
Islamic terrorism.
  I know that the resolution expresses support for the troops, but talk 
is cheap and actions have consequences. You cannot support the troops 
if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in 
the field. And that is what this resolution does.
  Speaker after speaker in support of the resolution has said that the 
new policy in Iraq will not work. But General Petraeus, who is the 
author of this policy and who has just been unanimously confirmed by 
the Senate, has said this policy can work and that his troops can carry 
it out. By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution 
are clearly undermining a new commander in Iraq at such a vital time in 
the conduct of this war.
  As the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said 
earlier this week, ``When military decisions are second-guessed by 
opinion polls or overruled by politicians, it is the common soldier and 
their families who pay the price. The VFW is very concerned with the 
tone and timing of this debate. We need to send the message to our 
troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup 
a chance to succeed.''
  Madam Speaker, what makes this worse is that we know today's 
resolution is only the first step to prevent General Petraeus and his 
troops from carrying out their mission. The Democratic leadership has 
admitted, indeed proudly acknowledged, that it is their goal to impose 
as many conditions as they can to prevent General Petraeus from getting 
the troops and the reinforcements he needs to win this war.
  Madam Speaker, never in our history have the Speaker of the House or 
the House Appropriations Committee attempted to superimpose their 
policies on troop training or troop leave, and override the Commander 
in Chief and the commander in the field.
  Madam Speaker, this is not the time for sunshine soldiers or 
summertime patriots. It is time for Members of this body to show at 
least a small percentage of the courage shown every day by our troops 
in Iraq.
  If you want to cut off the funding for our troops who will be in the 
line of fire, don't be cute, don't try to sneak it through the back 
door. Have the guts to do it directly.
  Madam Speaker, this debate is not about this President or this 
Congress or the next election. It is about our survival as a Nation and 
our survival as a civilization. Vote for our troops and against this 
misguided and dangerous resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 10 minutes to 
my friend and colleague and neighbor from California, the esteemed 
Speaker of the House of Representatives (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his exceptional leadership in the national security of our country.
  My colleagues, for 3 days and nights, more than 350 Members of 
Congress have come to the floor to speak their conscience about the war 
in Iraq and the President's escalation proposal. I commend my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the tenor, for the most part, 
and the substance of their remarks.
  There is one proposition on which we can all agree: Our troops have 
performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. 
And as the resolution 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 owe our troops a debt of gratitude for their patriotism, for 
their courage, and for the sacrifices they are willing to make.
  As a sign of our respect for them, particularly those who have lost 
their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we 
observe a moment of silence.
  Thank you.
  We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their 
sacrifice. Today, we set the stage for a new direction on Iraq by 
passing a resolution with fewer than 100 words which supports our 
troops and disapproves of the President's escalation proposal. Instead, 
Democrats have proposed a different course of action to the President.

                              {time}  1315

  Over and over again we have suggested a different plan.
  One year ago, Senator Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate 
Democrats to propose our agenda for real security, to project our power 
and our values, to protect the American people. Consistent with our 
real security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, 
starting in July, and the most recent one the end of January, urging 
him to adopt a strategy for success, containing these elements: change 
of mission, redeployment of troops, building a political consensus, 
engaging in diplomacy, reform of reconstruction and a refocus in the 
war on terror.
  In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be 
transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real 
counterterrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in 
mission will allow the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to be reduced, 
diminishing their presence in the daily lives

[[Page 4492]]

of Iraqis and minimizing the chance of these troops being caught in the 
crossfire between rival Iraqi factions. Ending the emphasis on a combat 
mission will allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq 
beginning within the next 4 to 6 months.
  Declining troop levels will require fewer bases, and none of them 
will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced and 
passed by this House by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and also introduced 
by Congressman David Price.
  A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the 
strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment. 
Success in Iraq requires more than military force, and that really is 
what this debate is about today.
  General Peter Chiarelli, a three-star General, until recently the 
Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq, observed in December, and I 
quote, ``We need to get out of thinking that this is solely a military 
conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition or Iraqi 
forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our Nation's 
strengths--diplomatic, economic, political--must be leveraged to help 
the Iraqis find their way through this process.''
  Unfortunately, there has been no sustained and effective effort to 
engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically. Iraq's neighbors have the 
greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the 
region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders 
improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an 
international contact group should be established to support a 
political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.
  Senator Reid and I also wrote to the President that an international 
conference should be convened to broaden support for the reconstruction 
effort that is essential if Iraqis are going to be put to work building 
their country's future.
  On the subject of reconstruction, there has been little effective 
reconstruction in Iraq because of mismanagement and disappearances of 
funds. That is why we propose that, in order for the reconstruction of 
Iraq to attract international support, it must be conducted according 
to practices which are honest, transparent, and accountable.
  Reconstruction must be guided by the kind of process set forth in 
legislation introduced by Congressman Patrick Murphy and the Blue Dog 
Coalition. The United States should take the lead on accountability in 
reconstruction. Politically, there has been no sustained and effective 
effort to engage rival Iraqi factions.
  The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political 
compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political 
settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq. A 
good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the 
Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. That was 
promised at the time of the referendum over 1 year ago.
  The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to 
challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and to disarm them.
  Proponents of the President's escalation are equating the war on 
terror to the war in Iraq. As our esteemed chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee, Congressman Ike Skelton of Missouri, a great 
patriot, has observed, ``Two conflicts. Two wars. And the two should 
not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts 
together as `the war on terror,' but the wars are truly separate and 
distinct,'' Chairman Skelton stated.
  The war in Iraq continues to detract from our ability to fight 
against the war on international terrorism effectively. We need to 
finish the job started more than 5 years ago in Afghanistan against al 
Qaeda and the Taliban and address other conditions around the world in 
which the appeal of terrorism breeds.
  The longer it takes us to resolve the situation in Iraq, the longer 
resources and attention will continue to be diverted from the war on 
terrorism. Our ability to respond to the escalating conflict in 
Afghanistan and other potential crises in the world is constrained 
severely by the deterioration in military readiness to levels not seen 
since the Vietnam era.
  There we have the six elements that we talked about: change of 
mission, redeployment of troops, building of political consensus, 
engaging in diplomacy, reform of reconstruction, and a refocus on the 
war on terror. By placing so much emphasis, instead, on dealing with 
the problems in Iraq militarily and not enough emphasis on sustained 
political and diplomatic engagements, the President's escalation plan 
repeats past mistakes.
  The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little 
prospect for success. The bipartisan resolution today may be 
nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President. We here 
in Congress are committed to protecting and supporting our troops.
  The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in 
Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and 
soon. Our troops are working together to secure our Nation, and we in 
this House must work together to secure our Nation as well and to do so 
in a way that honors their sacrifice.
  I urge my colleagues to support our troops and a new direction in 
Iraq by voting ``aye'' on the bipartisan Skelton-Lantos-Jones 
resolution.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 6 
minutes to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, ranking member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, a prominent feature of this debate has been two 
sharply contrasting visions of the future. One vision sees no hope for 
us in Iraq and counsels that we withdraw, just give up. By contrast, 
the other mission focuses on success. We understand what accepting 
defeat means for Iraq.
  We understand what accepting defeat means for Iraq, the region and 
our Nation's security interest. We support modifications and strategy 
to address the enemy's changing tactics, and we are committed to 
destroying the enemy before the enemy can destroy us. This success 
policy is rooted in the fabric of the American character, in our belief 
in the ability of our troops to achieve success in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and on all the fronts on this global war against Islamic militant 
jihadists.
  The resolution at the center of this debate, Madam Speaker, lacks 
hope. It accepts defeat. It opposes reinforcements for our troops on 
the battlefield, reinforcements that strengthens their capacity to 
confront the enemy and succeed in their mission.
  General Petraeus said that he cannot accomplish his mission without 
the deployment of additional U.S. forces. This resolution, however, 
announces that Congress will deny the commander in Iraq the means he 
says he needs to win. This resolution seeks to transform this House 
into 435 generals.
  What is the next step in the strategy, Madam Speaker, after the 
crippling of our war effort? We know from statements and bills that 
have been introduced that plans will mandate the nature and the timing 
of a withdrawal by placing limitations on the funding of our efforts. A 
vote for this resolution then is a vote to proceed toward defunding of 
our troops.
  Some believe that the impact of these decisions is confined to Iraq, 
but Iraq is only one front in the global war against radical Islamic 
jihadists. This is a war without boundaries. This is a war that poses 
the greatest challenge to our generation.
  I will quote al-Zawahiri in his own words. He describes this fight in 
this way:
  `` . . . Afghanistan and Iraq are the two most important fields for 
confronting the contemporary Crusader war. Therefore, the Muslim nation 
should support the mujahidin in these two countries with all its 
power.''
  Those are al-Zawahiri's own words. He talks about the war in Iraq as 
being central. He added that Iraq ``is the gateway to the liberation of 
Palestine

[[Page 4493]]

and the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate.''
  Iran's leader has echoed similar views. He stated, we will soon 
experience a world without the United States; and he goes on to state, 
we must prepare ourselves to rule the world.
  The enemy understands what is at stake. We must, also.
  Once the retreat has started, where will it stop? Afghanistan? The 
Persian Gulf? The entire Middle East? Once we have abandoned our allies 
in Iraq, why should anyone in the world believe when we say that we 
draw a line in the sand and say that we will never abandon them.
  Lawrence Haas, a former communications director for Vice President 
Gore, stated recently, `` . . . our enemies anticipate that Iraq will 
be the latest chapter in the book of American defeatism. Our withdrawal 
will embolden them to push ahead, confident that we lack the stomach 
for confrontation, that our commitments mean nothing, that they can win 
simply by outlasting us.''
  A withdrawal in this generational fight will ensure that what is to 
come will be even worse. While urging a withdrawal, some state that 
they support the troops. But as leaders of the American Legion and the 
Veterans for Foreign Wars have stated, you cannot separate the warrior 
from the war.
  My stepson, Douglas Lehtinen, and his wife, Lindsay, proudly served 
as Marine pilots in Iraq. Lindsay will soon leave for a tour in 
Afghanistan. Far from seeing their mission as hopeless, far from urging 
withdrawal, they and their fellow service men and women are committed 
to victory. They are so confident in that success that they are willing 
to risk their lives to secure it.

                              {time}  1330

  They would tell you that victory can never be ensured but that we can 
make defeat inevitable by giving our consent. The hopelessness from 
which this resolution springs is alien to our American spirit and it 
runs contrary to our history. What Thomas Paine said over two centuries 
ago stands still today: These are the times that try men's souls. The 
summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from 
the service of their country. But he that stands by it now deserve the 
love and the thanks of every man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not 
easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder 
the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
  If you like the status quo in Iraq, Madam Speaker, then you vote 
``yes'' on this resolution. If you favor a mission of success in 
defeating the Islamic militant jihadists who are our enemies, then 
please vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend and 
our distinguished colleague from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I am hopeful today. Finally, 4 years into a very 
controversial war, Congress will begin to fulfill its constitutional 
responsibility as Representatives of the people. This week, every 
Member of the House of Representatives has had an opportunity to 
express their views on the war in Iraq. And today, every Member will 
cast their vote for or against the President's escalation of the war. 
This is only right.
  For my part, I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a 
tragic mistake. Our need for a change of direction could not be more 
clear. But rather than change direction, the President proposes that we 
continue down our current disastrous path, only at a faster pace and 
with more human life placed in harm's way.
  We should be bringing troops home, not sending more there. We should 
be ending this war, not escalating it. Considering this resolution is 
only the first step of many Congress will need to take to force a 
change in direction, but as Thomas Jefferson once said, honesty is the 
first chapter of the book of wisdom. Congress writes that chapter with 
this resolution, but it is only the first chapter.
  Sadly, the burden created by the lack of honesty and wisdom this 
administration has brought to this conflict is shouldered by our brave 
men and women in uniform. Two years ago, I spoke with a group of women 
in Sacramento whose husbands were serving in the National Guard in 
Iraq.
  One woman told me she had to buy her husband a Kevlar vest and a 
canteen before he deployed to Iraq, something all too many families 
were doing for their loved ones because the military was not providing 
it. A short time later, the administration assured the public that the 
issue had been addressed. And yet just this week we heard reports that 
the Army lacks armored Humvees and other equipment necessary for the 
troop increase the President is implementing; once again, a failure in 
vision and planning, and once again, our troops pay the price.
  Escalation of this conflict will further increase the strain on a 
military that is already stretched to the breaking point. Every Member 
of this Chamber knows this. Earlier this month, I spoke with a friend 
and reservist in Sacramento named Richard Beach. Richard shipped out to 
Iraq 4 years ago as a chaplain in the Army Reserves. He is home now. 
But he still keeps in touch with his old unit. Richard shared with me a 
note he sent to some of his fellow members of the 114th.
  He wrote, ``I remember 4 years ago we were getting ready for our trip 
to Fort Lewis and then on to Iraq. I hope as the fourth anniversary of 
the war comes up, you are all in good health and living life to the 
fullest. I, too, pray that soon this war will end and we will stop 
sending our soldiers off to war.''
  Four years later, he reports that many of the same soldiers and their 
families are making the same sacrifice. But that is a heartbreaking 
reality here. Implementing the President's policy will mean that 
members of his regiment along with so many others will have to endure 
more and more of the back-to-back deployments to Iraq.
  The notion of shared sacrifice is something that helped make this 
country great. Americans are strong believers in shared sacrifice. But 
all too often in this war, only our troops and their families share the 
sacrifice. That is too much to ask on behalf of policies that have not 
worked.
  The administration offers us scant reason to believe this troop 
increase will work when it has tried and failed with several previous 
troop increases. This proposal offers us nothing but more of the same.
  Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been 
asked of them. It is our political leadership that has failed. There is 
a saying, It takes two people to speak the truth: one to speak it and 
one to hear it. I hope the administration will choose to hear the truth 
and I hope that we pass this resolution today.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member on the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, this debate is about whether or not 
America is a great Nation that will lead in the face of difficulty. We 
have come up short. This resolution falls short. It is small and not 
worthy of this House. Why small? Let me begin with a threat that some 
either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge.
  This resolution does not address the fact that the current threat is 
not just the single front in Iraq, but rather the larger threat of 
militant Islamic jihadists who hate us enough to want to kill. These 
militant Islamic jihadists are a fringe element of Islam who have very 
specific ideas and goals 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 existing international 
systems and to their replacement by an all-encompassing Islamic state 
called the caliphate. In explaining his approach to creating the 
caliphate, centered in Iraq, al-Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahari, 
outlined a four-stage plan:
  Stage 1, expel the Americans from Iraq in defeat.

[[Page 4494]]

  Stage 2, create an Islamic religious government in Iraq, developing 
and supporting it until it achieves a level of a caliphate.
  Stage 3, extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq.
  Stage 4, clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to 
challenge any new Islamic entity.
  I think you get the picture.
  Let me also be clear. This jihad is about them, their God, and their 
religion, it is not about us. These militant jihadists believe that the 
modern world has forsaken the pure religious life and that only with a 
caliphate can they return to ``pure life.''
  It is this narrow ideology that poses the direct and real threat to 
us. It is this ideology that threatens not only us, but also includes 
the belief that killing other Muslims is justified to achieve their 
radical goals. Here is the true threat to America and the world, this 
militant Islamic jihad, a jihad that attacks around the globe, 
including the United States and Iraq. The resolution we debate today 
does not address this global problem, this threat to peace and 
stability. Iraq is not the problem, it is only one front in this larger 
war.
  The second point. This resolution omits specifically all of the men 
and women of the Armed forces who are defending our freedoms in other 
theaters such as Kuwait, Afghanistan and Bosnia. It says, by not 
saying, that this Congress may not support troops who will be sent to 
Iraq.
  Is this intentional? Is this part of the plan to choke off funding 
for our troops? I also take great umbrage that this resolution omits 
and completely slights the incredible contributions to this Nation's 
security of our dedicated men and women in the Intelligence Community, 
many serving in Iraq, who provide our combat troops with the 
information vital to their security.
  Is this the first step in cutting off their funding, too, returning 
to the Clinton administration's policies of the 1990s that decimated 
our intelligence capabilities?
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I need to address the issue of the 
consequences of failure. What happens if Iraq collapses due to a sudden 
withdrawal of U.S. troops? Our enemies have made it clear that they 
will fill the void. Surely America is wary of the conflict in Iraq, but 
the difficulty of this conflict does not justify giving into their 
strategy; yes, their strategy. They believe that they are winning by 
wearing America down. Will we quit? Do we understand the consequences?
  Make no mistake, this resolution is a dangerous and naive first step 
to cutting funding to our troops in an unwise withdrawal from the 
region. Iraq is not a faraway place where the United States has no 
interest and where we can pull our troops out of without paying a price 
in the global war against militant Islam.
  This debate is not about Iraq, it is about us, us as a Nation of 
people who will do the right thing. The fundamental question is, Do we 
have the resolve that will be necessary to defeat radical militant 
Islamic jihadists that contain bad actors such as Iran, and will we 
stand and fight for the future of our kids and their kids?
  We have faced similar threats before. In 1945 my parents were 
liberated by Canadians and American troops in the Netherlands. They 
never forgot the sacrifices that were made by brave soldiers and by a 
great Nation, a Nation on a great mission.
  America did it for them, but it also did it for itself. America 
recognized that the threat was a direct threat to America and the 
world. We then led a global effort to victory. Today we face a very 
different but, again, a very real threat: radical militant Islam. The 
challenge to this Congress is to rise to the occasion, to help lead 
America and to help lead the world to victory.
  This petty resolution falls far short of that noble and worthy 
calling. Vote ``no.'' We can and we must do better.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous-consent request to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, this week during the debate on H. Con. Res. 63, I 
spoke of the men and women of our Armed Forces and the sacrifices they 
have made for our country. I noted that I had visited them in theater, 
at Walter Reed, and with their families in New Jersey. As I said, the 
quality of these men and women, and their earnest wish to serve their 
country, makes this situation in Iraq all the more tragic. I am sure I 
was quite clear regarding my sentiments, but it would appear that some 
in this House chose to mischaracterize my remarks.
  The gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter, said that I ``referred to 
our wounded folks in Walter Reed as tragic.'' I want the gentleman to 
know I said no such thing, and I will ask him to be accurate if he 
chooses to quote me again.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my 
good friend and our distinguished collegue from West Virginia, 
Congressman Mollohan.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution opposing the 
President's decision to escalate this war. My position on the Iraq war 
is uncomplicated. I voted against the initial war resolution back in 
2002, mostly because I never believed the President made a compelling 
argument that Iraq posed the sort of substantive threat to the United 
States that would justify war, and the considerable human, political, 
and financial costs that it would bring.

                              {time}  1345

  I thought it was a bad decision at the time, and I think it is a bad 
decision today.
  In my limited time this afternoon, I would like to comment on a 
couple of refrains that we keep hearing. The first is the President's 
repeated criticism that those who support this resolution are 
prejudging a plan that hasn't even been ``given a chance to work.'' He 
makes that charge with a tone of wonderment, as though somehow it 
weren't our duty to anticipate the consequences of different courses of 
action and to avoid the bad ones before embracing them. If more of us 
had prejudged his 2002 decision, taking us to war before it was ``given 
a chance to work,'' we wouldn't be having this debate today.
  The difference between today and 2002 is that a majority of this 
House and this Congress are no longer willing to give the President the 
benefit of the doubt he enjoyed 5 years ago. We are no longer willing 
to suspend judgment and trust the decider. That should surprise 
precisely no one.
  For 4 years we have been asked to trust this administration, to 
trust, as the Vice President emphatically declared, that they knew 
where the weapons of mass destruction are; to trust that the Iraqis 
would welcome us as liberators; to trust that we had a large enough 
invasion force to stabilize the country; to trust that the Shi'a would 
find common cause with the Sunni and the Kurd in a united Iraq; to 
trust that Iraq's oil reserves would pay for its reconstruction; to 
trust that Iraq would serve as a beacon of democratic ideals throughout 
the Middle East; to trust that those early signs of a growing 
insurgency were nothing more than the ``last throes of a few dead-
enders.''
  And now the President asks us not to prejudge his plan to put another 
21,000 Americans in harm's way. He asks us to trust him yet again. With 
respect and humility, Madam Speaker, I ask him, how can we? And how can 
he even ask it of us? Paraphrasing the President, fool me once, shame 
on you. Fool me five times, shame on me.
  And another criticism of this measure that we have heard repeated 
over and over this week is that, as a nonbinding resolution, its 
passage and this debate is meaningless.
  Madam Speaker, this resolution is far from meaningless. If need be, 
Congress will end this war with binding legislation. As even the 
President acknowledged, we retain the power of the purse, and we have 
ample opportunity to exercise that power.
  But just as wars should be started with a united government, so, too, 
should wars be ended with a united government. And that is the 
meaningfulness of this resolution. It is the last chance to draw this 
government back together on Iraq. It is the last call for

[[Page 4495]]

us to work together, Democratic and Republican, legislative and 
executive, on ending this war. It is the last call for the President to 
come back to the people.
  He may ignore that call. He may dismiss this resolution and this 
debate as meaningless. He may dismiss the voice of the people expressed 
through 439 newly elected Representatives as meaningless. But if he 
does, Madam Speaker, he forces us to move forward without him. I hope 
that doesn't happen.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution, and I urge the 
President to listen to this debate and to join with us.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would yield 5 minutes to 
Mr. Hunter of California, ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  This is, indeed, a sad time in our country. Five years ago we came to 
this floor united. We joined in sending our troops off in this war 
against terror.
  You know, Madam Speaker, for the first number of strikes that were 
delivered by Muslim extremists in this war, the terrorists chose the 
battlefields. They chose a battlefield as a Marine barracks in Beirut. 
And Mr. Skelton and I were there, he shortly after the explosion that 
killed our Marines, I shortly before that explosion. They chose the 
Khobar Towers, they chose the embassies in Africa, they chose the USS 
Cole, and then they chose New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. 
We chose the next two battlefields, Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Our Democrat colleagues say that Iraq was the wrong battlefield, and 
I have heard resonating through the floor over the last 4 days 
statements that they were tricked, hornswoggled, fooled about Saddam 
Hussein.
  From my side of the argument as to whether or not Saddam Hussein was 
a dangerous terrorist, I will simply offer all the statements by every 
Democrat leader in America during the 1990s, when there was no Bush 
administration to, in the words of my Democrat colleagues, ``trick 
them.'' I will offer their statements about Saddam Hussein.
  Madam Speaker, we have expanded in the last 60 years. We have been in 
the business of expanding freedom. We understood after World War II 
that if we didn't change the world, the world would change us. And that 
lesson was relearned after 9/11.
  No one would argue that it is not in our interest to have a Japan on 
the other side of the Pacific, where we stood up a free government, 
where we have a free nation, or that it is not in our interest to have 
a free El Salvador in our own hemisphere, or that it is not in our 
interest to have those dozens of nations that were behind the Berlin 
Wall that are now free and working for freedom. Many of them are 
partners in Iraq. We understand that.
  And now we are trying to expand freedom in a different part of the 
world, a very dangerous part of the world. And we are undertaking the 
same three-point strategy that we have had for 60 years: Number one, 
you stand up a free government; number two, you stand up a military 
capable of protecting that free government; and, number three, the 
Americans leave.
  And we can build on this Baghdad plan, which is right now in the 
execution phase, this plan of having two or three Iraqi battalions out 
front, with an American backup battalion to mentor them, and we can 
rotate every one of the 129 Iraqi battalions through this type of a 
combat rotation, stand them up, give them battlefield experience, and 
then the Americans can leave.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I have heard it said throughout this debate that 
there was somehow a smooth road not taken. And let me just say, that is 
not true. There are no smooth roads in the Middle East. There are no 
smooth roads to standing up new governments, especially in communities 
and states where people have been trained to live under dictatorships.
  And for those who say if we had just kept Saddam Hussein's army in 
place, with it is 11,000 Sunni generals, everything would have been 
fine and we would have had a peaceful situation in Iraq right now, that 
is nonsense. And for those who said if we had had 200,000 or 300,000 
troops, the Shiites and Sunnis would have forgotten their ancient 
rivalries, that is also nonsense.
  What are the facts, the reality, our Democrat friends say we have to 
be realists here, is this is a tough, difficult road. We are on the 
second stage right now. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, our troops are 
in the field already on this plan that is now being retroactively 
disavowed by the Democratic leadership.
  You know, it was in June, I think it was 2130 hours, June 6, 1944, 
when the first elements of the first aircraft of the Pathfinder 
companies went out in front of the 82nd Airborne over Normandy, and 
they shortly were followed by hundreds of airplanes with American 
paratroopers. The 82nd Airborne going into Normandy had the full 
support and prayers of everybody in the United States Congress.
  Today, you have got an 82nd Airborne Second Brigade now operating 
under this plan in Baghdad already there in Baghdad. Now, is this going 
to be the day, I would ask my colleagues, when some trooper from the 
82nd Airborne writes on the concrete wall next to his position in 
Baghdad, ``This is where I stood when the United States House of 
Representatives led by the Democrat leadership rejected my mission''? I 
hope that doesn't happen, Madam Speaker.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). The gentleman from California 
has 29\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 32 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 
minutes to Mr. McCotter from Michigan, the chairman of the Republican 
Policy Committee.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, President Lincoln warned, ``A house 
divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot 
endure permanently half slave and half free. It will become all one 
thing or all the other.''
  Today, our House is divided; tomorrow, it will become all one thing 
or all the other. What are the possibilities?
  In our divided House, one side believes we must win in Iraq to avoid 
a catastrophe; another side assumes we can lose in Iraq without 
consequence.
  One side believes we must support our troops in harm's way and 
continue their funding; another side claims we can support our troops 
in harm's way and cut their funding.
  One side assumes we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq; another side 
asserts we can retreat from al Qaeda in Iraq.
  And one side believes the American people voted to change course in 
Iraq to win; another side feels the American people voted to change 
course in Iraq to lose.
  Shortly, we will see how divided we are. One side will vote to 
support the President's plan to win in Iraq by reinforcing our troops, 
and then pray to God we are right; one side will vote against the 
President's plan. And in this question rests the answer to the future 
of our divided House.
  My friends, many of you are about to put yourselves in a precarious 
position, for no one knows what the future holds. While we may feel 
sure of our decisions in the evanescent present, the unfathomable 
vagaries of fate have yet to fully play upon the stage of human 
history. As a result, many supporters of this resolution made an 
ominous omission while urging its adoption: In denouncing the 
President's plan, too few of you have openly hoped our troops' new 
mission would win the day and prove you wrong.
  Being your colleague, I know you share this hope in your hearts. But 
your fellow Americans in fields abroad and constituencies at home must 
now wonder, will you cut our troops funding to prove yourselves right?
  Sooner than you imagine, this nonbinding resolution will instigate 
binding legislation to commence a ``slow

[[Page 4496]]

bleed'' of funding cuts while our troops battle against the enemy. 
Again, because I serve beside you every day, I know you abhor the 
thought of American soldiers being harmed by such an abject betrayal of 
their trust during combat, but it is upon this crucible of conscience 
you will be judged by all. And when the time comes to confront the 
consequences of today's expediency, I pray you make the right decision. 
If, however, you make the wrong decision, you will not only betray our 
citizen soldiers' trust, you will disastrously unite this House in a 
callow contentment with our own liberty and a calloused apathy to 
others' enslavement.
  Could there be any more dishonorable epitaph for our free Republic's 
revolutionary experiment in democracy? True, some allege I exaggerate 
the danger, but they have turned a blind eye to the epitaphs of liberty 
etched above the ruins of nations once gloried, now dead: the Athenian 
city-state, the Roman Republic, the Weimar Republic.
  Thus, even as we today divide in our own House, we remain compelled 
to unite behind the cause of our free Republic in this dangerous age of 
globalization, wherein humanity's destiny is daily entwined across the 
disparate reaches of Earth.
  Our cause is this: Our world cannot permanently endure half slave and 
half free. It will become all one thing or all the other, as it has 
before in the darkest ages of human existence.
  My friends, at this crossroads of our Republic, we must heed the 
better angels of our nature. We must unite our divided House behind the 
self-evident truth that all human beings are endowed by their Creator, 
with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness.
  We must extend freedom to the Iraqis and, in so doing, enhance the 
liberty of ourselves and all free peoples and inspire our fellow human 
beings caged in tyranny's embrace. And emulating our nation's greatest 
generations, we must let hope to flow from God's heart to our humble 
hands so we may, where He allows, emancipate humanity into a new birth 
of freedom for ourselves and generations unborn.
  Madam Speaker, we must reject this resolution, unite behind our 
heroic troops and, God willing, win our country and humanity's mortal 
struggle to be free.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my 
good friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of our 
Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Thompson.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, 3 months ago the American 
people sent a resounding message for change. They voted for a new 
direction in Congress and new direction for the war in Iraq.
  In solemn tribute to the sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed 
Forces in Mississippi's Second Congressional District who have served 
in Iraq and who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, I would like to 
recognize some of Mississippi's Second District heroes:
  Staff Sergeant Kenneth Bradley. Hometown: Utica, Mississippi; 39 
years old; died May 28, 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Larry K. Brown. Hometown: Jackson, Mississippi; 22 years old; died 
April 5, 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Rapheal S. Davis. Hometown: Tutwiler, Mississippi; 24 years of age; 
died December 2, 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Captain Kermit O. Evans. Hollandale, Mississippi; 31 years old; died 
December 3, 2006, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Joshua S. Ladd. Port Gibson, Mississippi; 20 years old; died May 1, 
2004, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Master Sergeant Brian McAnulty. Hometown: Vicksburg, Mississippi; 39 
years of age; died December 11, 2006, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Staff Sergeant John McGee. Cary, Mississippi; age 36 years; died May 
2, 2005, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Staff Sergeant Joe Wilson. Crystal Springs, Mississippi; 30 years of 
age; November 2, 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Madam Speaker, the Department of Defense reports that as of February 
15, 2007, 3,126 U.S. military servicemembers have died as a result of 
their service in Iraq. More than 25,000 have been wounded.
  This bipartisan resolution before us today asks Members a 
straightforward question: Do you approve of the President's announced 
proposal on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional 
United States combat troops to Iraq?
  There is no question that the way forward in Iraq is one of our 
greatest challenges. The open debate offered here today allows us all 
an opportunity to express our sentiments on the administration's 
proposal. The sacrifices, dedication, and patriotism of our elite 
military and their families deserve no less.
  I oppose the President's proposal. Until the President is willing to 
sit down with Congress and provide accurate data on what is really 
going on in this war, I cannot in good conscience support putting more 
men in harm's way.
  This administration used bad intelligence to justify the rationale 
for war, and I fear that they are using bad judgment here today in 
their call for sending 25,000 more troops into harm's way.
  The administration keeps calling this proposal a troop surge. Let us 
call it what it is. The proposal is a troop increase. Rather than a 
troop surge, what we need from this administration is a truth surge. 
The incompetence and misinformation that has gotten us into this mess 
is not the competence it will take to get us out.
  The President and this administration must remain faithful and 
truthful to Congress and the American people by openly discussing 
appropriate measures to resolve the situation in Iraq that is worsening 
daily. The President must allow Congress to do what it was formed to do 
under the Constitution. His decision to continue in this direction is 
not democratic and, therefore, does not demonstrate the best example of 
what we are fighting for in Iraq. We must not allow the President to 
escalate the Iraq War without specific congressional approval.
  Madam Speaker, we must send the President a message he cannot ignore. 
We must pass the Skelton-Lantos-Jones resolution.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the deputy whip of 
the minority.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, just 2 days ago, on February 14, Osama bin 
Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, posted a speech on an Islamist Web 
site where he blessed jihad fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia 
and urged the mujahadeen all over world to remain steadfast since 
complete victory was near. He made special mention of those in the 
Islamic jihadist media and thanked them for their blessed efforts which 
cause the Crusaders to lose sleep.
  There is no doubt about it, Madam Speaker. We are fighting against an 
enemy that uses every weapon at its disposal to inflict casualties upon 
our soldiers in the field. This enemy seeks not just victory in Iraq 
but the reestablishment of a greater Islamic caliphate that would 
threaten the security of America and freedom-loving people throughout 
the world.
  Today, this House will vote on a nonbinding resolution that 
disapproves of a surge in Iraq, a resolution that discourages our 
troops yet fails to satisfy the antiwar movement of America's left.
  The resolution will likely pass today with near unanimous support of 
my friends on the other side of the aisle. Yet, Madam Speaker, I am 
troubled by their seeming unwillingness to accept the real consequences 
of this outcome. This from the party of John F. Kennedy, who so 
inspired our Nation when he said in his inaugural address: ``Let every 
Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any 
price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose 
any foe in order to ensure the survival and the success of liberty.''
  Madam Speaker, we have come a long way since our Nation's 35th 
President spoke those words 46 years ago.

[[Page 4497]]

  This debate arrives at an historic time in our Nation's history, not 
because of the resolution we are considering today but because the 
results of our efforts in Iraq will have a true impact on the lives of 
our soldiers and the security of all of us for generations to come.
  Recently, I received a letter from one of my constituents who 
expressed some very real concerns about the Democrats' view of the war 
in Iraq. He writes: ``I am a servicemember that has served in Iraq, 
training Iraqis. I have 19 years of service. I spent 6 years in the 
Virginia Army National Guard, and I am entering my 13th year of active 
Federal service.
  ``Pulling out of Iraq doesn't send the right message to those we are 
fighting,'' he said. ``Not enough is being said about what the U.S. 
will do if we withdraw and what will happen in the midst of a power 
vacuum . . . ''
  The soldier went on to say: ``I personally served in the streets of 
Baghdad in 2006, and I would have felt better serving, thinking that 
both houses of Congress gave me their full support.''
  Madam Speaker, what we debate in this House, how we conduct 
ourselves, does have real consequences. Some of our country's bravest 
are on the battlefield and on the streets of Baghdad as we speak.
  We have seen throughout our history what happens when our resolve is 
weak. In 1993 this country half-heartedly supported the commitment of 
troops to subdue the violent warlords of Somalia. The precipitous 
withdrawal in the face of casualties left a chaotic nation to this day 
that harbors terrorists and is a feeding ground for instability.
  The lessons of history must not be forgotten as we face a determined 
enemy of Islamic terrorists who are waging a war upon freedom.
  Madam Speaker, the American people want us to fight and win in Iraq 
and bring our troops home. Our soldiers seek nothing more than the 
support they require to perform their mission and the knowledge that 
the American people believe that their sacrifice is necessary and 
noble.
  Contrary to some of those on the other side of the aisle who have 
stood here in this well believing and saying that this debate is a 
breath of fresh air, our enemies will be the only ones satisfied by 
this debate. They will have received all the political rhetoric they 
require to convince their followers that complete victory is at hand. 
One can only imagine with horror how many Islamic radicals will be 
inspired to continue the fight after this House resolves that it 
supports our troops but not the mission we ask them to perform.
  To those who support this resolution and oppose any effort to achieve 
victory in Iraq, I challenge you to be true to your convictions and 
bring a binding resolution to the floor to cut off funds for our 
troops, because that is really what this is all about.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' and send a message worth hearing to America, our soldiers, 
and our enemies.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  While this resolution may be nonbinding, we will all be bound by its 
consequences: the immediate and long-lasting consequences, those here 
and in the combat zone.
  Democrats continue to put forward an inherently contradictory message 
with dire consequences, on one hand offering rhetorical support for the 
troops and on the other, advancing a slow-bleed strategy that 
methodically constricts those troops' ability to succeed.
  From the testimonials we have heard, it is clear our troops believe 
their mission is winnable. And the message they are routinely 
delivering to us could not be more clear. They want a chance to get the 
job done.
  Ladies and gentlemen, our troops are not speaking off of a slickly 
produced focus group-tested set of talking points. They are vocalizing 
the overwhelming sentiments that exist on the front lines. We do a 
disservice to the very troops we claim to support when we advance a 
slow-bleed strategy that cuts off their lifeline of support.
  We don't support them when we choke off the funding they need to 
succeed. We don't support them when we erect political roadblocks 
designed to deny them the equipment that they need to carry out their 
mission. We don't support them when we tie their hands behind their 
back. And we certainly don't support our troops when we attach strings 
to the funding needed to ensure that when they need help, it is on the 
way.
  Yesterday the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 
unveiled this dangerous slow-bleed doctrine on a Web site, 
movecongress.org, that is directly affiliated with some of the most 
extreme elements of the antiwar left. This is a political machine 
designed to elect and defeat politicians by using our troops as pawns, 
and now they seek to deprive those same troops of the resources they 
need to succeed in their mission. According to news reports, these 
groups are prepared to spend $8.5 million on a national ad campaign to 
target lawmakers who did not adhere to their extremist, defeatist 
views.
  This resolution is not an earnest expression of congressional 
sentiment. It is phase one of the far left's plan to elect more of 
their own. And all of this is for what? To send a message or settle a 
score with our Commander in Chief? To raise campaign cash?
  It turns out our worse fears are true; that this resolution is, in 
fact, a first, dangerous step to cutting off the funds our troops so 
desperately need. The remarks of the Defense Appropriations chairman, 
the remarks of the Speaker with major national reporters lending 
support to the slow-bleed doctrine; and next week senior House leaders 
will convene to map out their strategy for maximizing their ability to 
defund the troops while minimizing the political fallout.
  Before you cast your vote today, you should see this resolution for 
what it is: phase one of a political campaign to strip our troops of 
the funds they need.

                              {time}  1415

  Right now, in some cave in Iraq or Afghanistan, information is being 
located on a hard drive that talks about a plan for a new attack in 
America. Right now, somewhere in the Middle East, teenage boys are 
being groomed to be human bombs to further the aims of these Islamic 
extremists. Right now, money is being transferred across a global 
finance network to fund the attacks here on our soil or on other 
allies' soil who believe in the types of freedom and open society we 
enjoy, in Madrid, in London, in Hamburg, in New York, in Washington.
  Regardless of how many Republicans cross the aisle and vote with the 
Democrats or how many Democrats cross the aisle and vote with the 
Republicans, tomorrow morning the terrorists will still wake up with 
hate on their hearts, plotting the next scheme to bring down our 
economy, to bring down our system of government, to bring down the 
lives of innocents.
  As recently as last August, as if we didn't learn from the events of 
9/11, as recently as last August, there was still an attempt to blow up 
10 more airliners using baby food as the means for bringing on the 
explosive device.
  Resolutions like this do nothing to stop that type of hate. They only 
send the wrong signals to the men and women on the front lines for all 
of us.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise again today, as I did at the beginning of this 
debate, to urge a ``no'' vote on this nonbinding resolution. We have 
spent the week discussing the situation in Iraq and trying to find out 
what the resolution may really mean.
  As I said at the start of this debate, it is hard to imagine a less 
qualified group prepared to determine tactics on the ground than 535 
Members of Congress, or 535 members of anything else;

[[Page 4498]]

how many troops to deploy, where to deploy them, which car to stop. 
Where does it end?
  There is a disagreement on how we should fight this war on Islamic 
totalitarianism, but this fight is the challenge of our generation.
  Madam Speaker, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
supported this mission at the beginning. Now they are ready to give up 
in the middle of the fight.
  Those who join me in opposing this nonbinding resolution have been 
saying all week, while this resolution will have no impact because it 
is nonbinding, it is still the first step toward cutting funding for 
our troops.
  Yesterday, we were told that this is the first step toward pulling 
the rug out from under our troops in the field.
  This week, one of the veterans on our side of the aisle was accused 
of being dishonest in her representation when she said that this 
resolution we will vote on today did not support those who are 
deploying. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, said just 
yesterday, during the unveiling of his strategy to pull the rug out 
from under our troops, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be 
able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment. They don't 
have the training, and they won't be able to do the work.''
  He also said, ``I think, first of all, we have to be careful that 
people don't think this is the vote. The real vote will come on the 
legislation we are putting together. This nonbinding legislation is 
just an opinion.''
  I would say this resolution says just enough not to say anything at 
all. We have already heard the Democrats calling the debate this week 
the ``bark before the bite.'' Their so-called slow-bleed approach is 
the bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America's flag 
overseas.
  This nonbinding resolution is the first step in an all-too-binding 
spiral toward defeat in a fight that we cannot afford to lose.
  I am not pleased to vote ``no'' today, but I will vote ``no,'' 
knowing that the ``no'' vote is the right vote.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, as we come to the end of this debate, I 
want to commend every participant on both sides for conveying 
powerfully and eloquently their deeply held views.
  I started this debate in the firm belief that escalation is a flawed 
idea. After listening carefully for the past 4 days to all of my 
colleagues, I am more convinced than ever that escalation is a flawed 
idea.
  Escalation is not only the wrong policy for the United States, it is 
also the wrong policy for Iraq. If Iraq is to succeed as a stable and 
prosperous state, it must learn to take responsibility. It must learn 
to make difficult decisions. It must amend its constitution in the 
interests of Iraqi reconciliation. It must devise an equitable law for 
sharing its oil and gas revenues. And it must take primary 
responsibility for its own security.
  Unless we de-escalate, Iraq will never step up to the plate. But that 
is not the only reason we must de-escalate. Unless we do so, our great 
Nation will be unable to fulfill its many far-flung global 
responsibilities. Unless we de-escalate, we will simply lack the 
resources for critical tasks here at home and overseas.
  All of us, Madam Speaker, are passionately committed to supporting 
and defending our troops. In the coming weeks, my fellow Democrats and 
I will bring forth specific proposals to enhance this Nation's support 
and defense of our brave troops.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are not well-served by the surge 
and our present course in Iraq. This omelet cannot be unscrambled. 
There have been far too many mistakes made to undo the damage.
  For the sake of Iraq, for the sake of our own national interests and 
for the sake of our incomparable troops, de-escalation must begin, and 
it must begin now.
  I strongly support the resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do 
so.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support our 
troops and our Nation. It is really that simple.
  We in Congress have an obligation and duty to debate the many 
different issues facing the country. Our words and our actions 
traditionally make their way to our constituents' living rooms and the 
national news, but now, with communications being what they are, to our 
troops in the field through the Internet.
  Our words are the guiding principles by which the voters ultimately 
make their decision on who they want representing them here, and this 
week obviously is no exception.
  Our words will carry on for many months to come. Our constituents are 
listening, as there is no issue more sobering or more somber than this 
one.
  Over the last 4 days, though, I have been struck not so much by the 
rhetoric on display here but the effects this debate will have on the 
morale of our troops. Our words have carried much further than those 
living rooms this past week. This debate will inevitably make its way 
to our troops there in Iraq standing watch in some remote outpost, 
training Iraqi security forces.
  This debate will inevitably make its way to the parents of our 
troops, their spouses, their children. These children will remember 
parts of this debate and will grow up learning just how much their 
country supported their parents during these trying times.
  The talk also goes to the enemy, who is watching and listening to us 
in the caves, on the battlefield, the terrorist cells wherever they may 
be. They monitor what we are saying to learn of our resolve. So even if 
we just talk, we ought to be very careful what we say. The world is 
watching and listening.
  And since we have the power to fund our military, I want to talk 
briefly. We have one Commander in Chief. The President's premise for 
going to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq has always been to go on the 
offensive. It is hard to prove a negative, but it is obvious we have 
not had one terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. That is not all 
because of our decision to go to war in Iraq, but it is one of the 
reasons.
  Everybody ought to know by now the basic mindset of the terrorist 
jihadists. They are attracted to volatile parts of the Middle East, 
where broken regimes make it okay to practice hatred and violence. They 
are looking for safe sanctuary that provides secrecy, communications 
capabilities and a basic infrastructure with which to concoct their 
next scheme. They plan and plot and wait to pounce in various hot spots 
around the world, just as they have done in Kenya, Tanzania, the USS 
Cole, Bali, Madrid, London. It is a low-grade world war.
  If we finish this job, Iraq might be a place where people are more 
concerned with getting to work and raising a family than one where 
terrorists can plan attacks and sectarian violence is rampant. It won't 
be perfect.
  And let's be honest about what is called sectarian violence. Where 
did that come from? A lot of it from terrorist organizations, al Qaeda 
foremost. It is provoked and prodded along because our enemies know it 
will test our resolve. Listen to the tapes of Osama bin Laden and Ayman 
al-Zawahari. They talk about it all the time.
  What they want for themselves is for the U.S. to give up. They call 
us a paper tiger, a country that gives up when support wanes or when 
the going gets difficult. In their view, after we give up, they will 
claim victory and turn Iraq into a terrorist factory of training camps, 
weapons making and surveillance operations, all designed for the 
express purpose of waging the next attack in the U.S. or otherwise 
advancing this low-grade world war.
  The President knows this, and we need to end this war. He has taken 
the input of others and readjusted our strategy and, as we speak, is 
readjusting our tactics. The Iraqis must take charge of their own 
security.
  Our military is pressing for action, action from our own troops to 
quell the violence and action to get the Iraqi security forces trained, 
equipped and ready to act.

[[Page 4499]]

  I hope to bring the Kentucky troops home, but not until the work is 
done. Oppose the resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan resolution, and I am 
pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to Chairman 
Skelton and Chairman Lantos for giving me the opportunity and the 
privilege to be part of this resolution, first of all, to thank our men 
and women in uniform for their service and, secondly, to question 
whether the sending of 20,000-plus troops to be policemen in Baghdad is 
the right thing or the wrong thing to do.
  I think this has been a great debate, no matter which side of the 
aisle you have been on or which position you have had.
  Madam Speaker, I want to say again, as I did 2 days ago, I know we 
cannot live in the past, but I will tell you, my heart has ached ever 
since I went to a Marine's funeral in April of 2003.
  Michael Bitz died a sergeant, a sergeant who left a wife and three 
children, twins that were born 2 weeks after he was deployed. He never 
saw them. At the funeral, the wife read the last letter word for word. 
She cried, and I cried too, by God.
  Then I started questioning. The intelligence given to the Congress 
and the American people, was it verified? Was it true? Then I started 
speaking out and asking for those who were on the inside, and I am 
going to read this to you today very quickly.

                              {time}  1430

  General Gregory Newbold, Marine general, and as far as I am 
concerned, he is a hero because he gave up a third star because he 
could not sit there and see the manipulation of the intelligence to 
send our troops to Iraq, and I quote very quickly from an article that 
he wrote for Time magazine, April 9, 2006.
  ``Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq War. Army General 
Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine 
Lieutenant Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced 
his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition 
to the war.''
  I further read from his writing to Time magazine. ``From 2000 until 
October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of 
operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness 
and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of 
Iraq, an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret 
of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I 
think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. 
But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were 
determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the 
real threat, al Qaeda. I retired from the military 4 months before the 
invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's 
tragedy to hijack our security policy.''
  He further stated, ``To be sure, the Bush administration and senior 
military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of 
Congress, from both parties, defaulted in fulfilling their 
constitutional responsibility for oversight.''
  These are not my words. They are the words of two-star Marine General 
Gregory Newbold who gave up the third star because he could not stay 
and see what was happening to our military and to this country.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of this resolution. Debate has 
never hurt anyone. In fact, at the Armed Services meeting 2 weeks ago, 
a question was asked, either by my side or your side, Would this 
demoralize the troops? And General Pace and Secretary of Defense Gates 
said, no, it will not; they are smart, they understand. This is what 
freedom is all about is debate, disagreement, and discussion.
  Madam Speaker, our troops have done a magnificent job, and they 
cannot afford to continue to be policemen in a civil war. It is not 
fair and makes no sense at all.
  Seventy percent of the American people are opposed to this surge, and 
Madam Speaker, I want to read Retired Army Lieutenant General J. 
Garner, the first U.S. official in charge of postwar Baghdad. Madam 
Speaker, he said, ``I don't know that the Iraqi Government has ever 
demonstrated ability to lead the country, and we shouldn't be 
surprised. You'll never find, in my lifetime, one man that all the 
Iraqis will coalesce around. Iraqis are too divided among sectarian, 
ethnic, and tribal loyalties, and their loyalties are regional, not 
national.''
  Let's pass this resolution, and God bless our men and women in 
uniform.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the minority leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas 
for yielding and thank him and all of you for, once again, to have an 
opportunity to come and speak on the floor on this resolution.
  The resolution before us is nonbinding, but it is the first step down 
a very treacherous path, a path that, if followed, will endanger 
Americans for generations to come.
  Iraq is the central front in a global war between the United States 
of America and radical Islamic terrorists, a war that began long before 
the horrific events of 9/11, a war the American people did not seek and 
did not start.
  It is mind-boggling to consider how fanatically committed our enemies 
are to destroying America, even at the cost of destroying themselves in 
the process. Our enemies recruit young people, fill them with hate and 
rage, and then send them on suicide missions to kill innocent victims. 
We face an enemy that loves death more than it loves life.
  As Americans, we cherish freedom and democracy. Ours is a way of 
life. Theirs is a way of death, of murder, of suicide.
  The global reach of radical Islam stretches from North Africa, 
through the Middle East, to South Asia, to Indonesia and to the 
Philippines.
  The other side wants Americans to believe that the war in Iraq is 
different from the war on terror. They even say that we are not 
fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, ignoring the fact that al Qaeda has made it 
the central front in their war against America.
  According to the experts, and according to their own words, radical 
Islamic terrorists will never stop fighting until much of the world is 
under Islamic law.
  In 2004, Osama bin Laden said the following about the conflict in 
Iraq: ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; 
the Islamic Nation . . . and the United States and its allies on the 
other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.''
  And our enemies are watching this debate, and through the Arab media 
we know what they are saying.
  Recently, the second-in-command of al Qaeda issued a warning to 
moderate Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan who are working and dying to 
build peace and security, and he said this: ``These traitors in Iraq 
and Afghanistan must face their inevitable fate, and face up to the 
inescapable facts. America is about to depart and abandon them, just as 
it abandoned their like in Vietnam.''
  The consequences of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic for America 
and the world.
  Last month, General Petraeus spoke of the very real possibility of 
Iraq's neighbors taking sides in sectarian violence.
  Failing in Iraq would jeopardize Israel and greatly benefit Iran, a 
nation governed by a fanatic and actively building nuclear weapons.
  The battle we fight in Iraq is the biggest part of our global war, 
and if we leave, the fight will, in fact, follow us home. And what we 
will leave behind is chaos, the same kind of chaos we left behind in 
Vietnam, the same kind of chaos we left behind in Lebanon, and the same 
kind of chaos that we left behind in Somalia.
  Who does not believe that we will not see chaos in Iraq, 
destabilizing the Middle East and jeopardizing the very safety and 
security of the American people?

[[Page 4500]]

  As Americans, we are fortunate in so many ways. We have so many 
blessings, including a great and proud history to inspire us. Earlier 
this week, I talked about President Lincoln and the challenges he faced 
during some of America's darkest days. During the Revolution, America 
faced down what was then the most powerful empire in the world, with a 
rag-tag army. We survived a Civil War that would have permanently 
divided any other Nation.
  After a crippling depression in the 1930s, we defeated Japanese 
imperialism and Hitler in Germany. We then defeated the Soviet Union 
and their communist empire in a test of wills that lasted for a 
generation.
  The greatness of America is exemplified in a simple short letter 
about duty and sacrifice. The letter was written by Marine Staff 
Sergeant Daniel Clay, the husband of my former staffer, Lisa Bell Clay.
  Sergeant Clay was one of 10 Marines who were killed in Fallujah a 
little over a year ago, and he left behind this letter to his family in 
case he did not come home.
  In it, he said, ``What we have done in Iraq is worth any sacrifice. 
Why? Because it was our duty.'' He says, ``That sounds simple. But all 
of us have a duty. Duty is defined as a God-given task. Without duty, 
life is worthless.''
  Our troops are not the only Americans who have a God-given task. If a 
noncommissioned officer can understand his duty, then certainly Members 
of Congress can understand theirs.
  Congress has a duty to protect the American people now so that the 
next generation can enjoy prosperity and freedom.
  Congress also has a duty to the men and women in uniform when we send 
them into harm's way, a duty to provide them with the full support and 
resources they need to accomplish their mission and return home safely.
  My friends on the other side have described this nonbinding 
resolution as their first step. It is a first step. It is the first 
step in a plan to cut off funding and reinforcements for American 
troops in harm's way.
  The next step is to micromanage the war through the budget process. 
To quote the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who said 
yesterday, ``They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do 
the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the 
training and they won't be able to do the work.''
  Mr. Speaker, at this very moment American troops are fighting radical 
Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, and it is unthinkable that 
the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut 
off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to 
succeed and return home safely.
  The American people will not support a strategy that involves pulling 
the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting 
off their reinforcements and forcing them to face an enemy without our 
full support.
  This resolution is nonbinding, but it is the first step toward a 
tragic, unthinkable goal.
  Four years ago, this body agreed that fighting this war was a worthy 
cause. There have been setbacks where Members on both sides of the 
aisle are rightly dissatisfied with the results. But this is war. We 
face a sophisticated, determined enemy who wants to annihilate our way 
of life.
  We have a duty to stand and fight against those who seek to destroy 
America and the freedom that defines us. Our troops are committed to 
fighting and winning this global war. We owe them our unfailing 
support.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with the marines, the soldiers, the 
sailors and the airmen and vote down this resolution. I urge my 
colleagues to think about our duty, our duty to support our troops, our 
duty to protect the American people, and our duty to leave for our kids 
and their kids a safe, free, and secure America. Our soldiers are dying 
around the world to protect us, upholding their duty. Do we have the 
courage to uphold our duty?
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to yield 7 
minutes to an American hero, a hero of the State of Texas, a pilot in 
Vietnam, one of the longest serving prisoners of war of the Vietnam era 
and a personal hero of mine, Mr. Sam Johnson.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. You know, as he said, I flew 62 combat 
missions in the Korean War and 25 in Vietnam before being shot down. I 
had the privilege of serving in the United States Air Force for 29 
years, attending the prestigious National War College, commanding two 
air bases, among other things.
  I mention these stories because I view the debate on the floor not 
just as a U.S. Congressman elected to serve the good people of the 
Third District in Texas, but also through the lens of a lifelong 
fighter pilot, student of war, a combat warrior, a leader of men, and a 
prisoner of war.
  Ironically, this week marks the anniversary that I started a new life 
and my freedom from prison in Hanoi. I spent early 7 years as that 
prisoner of war, more than half of that time in solitary confinement. I 
flew out of Hanoi on February 12, 1973, with other long-held prisoners 
of war, weighing just 140 pounds. And tomorrow, 34 years ago, I had my 
homecoming to Texas, a truly unspeakable blessing of freedom.
  While in solitary confinement, my captures kept me in leg stocks, 
like the pilgrims, for 72 days. As you can imagine, they had to carry 
me out of the stocks because I couldn't walk.
  The following day they put me in leg irons for 2\1/2\ years. That is 
when you have a tight metal cuff around each ankle with a foot-long bar 
connecting the legs. I still have very little feeling in my right arm 
and right hand, and my body has never been the same since my nearly 
2,500 days of captivity. But I will never let my physical woes hold me 
back. Instead, I try to see the silver lining.
  I say that because, in some ways, I am living a dream, a hope that I 
had for the future. From April 16, 1966, to February 12, 1973, I prayed 
that I would return home to the loving embrace of my wife, Shirley, and 
my three kids, Bob, Jenny, and Beverly. My fellow POWs and I clung to 
the hope of when, not if, we returned home. We would spend hours 
tapping on the adjoining cement walls about what we would do when we 
got home to America. We pledged to quit griping about the way the 
government was running the war in Vietnam and do something about it. We 
decided we would run for office and try to make America a better place 
for all of us.
  So, little did I know back in my rat-infested 3-by-8 dark, filthy 
cell that, 34 years after my departure from hell on earth, I would 
spend the anniversary of my release pleading for a House panel to back 
my measure to support and fully fund our troops in harm's way; and, 
that just days later I would be on the floor of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, surrounded by distinguished veterans, urging Congress 
to support our troops to the hilt.
  We POWs were still in Vietnam when Washington cut the funding for 
Vietnam. I know what it does to morale and mission success. Words 
cannot fully describe the horrendous damage of the anti-American 
efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground. Our 
captors would blare nasty recordings over the loudspeaker of Americans 
protesting back home, tales of Americans spitting on Vietnam veterans 
when they came home, and worse. I don't think we should ever, ever let 
that happen again. The pain inflicted by your country's indifference is 
tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors.
  Our troops and their families want, need, and deserve the full 
support of this country and the Congress. Moms and dads watching the 
news need to know that the Congress will not leave their sons and 
daughters in harm's way without support.
  Since the President announced his new plan for Iraq last month, there 
has been steady progress. He changed the rules of engagement, removed 
political protection. There are reports we wounded the number two of al 
Qaeda and killed his deputy. And, yes, al Qaeda operates in Iraq. It is 
alleged that top radical jihadist, al-Sadr, has fled Iraq maybe to 
Iran, and Iraq has closed its borders with Iran and Syria.

[[Page 4501]]

  The President has changed course, has offered a new plan. We are 
making progress. We must seize the opportunity to move forward, not 
stifle future success. Debating nonbinding resolutions aimed at earning 
political points only destroys morale, stymies success, and emboldens 
the enemy.
  The grim reality is that this House measure is the first step to 
cutting funding of the troops. Just ask John Murtha about his slow-
bleed plan that hamstrings our troops in harm's way.
  Now it is time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home 
and those who fought and died in Iraq already, so I can keep my promise 
that when we got home we would quit griping about the war and do 
something positive about it.
  We must not allow this Congress to leave these troops like the 
Congress left us. Today, let my body serve as a brutal reminder that we 
must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Instead, learn from them. We 
must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them. We must 
support them all the way. And, to our troops, we must remain always 
faithful. God bless you all. I salute you and this Congress.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to share this body and 
this floor with the remarkable gentleman from Texas. I applaud him for 
his patriotism, his courage, and commitment to America.
  Madam Speaker, we have had a long debate on this resolution. I have 
listened to critics, and I find it quite interesting that the criticism 
is focused almost exclusively on what this resolution doesn't say, 
rather than what it does.
  Let me review, if I may. The resolution says two simple things: We 
support the troops completely, wholeheartedly, now and in the future; 
and we disapprove of the White House's plan to deploy more than 20,000 
additional combat troops to Iraq.
  That is what we are voting on today, and nothing said on this floor 
or in this Chamber will change the fact that that is what is before us.
  I oppose the President's plan because it will embroil our troops even 
more deeply in a sectarian conflict. Some call this conflict a civil 
war, some call this more complicated than a civil war, and, either way, 
it is a conflict we cannot resolve and which ultimately cannot be 
resolved militarily.
  The President's plan to deploy more troops is simply not the answer. 
It cannot fix the three irretrievable mistakes made in 2003 when the 
administration insisted on de-Baathification, dissolving the Iraqi 
army, and shutting down the state-run industries, throwing hundreds of 
thousands of Iraqis out of work and creating untold numbers of 
insurgents.
  The President's plan hastily put together is insufficient in a number 
of ways:
  It is insufficient in the requirements for progress it places on the 
Iraqi political system, the true center of gravity in this whole 
conflict.
  It is insufficient in the support it provides to our combat forces 
both in terms of equipment as well as support forces.
  And it is insufficient in the amount of training time it allows for 
deploying units.
  As a result, under the President's plan, U.S. military forces will be 
less ready to go into during and after this troop increase; and, sadly, 
they could be stretched to the point of breaking. To the point of 
breaking.
  Now, finally, I oppose the White House's plan because it will 
heighten the already unacceptable level of strategic risk currently 
facing our Nation, strategic risk that exists because our military is 
overcommited in Iraq and is ill-equipped and ill-positioned to respond 
to emerging crises elsewhere in the world. And this worries me, it 
worries me deeply.
  I have been privileged to serve here in Congress slightly over 30 
years, and over that time 12 significant military contingencies have 
occurred in which our military have been involved. Each of them 
occurred in an unexpected place and at an unexpected time. It will 
happen again. Right now, we are not prepared as we should be for an 
unforeseen military threat. That worries me.
  Unfortunately, it is the magnificent, wonderful, courageous men and 
women of our military who will pay the price for that failure.
  Madam Speaker, we must send the White House a message that cannot be 
ignored; and that is why we are here today. I urge that we pass the 
Skelton-Lantos-Jones resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, despite my belief in the 
inadequacies of the President's new strategy, to vote for the 
resolution with the troops already deployed is a step I cannot take. I 
am unwilling to--after the fact--say to them, I oppose your mission.
  My vote should not be interpreted as approval of the administration's 
conduct of this war. I have had the opportunity to meet General David 
Petraeus, the new commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq. I believe he is 
one of the most capable military commanders America has available for 
this mission. General Petraeus has indicated there is a chance for 
success and that he will report to the American people in 6 months as 
to whether or not the President's plan is working.
  Let us give the new leaders and the new strategy this short period of 
time to see if stability can be achieved--an investment necessary to 
ensure the lives lost and families damaged thus far have not sacrificed 
in vain.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, given my tensure in the House 
of Representatives, I have seen more than my fair share of good and bad 
legislation come to the House floor. In addressing the nonbinding House 
Continuing Resolution 63, I would like to take a step back and call 
this bill what it is, it is a facade, and a political maneuver. If we 
are going to spend four days discussing a piece of legislation, if we 
are going to vote on something, we should vote on funding. Our power in 
Congress is the power of the purse. If the Democrats have an action 
item, we should get to the point; let us vote on funding the war in 
Iraq, and stop making pointless partisan political arguments.
  However, all of my colleagues are aware that a vote to stop funding 
for the war will not pass, as the Republicans will not support it and 
many Democrats would oppose such legislation as well. This is true 
because we all have American resolve, meaning we will work together as 
a country to finish what we began.
  American resolve does not quit when a situation gets messy, we do not 
tuck our tail between our legs and run away scared. My colleagues and I 
are also aware that our legislative agenda does not exist in a bubble; 
that there are many factors at play. If we do not have the intestinal 
fortitude in Iraq, how will we be viewed by other countries like Iran?
  It is vital to our prosperity that the United States maintains her 
impenetrable stance in the international community. If the United 
States is seen as a Paper Tiger there will be many deep, far reaching 
implications; one of them being Iran's nuclear missile program, which 
threatens the safety of the world.
  In addressing the real threat posed by Iran, Ambassador Gregory 
Schulte has explained that,
  ``The pursuit of nuclear weapons by the leadership in Tehran 
threatens Iran's neighbors and threatens the wider world community. In 
the Middle East, Iran's influence is rising. The fall of the Taliban 
and Saddam, increased revenues from the high price of oil, the 
electoral victory of Hamas, and the perceived success of Hezbollah in 
attacking Israel all extend Iran's shadow.
  He also stated that:
  ``A nuclear-armed Iran could embolden its leaders to advance their 
ambitions even more aggressively across the Middle East. Even without 
detonating a single nuclear weapon, the mere possession of an atomic 
arsenal could encourage Iran's leaders to employ their conventional 
forces and step up terrorism to advance their regional ambitions. Iran, 
with Syria, is allowing terrorists and insurgents to use its territory 
to move in and out of Iraq and is helping to train and arm militants 
who are killing coalition forces and innocent civilians.''
  In today's news, it was reported that Iraq had to shut down its 
border with Syria and Iran. U.S. officials have long suspected Syria of 
allowing foreign fighters to cross its long, porous border into Iraq, 
and this past weekend evidence was presented of Iranian-manufactured 
weapons being smuggled into Iraq. We will be paving the way for Iran 
and Syria to be the victors if we do not allow our troops the full 
force of our assistance in Congress.
  I would like to be the bearer of a positive aspect of our work in 
Iraq, highlighting some major accomplishments achieved by our leaders 
and troops. Here is the positive side of the

[[Page 4502]]

story that is rarely brought to light or reported on in the mainstream 
media:
  Free Elections are transforming Iraq. In 2005, Iraq held two 
parliamentary elections and a constitutional referendum, with turnout 
increasing each time cumulating in 76 percent of registered voters 
participating in the December 2005 elections.
  Economic recovery is picking up. The International Monetary Fund 
estimates GDP grew by 2.6 percent in 2005, and is expected to grow by 
10.4 percent in 2006, adjusted for inflation.
  A stable currency, introduced in October 2003, has allowed the 
Central Bank of Iraq to manage inflation; the IMF estimates inflation 
was 32 percent in 2004 and remained stable at this level in 2005.
  Iraq is rejoining the international community. It is on the road to 
WTO accession, and received both an IMF credit facility and its first 
World Bank loan in 30 years.
  Debt relief agreements are helping Iraq with its economic outlook; 
Iraq has secured an agreement to forgive at least 80 percent of its 
Saddam-era debt.
  Foreign and domestic banks are opening new offices.
  The stock market established in April 2004 currently lists nearly 90 
companies.
  Iraq had virtually no cell phone subscribers in 2003. Today, there 
are more than 5 million cell phone subscribers, and an estimated 2,000 
Internet cafes.
  Seventy-seven percent of Iraqi businessmen anticipate growth in the 
national economy over the next 2 years, in a recent nationwide poll, 
and 69 percent are ``optimistic'' about Iraq's future.
  In conclusion, we must stand behind our troops, military commanders, 
and our Commander in Chief. We need to finish the job and secure areas 
in Baghdad and the Anbar Province. We must secure the situation on the 
ground so Iraq can establish the rule of law. We must provide this 
secure environment so social and economic development can take place.
  Finally, we must protect the population and critical infrastructure. 
These are fundamental elements of counter insurgency strategy. These 
fundamental elements simply have not been able to take hold due to the 
amount of insurgents in the area and their ability to overturn our 
previous work.
  I beg of my colleagues to refuse to allow our troops to become a 
casualty of partisan rhetoric. If we want to win the war, then we have 
one option. Support them. Support the mission. Support the military 
intelligence officers focused on this victory. Refuse to quit, refuse 
to weaken, and allow the counter insurgency this chance to succeed.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, today is a day that we will look back on 
and know that fundamental decisions regarding our Nation's history were 
made.
  The discussions that we are engaged in will go a long way in 
determining our future in the ongoing global war on terror and Iraq's 
role in that fight. When this vote is cast on the non-binding, 
Democratic resolution, we will be sending a message to the world. The 
only question remaining is what message will we send?
  Will we say that America remains steadfast against the rising tide of 
hate and intolerance offered by militant Islamists? Will we say that we 
don't have the stomach to finish the fight against terrorists who 
actively seek to kill us and destroy our way of life?
  The war in Iraq has become such a flashpoint that we struggle to 
separate the politics of the situation from the reality. The politics 
attacks the intelligence that led us to war, questions our Nation's 
elected leadership, and condemns the decisions made along the way. It 
leads to the resolution that we now have before us. The reality 
recognizes that we are at war now and our troops are putting their 
lives on the line each and every day. It says that if this is a fight 
that we believe in, a fight against global terrorism, we must do 
everything possible to support the men and women who are carrying it 
out on our behalf and never giving a hint to the contrary.
  Unfortunately we are at a point today where some have forgotten 
exactly who and what we are fighting.
  Prior to 9/11, we failed to understand the hate of people like Osama 
bin Laden and what could result from it despite all evidence to the 
contrary. In 1979, 66 American diplomats were held hostage in Iran for 
444 days; in 1983, 241 Marines were killed in Beirut when their 
barracks was attacked; militant Islamic terrorists bombed the World 
Trade Center in 1993; 225 people were killed in attacks on U.S. 
embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998; and, in 2000, 17 American 
sailors were killed when al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S. Cole.
  Today we are at a historic crossroads: we either boldly tackle the 
issue of militant Islam that exists on the Iraqi front and is part of 
this world-wide struggle, applying the lessons we have learned from the 
years leading up to 9/11, or we approach the issue as we naively 
demonstrated before 9/11 and expect more attacks and more American 
deaths.
  The war in Iraq has gone on longer than any of us would have wished. 
We've seen too many funerals for too many sons and daughters, husbands 
and wives. To all those who have lost a friend or loved one, our hearts 
go out to you.
  It should be noted that mistakes have been made, of that there can be 
no doubt. We must know without question what led us to this point, and 
that time will come. But now is not that time. Not while we still have 
American service men and women in harm's way. History will play its 
part, teaching us our mistakes and urging us not to repeat them. But we 
don't have the luxury of waiting on history to pass its judgment.
  Without resolve, it is certain we will fail in Iraq and there will be 
far-reaching consequences for our Nation, the region and ultimately the 
world. Since September 11, there have been major terrorist attacks in 
Karachi, Bali, Moscow, Casablanca, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid, London and 
Amman. If we allow the terrorists present in Iraq to win, we can expect 
more of the same. We can expect to see another Afghanistan--a puppet 
government established to support and back the aims of their terrorist 
masters. This is totally unacceptable.
  Victory in Iraq is our only option. It is the only path through which 
we can hope for peace. Without victory, our terrorist enemies gain 
confidence in their opposition to the United States and their ability 
to defeat us militarily. We embolden them and offer them the 
opportunity to further their attacks against American men, women and 
children.
  The resolution that we are debating will send a message to the world. 
What will that message be? My fervent hope and prayer is that it will 
be a message of resolve, a message of strength, a message of victory.
  Now is the time to support our troops in the field unequivocally and 
vote against this nonbinding resolution. We don't want anyone to 
construe our action here today as not fully supporting our men and 
women who serve us in Iraq.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I wish to address three 
questions here on the floor today: Where are we? Where do we want to 
be? How do we get there?
  First, where are we? We're in phase 3 of a conflict in Iraq. In Phase 
1 we overran Iraq in response to an American national security threat. 
We won.
  Then came Phase 2. We were forwardly deployed; the terrorists brought 
the fight to us; we busted up terrorist networks; America was protected 
from further attacks. We won.
  Now comes Phase 3. At best, Iraq is engulfed in a sectarian killing 
spree. At worst, Iraq has descended into a civil war.
  So where are we? We're thankful for the incredible work of our 
military in winning Phase 1 and 2. We're aware--and I think all of us 
are aware--that only the Iraqi people can win Phase 3. We're united in 
imploring the Iraqi people to choose order over chaos; pluralism over 
theocracy; and freedom over authoritarianism. As we had the help of the 
French, the Iraqis have had the help the United States.
  But just as it was only American patriots who could decide the future 
of our country, only Iraqi patriots can decide the future of their 
country. It is a neo-con mistake to charge our war fighters with 
building an Iraqi national consensus. Iraqis must decide for themselves 
if they want to live in a unified, peaceful and pluralistic Iraq. No 
amount of American military might can compel that result.
  So where are we? Thankful for success in the outcomes that we could 
control; aware of the outcomes that we cannot control.
  Where do we want to be? We want the Iraqis to take responsibility for 
their own country. The President is wisely pressing them to do so. We 
want the Iraqi leadership to make some key political decisions that 
could bring reconciliation. We want them to divide up the oil fairly, 
to allow banned Baathists back into positions of public trust and to 
develop a working model of pluralism.
  We want the Iraqi leadership to know that they don't have forever, 
that they should settle these reconciliation questions quickly. We want 
them to know that we are not content to provide an overall security 
umbrella for their country while they dispatch death squads to kill 
their enemies and improve their sectarian positions. We want them to 
know that we're reaching for the button that would lower that umbrella. 
And we want to avoid the error of nation building.
  The job of the U.S. military is to crush, kill and destroy the 
enemies of the United States.

[[Page 4503]]

They are not nation builders; they are warriors. And they do their jobs 
very, very well. As commanded, our military entered Iraq to destroy 
what we understandably believed were threats to our national security.
  We were successful in destroying those threats and thereafter in 
interrupting terrorist networks. Those were outcomes that we could 
control.
  Now we are rightly asked for inputs that we can control but we are 
faced with outcomes that only the Iraqi people can control. It is right 
to evaluate the quality of our forces' inputs, but wrong to hold them 
accountable for outcomes beyond their control. Diplomats, statesmen, 
peacemakers and everyday Iraqis must work with us to develop a path to 
progress--a path that has milestones along the way and which has 
rewards for meeting those milestones and consequences for failure. Our 
military must help plan the path because they are the most stable and 
trustworthy institution on the ground in Iraq and because they are 
experts at planning and logistics.
  Since our military is in control of the ``planning'' input, they will 
rightly be evaluated on the basis of the quality of that planning. 
Because they are the most trained and capable force in the world, our 
military must also continue to provide protection for the 
decisionmakers as they plan the path to progress. The quality of that 
protection is an input that will rightly be evaluated.
  Because they are experts at discipline and structure, our military 
must help define the agreed-upon milestones, the rewards for meeting 
those milestones and the consequences for missing them. The quality of 
those inputs will rightly be evaluated.
  Because they are capable, our military must provide strength for the 
first steps on the path. The quality of that strength and the 
capabilities with which it is delivered will rightly be evaluated.
  Having well supplied those inputs, the American military will leave 
Iraq successful--in Phase 1, 2 and 3. If the Iraqi people follow the 
path to progress to a peaceful, pluralist and unified Iraq, they will 
have been successful. The path may lead to something less.
  Any lesser outcome is the responsibility of the Iraqi people. So we 
want a path to progress, and we hope for the blessings of liberty for 
Iraq.
  Now. how do we get there? The President has ordered an increase in 
troop strength in Iraq. He thinks a surge in troops will give breathing 
room for the development of a path to progress.
  I'm concerned that a surge will have the opposite effect--that it 
will give breathing room to the death squads, that our service men and 
women will be caught in the crossfire and that the surge will end right 
where it began. In fact, that's what happened in Baghdad in August and 
September of 2006.
  I'm concerned that a surge sends a conflicting message. On the one 
hand we're telling them, ``You don't have forever; you've got to make 
progress in solving these political questions; you've got to stop 
legging up on your enemies; it's your country.'' By surging, we may be 
saying, ``Not to worry, we're increasing the size of that American 
security umbrella; there's no urgency; we're here to stay; in fact, 
more of us are coming.''
  I want all Iraqi factions and leaders of factions to worry. I want 
them to see us reaching for the button that would bring that umbrella 
down. I want them to imagine the click of that button and the feel of 
the wind from the descending umbrella.
  The resolution before us isn't written the way I would have written 
it, but it's the resolution before us. Resolutions are the way that 
Congress discharges its constitutional responsibility to communicate 
with the President. This resolution says, ``We disapprove of the 
surge.''
  Parties on both sides have added additional and conflicting meaning 
to those words. In the end, I just have to vote on the basis of the 
words. That's why I'm going to vote in favor of the resolution and 
express my concern about the effectiveness of the surge.
  Unlike many others who will vote for this resolution, I will not 
follow it with a vote to cut off funding. Nor will I follow it with a 
vote to withdraw immediately. Both of those actions would be mistaken.
  Some will say that I am too impatient and insistent for decisions 
from the Iraqi leadership. It's true that it took us nearly 100 years 
to figure out that slavery was antithetical to freedom. It took us even 
longer to figure out that women should have the right to vote.
  But as I had the opportunity to say to one of Prime Minister Maliki's 
advisors in Baghdad in August, it is our right as Iraq's protector and 
our obligation to our servicemen and women to insist on a timetable for 
these decisions. I've only been to Iraq twice. Both times I found that 
the hardest thing was leaving.
  While there, surrounded by America's best, I had the sense that I was 
at ground zero of mission and purpose. The Americans serving in Iraq 
are the most impressive people in the world. Everyone of them is a 
volunteer. Everyone of them, everyone of their predecessors and 
everyone of their non-deployed comrades has offered his or her life in 
preservation of our lives.
  America's best deserve our best--our clearest thinking, our freshest 
analysis, our steadfast devotion. Forget the political consequences; 
protect no one's ``legacy;'' don't worry about ``saving face;'' make 
sound decisions; take decisive action. Tell them what their mission is. 
Discharge the Constitutional responsibility of the Congress. Give them 
a clear description of the inputs we expect from them. Evaluate them on 
the quality of those inputs but don't hold them accountable for 
outcomes they cannot control.
  Ask them to do accomplishable things. Don't ask them to do the 
impossible.
  No amount of force can cause someone to choose freedom, and freedom 
cannot be given--it must be earned. We have provided the conditions 
under which freedom can take root. Iraqis must nurture the seed and 
water it with their own sweat and blood.
  If they do so, Iraq will enjoy the blessings of liberty. If they 
don't, our military will nevertheless have been successful.
  Mr. MACK. Madam Speaker. I rise today to express my strong support 
for our country's troops as they defend our freedoms and protect our 
national security.
  Today we are debating a non-binding resolution that threatens to 
undermine the morale of the very troops who are at the tip of the spear 
defending our shores. This resolution does a disservice to the very 
troops some in this body are pledging to support by voting for this 
today.
  President George W. Bush has proposed sending additional troops to 
Iraq to give those currently in the field the necessary manpower and 
resources to win the war. In addition, the President has put in place a 
new leadership team and a new strategy in Iraq.
  While we all know that mistakes have been made in the war in Iraq, I 
am inclined to support the President's new plan. But make no mistake: 
there must be new benchmarks, clearly defined goals, and we need to see 
real results soon.
  Some in this body are using this resolution today as a first step to 
defund the troops in the field. Madam Speaker, choking off the funding 
for American troops serving in harm's way will do nothing more than 
embolden our enemies and ensure defeat.
  Throughout our nation's history, millions of men and women have 
served the United States in times of crisis and need in the armed 
services. These men and women--and the soldiers currently in the 
theater of combat--have made sacrifices that must not ever be 
forgotten.
  Madam Speaker, instead of debating non-binding resolutions that 
threaten to undermine morale and embolden our enemies, we should be 
helping our troops by making sure they have the support and resources 
they need to defend our country by fighting our enemies overseas. Madam 
Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to reject this political gimmick and 
vote against this resolution.
  Mr. REHBERG. Madam Speaker, as an elected representative of our brave 
men and women serving in harm's way, every vote regarding war is a 
solemn matter.
  Debate about the war in Iraq is necessary, required, and many 
important points were brought up over the more than forty hours of 
discussion.
  No doubt about it, there have been setbacks in Iraq. And mistakes 
have been made on the ground and here in Washington. It's safe to say 
that all of us--the President, the Congress, and the American people 
wish we could have achieved stability in the region sooner.
  However, I believe it's necessary to separate the resolution being 
debated in the House from the real issue. The real issue is that a 
failed state in Iraq would present a serious threat to the United 
States' national security interests, could allow terrorists to further 
establish safe-havens in Iraq, and could create regional and global 
unrest for many years to come. This is a threat we must not pass on to 
our children and grandchildren. September 11th showed us that 
terrorists can reach our soil and kill innocent Americans. We must 
fight this war on our terms, but on their turf.
  This non-binding resolution, H. Con. Res. 63, is nothing more than an 
opinion about a strategy.
  While opinions are interesting, solutions are necessary.
  So I say to those who want to support this non-binding resolution: If 
you disagree with the strategy--put forward a plan; if you disagree 
with the tactics--put forward an alternative; if

[[Page 4504]]

you disagree with the mission--put forward a solution.''
  A non-binding resolution means non-leadership; a non-binding 
resolution means non-accountability. A non-binding resolution is not a 
plan for victory.
  This week, Congress has spent a lot of time debating one of the most 
important issues facing this body. Unfortunately, this legislation 
limited a true debate on the alternatives and direction we can take.
  A real resolution on Iraq needs to include real benchmarks and real 
guidelines, not simply a vote of no confidence.
  There are those of us who are willing to disagree with the President 
at the strategic, tactical or project level, and a true solution would 
be for Congress to debate the McCain-lieberman proposal. This 
bipartisan alternative not only reaffirms Congressional support for our 
troops, but provides military, political, and social benchmarks for the 
Iraqi government. This approach lays the groundwork for not only 
victory, but also brings our troops home as soon as possible.
  We owe it to our troops and their families to provide the necessary 
oversight to ensure any new strategy is successful, while at the same 
time giving our troops confidence that Congress will not cut off their 
funding to settle policy disputes while they are separated from their 
families by distance and danger. I continue to stand, ready, willing 
and able to contribute to that oversight.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution, and I am in complete opposition to President's plan to send 
an additional 21,000 Americans into Iraq.
  This ill conceived plan will only make a war that never should have 
started much, much worse. The generals don't want this surge. Our 
allies oppose it. 60 percent of the American people think it is a 
terrible idea and, the enemy is using it to boost recruitment. There is 
no conceivable reason for this surge. Yet, President Bush is pushing 
ahead with it.
  I opposed the original Iraq war resolution because I didn't see the 
connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the evidence of an 
immediate threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or even 
compelling evidence of the existence of WMD. But, we went in anyway. We 
rushed off, unprepared, into a needless war that has killed thousands 
and scarred 10's of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of 
innocent Iraqis.
  Now, here we go again. It is time for this administration to end its 
policy of ready, fire, aim. It is time to begin a policy of ready, aim, 
fire. I urge all of my colleagues to listen to the American public, to 
our troops and to our friends around the world. Vote yes on this 
resolution.
  Mrs. BONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 63, the non-binding Iraq War Policy resolution.
  We are being asked today to vote on a non-binding resolution that 
stands as nothing more than a political statement on an issue that 
greatly transcends the politics of the Nation's capital. The importance 
of ensuring our troops have the supplies and equipment they require for 
battle is clear. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to use valuable 
time during this legislative week to address true tangible needs that 
exist for those with enough courage to stand up for the freedoms our 
country affords.
  The importance of a stable and secure Iraq should not be 
underestimated, given the responsibility to assist the Iraqi people to 
further their personal freedoms. Sadaam Hussein's brutal dictatorship 
is one that cannot be soon forgotten. Those who share his world view of 
oppressing fundamental human rights must know that we Americans will 
continue to support policies that will protect all citizens from these 
radical and militant Islamic terrorist cells. This battle is only one 
front on the larger war on terror, and today's non-binding resolution 
does nothing to achieve more stability in the international community.
  To me, supporting this resolution only serves the purely political 
purpose of second-guessing a decision already made to move forward by 
the Commander in Chief. Those voting in favor of this resolution appear 
only to have a hunger to score meaningless political points, while 
lacking an appetite for pursuing the larger goals of keeping our brave 
soldiers equipped as they strive to ensure the safety of our country 
and citizens abroad.
  I would like to make clear that I have grave reservations regarding 
the current situation in Iraq. For too long, circumstances have limited 
our ability to reduce the sectarian violence plaguing this region, 
especially in Baghdad. It is critical that we see a greater commitment 
from the Iraqi government and the citizens of Iraq to help quell the 
insurgency. I question whether or not this increased level of force 
will accomplish the desired goal but I also respect the need to explore 
all options to stabilize the situation in this troubled country. My 
hope is that General Petraeus, given his extensive direct experience in 
training our troops on the ground, will have a strong sense of what can 
be achieved on the ground given the challenges of the future.
  My vote today is not an open-ended endorsement of the policy in Iraq. 
Rather, I will continue to monitor closely the situation and encourage 
continued Congressional oversight of the war. Today's debate displays 
the different views that we hold on this matter, but we should be 
unified in our support of those who are moving forward to complete the 
mission at hand. Recognizing that continued difficulties lie ahead, we 
should again not be voting on a resolution that will achieve a 
political end, rather we should be looking for ways to help those 
soldiers who continue to carry out this mission or have returned from 
battle.
  Our vote today is one that will be remembered as either for or 
against a decision already made by the Commander in Chief. In the short 
term, though, we should remember this nonbinding resolution serves no 
practical purpose in our larger fight against the war on terror.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this two-sentence non-binding resolution which demoralizes our troops 
in the field while providing aid to our enemy during a time of on-going 
conflict. These brave men and women deserve the full support of their 
government, not second-guessing from politicians in Washington, DC. 
Instead of discussions regarding appropriate funding levels to support 
our troops, the Democratic majority has chosen to rebuke the conduct of 
the war while it is still occurring. This is reckless and ill-advised.
  This resolution encourages our enemies to continue provoking our 
fighting men and women. America's enemies around the world are closely 
watching what we say and do today. By passing this non-binding 
resolution, Members of Congress are sending a vote of no confidence to 
our troops in the field and a message of surrender to our enemies.
  I strongly believe it is not the place of politicians in Washington 
to devise military tactics and strategy. Congress must not tie the 
hands of our military commanders in the field. You cannot fight a war 
by committee, thousands of miles away. The responsibility of conducting 
America's military strategy and the tactics of our armed forces should 
be left to our military commanders on the ground.
  The plan to increase the number of additional troops to the mission 
in Iraq should be given a chance to succeed. These 20,000 additional 
soldiers will assist the Iraqi government in its new, Iraqi-inspired 
security plan. As Prime Minister Maliki said, ``This is 100 percent an 
Iraqi plan under an Iraqi Command.''
  The majority of U.S. forces will be deployed to Baghdad to assist in 
maintaining control of areas cleared of terrorists and insurgents. As 
our military commanders in the field have repeatedly told us, part of 
the problem in securing Baghdad comes from the fact that many of the 
insurgents lie in wait until American troops move to another area only 
to emerge and retake precious territory gained by hard battle. By 
having additional troops in the field, the Iraqis will have a better 
chance to capture all of the insurgents, including those who stay 
hidden, waiting to attack again.
  Our commanders on the ground have given this plan a green light, and 
I will defer to them to make military decisions. We should keep in mind 
our top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, has warned against 
passing this very type of resolution. Our troops have said they want 
the chance to finish the mission that has been started.
  Our troops do not want Congress to conduct this war. As one soldier 
posted to a blog on February 5, 2007, ``Proposing to legislate the 
conduct of this long war looks worse than cut and run. It feels like 
the betrayal of the families who bear the burdens.''
  Congress should not tell our soldiers how to conduct a war any more 
than Congress should tell a lawyer how to argue a case or a doctor how 
to perform a surgery. Congress's place is to support our troops by 
providing the funding they need to finish the mission that was started. 
If my colleagues are so strongly opposed to the mission in Iraq, they 
can vote to cut the funding of our soldiers in harm's way.
  We must recognize the War on Terror requires perseverance and 
patience. American patience, however, is not infinite. The lack of 
visible progress in Iraq is deeply troubling. The Iraqi conflict has a 
crucial role in the war against al Qaeda. American troops are stemming 
the tide of a worsening situation. Failure in Iraq is simply not an 
option. It is important we in Congress demonstrate quickly our ability 
to win in Iraq before the situation gets worse.
  This may well represent the Administration's last chance to 
demonstrate sustainable

[[Page 4505]]

progress is securing the country. It is equally important; however, 
that Iraqis take ownership for their own country. Our troops, in 
whatever number, are not there permanently. The Iraqis must take an 
active role in shaping their country's future. Americans took control 
of America after the American Revolution; the Iraqis must do the same. 
The Iraqis must be made to recognize the need for Iraqis to control the 
future of their nation. Iraq's future should not be determined by 
Americans, only the Iraqis can and should do that.
  In closing, I believe in and support our American troops. They have 
made tremendous progress in Iraq and should be commended for the 
actions towards making Iraq a country for the Iraqis. Since the 
declaration of the Global War on Terror, our brave men and women have 
worked hard to stem the tide of a worsening situation. Because of them, 
elections have been held in both Afghanistan and Iraq; the terrorist 
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed, former Iraqi dictator Saddam 
Hussein was captured, tried and executed, and more than three-quarters 
of al Qaeda's known leaders and associates have been detained or 
killed.
  At the same time, Iraqis must assume responsibility for their 
country. Americans will not stay in Iraq forever; Iraqis must assume 
control of their country. We must recognize the War on Terror requires 
perseverance and patience. American patience, however, is not infinite. 
The Iraqi conflict has a crucial role in the war against al Qaeda and 
American troops are stemming the tide of a worsening situation. 
However, I believe the Iraqi people must take an active role in shaping 
their country's future. Iraq's future should not be determined by 
Americans, only the Iraqis can and should do that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I have listened to some of the debate on 
this resolution. I have been disappointed by the misleading talking 
points and faulty analysis that have been repeatedly used by those who 
support the President's escalation of the war in Iraq.
  Many speakers have tied Iraq to the broader war against al-Qaeda. 
These are two distinct wars. Iraq had not declared war on the U.S. Al-
Qaeda had. Iraq did not attack the U.S. Al-Qaeda did. Iraq did not 
harbor al-Qaeda leaders. The Taliban in Afghanistan did. By shifting 
military and intelligence resources out of Afghanistan before the 
Taliban and al-Qaeda were wiped out the administration has actually 
undermined the important war against al-Qaeda. The administration's 
blunders mean the U.S. is at risk of losing two wars at once: 
Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is salvageable and 
winnable. The war in Iraq will not be won by military means alone. 
Vigorous diplomatic efforts within the Gulf region, in addition to a 
political realignment within Iraq will be necessary .
  U.S. intelligence agencies, including military intelligence agencies, 
have refuted the claim that the conflict in Iraq is driven by al-Qaeda. 
It is not. The violence is driven by a civil war, primarily between 
Iraqi Sunnis and Shias. The recent National Intelligence Estimate 
should definitively put that issue to rest.
  Even the President has recognized that al Qaeda is not the driving 
force for violence in Iraq. In a speech on December 12, 2005, the 
President made important distinctions between the insurgent elements in 
Iraq. He mentioned ``rejectionists,'' which are mostly Sunnis who miss 
the privileged status they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein. He mentioned 
``Saddamists'', who are former regime elements who want to return to 
power. Again, they are Sunni. And, he mentioned foreign terrorists 
affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda, which even the President 
acknowledged was the ``smallest'' element of the insurgency. The one 
huge element he left out was nationalist Shias, such as those 
influenced by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
  The President and his allies justify the continuing U.S. presence in 
Iraq by claiming that if we don't fight there, we'll have to fight here 
at home. However, the Iraqi Sunni rejectionists, Saddamists, and 
nationalist Shias, who combined make up the vast bulk of the insurgents 
and militias committing violence in Iraq, have no interest and no 
capability to attack the U.S. homeland. They just want U.S. military 
forces out of their own country. U.S. forces are a target of 
convenience in their escalating civil conflict. It is deceitful to 
argue that if we don't fight there, we will fight them in the streets 
of the United States.
  The war in Iraq is not a part of the war against al Qaeda. And, in 
fact the war in Iraq is undermining our fight against al Qaeda.
  Some in this debate have made the ridiculous argument that if the 
U.S. leaves Iraq that somehow Osama bin Laden will take control and 
establish a safe haven for terrorists to attack the U.S. There is no 
chance that the Shias and Kurds, who represent around 80 percent of the 
population in Iraq, will allow Sunni foreign terrorist elements like 
al-Qaeda to take over the country. Even many Sunnis have grown tired of 
foreign terrorists operating in Iraq, with several Sunni tribes 
fighting al Qaeda operatives.
  Iran and al Qaeda are the primary beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion 
of Iraq and the two entities that most want the U.S. to stay there. 
With respect to Iran, the U.S. removed a threatening neighbor of Iran's 
and helped put in power a fellow Shiite regime, in addition to tying 
down the U.S. military and sowing international discord that has 
limited our options in confronting Iran's nuclear program. With respect 
to al Qaeda, U.S. intelligence agencies have noted that Iraq is serving 
as a training ground for terrorists and a recruiting poster that is 
swelling the ranks of terrorist organizations and inspiring attacks 
around the world.
  It is past time to end the open-ended commitment the President has 
made in Iraq. As long as the U.S. military remains stuck with the 
President's pledge of open-ended support, Iraqi politicians and 
security forces will use the U.S. presence as a crutch. They will 
continue to fail to take the necessary steps to solve their 
differences, establish an effective and inclusive government, end 
sectarian violence, and create the foundation for a secure and 
prosperous society.
  Democracy and stability cannot be imposed on unwilling parties. As 
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said on Meet the Press, a 
stable, pluralistic democracy in Iraq is everyone's second choice 
except ours. The Shias want power for themselves. The Sunnis want 
power. And the Kurds want power and independence. What they don't want 
to do is share that power. The President's stay-the-course, more-of-
the-same, status quo policy provides no incentive for the parties to 
reach the political compromises that are necessary.
  Negotiating a timeline for bringing home U.S. troops with responsible 
parties in the Iraqi government would also boost the Iraqi government's 
legitimacy and claim to self-rule, and force the Iraqi government to 
take responsibility for itself and its citizens. Negotiating a 
withdrawal time line and strategy with the Iraqi government could, more 
than possibly anything else, improve the standing of the Iraqi 
government in the eyes of its own people, a significant achievement in 
a region in which the standing of rulers and governments is generally 
low.
  As the Iraqi National Security Advisor, Mowaffak al-Rabaie wrote in 
the Washington Post on June 20, 2006, the removal of U.S. troops from 
Iraq, ``will help the Iraqis who now see foreign troops as occupiers 
rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove 
psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so-
called resistance in the first place.'' He went on to write, 
``Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's 
government in the eyes of its people . . . the drawdown of foreign 
troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four 
years it is supposed to.''
  Being confronted with the reality of a U.S. withdrawal should force 
the Iraqi factions to reach the political compromises necessary to move 
their country forward. If not, there is no reason to prolong the U.S. 
involvement in Iraq if we want a stable country more than the Iraqi 
people and their elected leaders do. The U.S. cannot force Sunnis, 
Shias, and Kurds to make peace or to act for the common good. They have 
been in conflict for 1,400 years. Nor should the U.S. military be 
forced to remain in Iraq essentially as an army for one side of a civil 
war. Supporters of escalating the war may pretend that they're doing it 
for the Iraqis, but large majorities of both Sunnis and Shias approve 
of attacks against U.S. troops and want us to bring them home.
  The President believes that the U.S. needs to escalate the war in 
Iraq by sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. I think 
that is a mistake. It will not bring stability to Iraq, and I oppose 
it. That is why I will vote for the resolution on the floor this week.
  The administration blunders in Iraq are well-known. They went in with 
too few troops against the advice of military leaders like General 
Shinseki. They disbanded the Iraqi army. They failed to understand the 
ethnic tensions and power bases in Iraq. They purged the Iraqi 
government of the bureaucratic experience necessary to have a 
functioning government, among others.
  I do not believe there is any level of U.S. troops that could 
stabilize Iraq at this point and resolve the underlying ages old 
sectarian conflicts. The time when more troops might have made a 
lasting difference has come and gone. There might be a small, temporary 
reduction in the chaos in Iraq, but the escalation will not solve the 
deep and underlying political conflicts that are preventing a long-term 
resolution to the violence.

[[Page 4506]]

  The administration already increased the number of U.S. troops in 
Baghdad last summer in Operation Together Forward and has increased the 
number of troops throughout Iraq at other times as well, yet the 
violence against our troops and Iraqi security forces and civilians 
continues to increase. Short-term improvements in security in the wake 
of U.S. troop increases have always given way to the long-term trend of 
increased violence and a growing civil war.
  Based on historical analysis, counterinsurgency experts, including 
General Petraeus, who is now the top U.S. General in Iraq but also 
recently rewrote the Army's counterinsurgency manual, estimate it takes 
around 20 U.S. troops per 1,000 inhabitants to successfully fight a 
counterinsurgency. To achieve that ratio in Baghdad alone would require 
120,000 troops. Even with the increase proposed by the President, the 
U.S. would only have a third of that at best. For all of Iraq, it would 
require 500,000 troops. General Shinseki's original estimate that it 
would take several hundred thousands troops to invade and stabilize 
Iraq was based on this counterinsurgency literature. After the 
escalation we'll only have around 160,000.
  The bottom line is that a proposal to increase U.S. troop levels in 
Baghdad or Iraq more generally by more than 20,000 is not a serious 
effort to restore stability to Iraq. As General John Abizaid, then the 
head of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee hearing on November 15, 2006, ``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. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is 
easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that 
more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking 
more responsibility for their own future.'' Essentially, the President 
is proposing to put more lives at risk with virtually no chance of 
changing the dynamic in Iraq.
  A better strategy for Iraq is to announce a timeline negotiated with 
the Iraqi government for bringing our troops home over the next 6 
months to a year. The administration has always set timelines for 
political developments in Iraq--for elections, for the drafting of the 
constitution etc. The administration argued such timelines were 
necessary to focus the energy of Iraq's leaders and to force 
compromises. We need to do the same on the military side.
  In the interim, I have also proposed that U.S. troops be removed from 
front line combat positions in Iraqi cities and towns, turning over 
daily security patrols, interactions with citizens, and any offensive 
security actions to the Iraqis themselves.
  The training and equipping of Iraqi security forces should be 
accelerated and the sectarian balance must be improved.
  The U.S. must renounce any U.S. interest in constructing permanent 
U.S. military bases in Iraq.
  It is also important to accelerate reconstruction spending and grant 
the bulk of reconstruction contracts to local companies employing 
Iraqis rather than multinational corporations, whom have proven 
inefficient, inflexible, sometimes fraudulent and have even imported 
workers rather than employing Iraqis.
  The U.S. embassy in Baghdad should also be reduced to normal size and 
authority rather than establishing one of the largest embassies in the 
world.
  And, the U.S. must engage in robust diplomacy with all factions in 
Iraq, except the foreign terrorists and domestic al Qaeda elements, and 
work with Iraq's neighbors in an effort to bring about political 
reconciliation among Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.
  Our troops have done all that has been asked of them in Iraq. Saddam 
Hussein is dead. His allies are on the run or in prison. The threat 
from WMDs in Iraq is nonexistent. Arguably, the war that Congress 
authorized has been won. Our troops should come home. Congress did not 
authorize U.S. troops to referee a civil war in Iraq.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record an 
Editorial from the Wall Street Journal regarding the Iraq Resolution, 
H. Con. Res. 63.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15, 2007]

                       Awaiting the Dishonor Roll

       Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral 
     courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe 
     this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the 
     mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the 
     institution's history.
       On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to 
     approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American 
     troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial 
     damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while 
     emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many 
     Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the 
     mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance 
     between themselves and the war most of them voted to 
     authorize in 2002.
       The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that 
     exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. 
     (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to 
     ``support'' the troops even as it disapproves of their 
     mission. It praises their ``bravery,'' while opposing the 
     additional forces that both President Bush and General David 
     Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital 
     to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to 
     ``protect'' the troops even as its practical impact will be 
     to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside 
     bomb brings them closer to their goal.
       As for how ``the troops'' themselves feel, we refer readers 
     to Richard Engel's recent story on NBC News quoting 
     Specialist Tyler Johnson in Iraq: ``People are dying here. 
     You know what I'm saying. . . You may [say] `oh we support 
     the troops.' So you're not supporting what they do. What 
     they's [sic] here to sweat for, what we bleed for and we die 
     for.'' Added another soldier: ``If they don't think we're 
     doing a good job, everything we've done here is all in 
     vain.'' In other words, the troops themselves realize that 
     the first part of the resolution is empty posturing, while 
     the second is deeply immoral.
       All the more so because if Congress feels so strongly about 
     the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them 
     from harm's way by voting to cut off the funds they need to 
     operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for 
     what followed--whether those consequences are Americans 
     killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the 
     toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite 
     or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all 
     is being accountable.
       We aren't prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this 
     week's vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran 
     told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: ``How 
     do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'' 
     The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 
     John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something 
     they say is a mistake but also don't have the poiitical 
     courage to help end.
       Instead, they'll pass this ``non-binding resolution,'' to 
     be followed soon by attempts at micromanagement that would 
     make the war all but impossible to prosecute--and once again 
     without taking responsibility. Mr. Murtha is already 
     broadcasting his strategy, which the new Politico Web site 
     described yesterday as ``a slow-bleed strategy designed to 
     gradually limit the administration's options.''
       In concert with antiwar groups, the story reported, Mr. 
     Murtha's ``goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest 
     political vulnerability of the antiwar movement--the 
     accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the 
     field.'' So instead of cutting off funds, Mr. Murtha will 
     ``slow-bleed'' the troops with ``readiness'' restrictions or 
     limits on National Guard forces that will make them all but 
     impossible to deploy. These will be attached to 
     appropriations bills that will also purport to ``support the 
     troops.''
       ``There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start 
     with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] 
     budget,'' Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii) told the 
     Web site. He must mean D-Day as in Dunkirk.
       All of this is something that House Republicans should keep 
     in mind as they consider whether to follow this retreat. The 
     GOP leadership has been stalwart, even eloquent, this week in 
     opposing the resolution. But some Republicans figure they can 
     use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the 
     war while not doing any real harm. They should understand 
     that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha ``slow-
     bleed'' strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans 
     follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves 
     divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to 
     give them political cover. However ``non-binding,'' this is a 
     vote that Republican partisans will long remember.
       History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly 
     confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers 
     on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, 
     risking their lives for their country. And the message their 
     elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is 
     a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
brave men and women in our military. Thank you, and thank you to the 
families who have made so many sacrifices.
  Today we are taking the first step towards defeat. No one likes where 
we are today, but our goal should be success, not to accept the defeat 
the Democrats are leading us towards.
  I am very disappointed that the new Democrat leadership will not 
allow a true debate on

[[Page 4507]]

what should be our focus today: what can we do to help achieve success 
in Iraq, and what metrics should we use to measure that success. That 
is the debate we should be having on the floor this week. Our military, 
our children, our fellow citizens, and the people of Iraq deserve 
nothing less.
  Instead, this Democrat leadership is telling the brave men and women 
who serve in our military that their efforts have not been good enough 
and that they do not think they deserve the tools to fight this war.
  We've been safe in the United States since September 11, 2001. But 
that is only because the Bush Administration and Congress and our brave 
troops took the fight to the terrorists. But it is by no means over. 
The United States remains a Nation at war. It's hard for Americans who 
do not have loved ones in the military to remember that sometimes.
  We are not safe simply because we have not seen an attack on U.S. 
soil since September 11, 2001. We are safer today because of the 
professionals of the worldwide network of intelligence, military and 
law enforcement officials who continue to pressure and strike al-Qaeda 
and its followers.
  September 11, 2001 showed us the danger of Islamic terrorism. It also 
taught us that we can't wait for them to come to us. We have to go to 
the root cause of terrorism and sever the root.
  We are blessed with an outstanding military that has taken the battle 
to the enemy. It is very important that we take the fight to them in 
places where fortunately every American carries a gun--rather than on 
the streets of New York, Washington or Wichita, KS. And make no 
mistake, Iraq is where the terrorists have to come to fight.
  Our most important duty as Members of Congress is to protect our 
Nation from ever experiencing the lesson of 9/11 again. For that 
reason, we must continue to focus on improving our national security, 
our homeland security and our intelligence systems. Today's resolution 
does the opposite and sends the exact message the enemy wants to hear.
  Our enemy is not going away. The war in Iraq is a tough one, as is 
the overall Global War on Terror, GWOT. That is what the terrorist have 
promised in their letter, written by Ayman al-Zawahiri.
  Just because it is tough does not mean that it is not worthwhile. The 
Democrat approach is dangerous and naive. We cannot put our heads back 
in the sands. Our enemies are ready to strike. Leaving Iraq will not 
mean the end to our troubles or to our enemy's plans.
  Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, has stated again 
and again that Iraq is the centerpiece of Al Qaeda's strategy to 
establish dominance in the Middle East and beyond. A July 9, 2005 
letter from al-Zawahiri listed al Qaeda's objectives in Iraq. Let me 
remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle what those 
objectives are:
  1. Expel Americans from Iraq.
  2. Establish an al Qaeda ``emirate'' in Iraq.
  3. Extend a jihad from Iraq to secular states neighboring Iraq.
  4. Clash with Israel.
  Senator Feingold and many other Democrats can't wait to pull out of 
Iraq and have introduced legislation to that effect. While I would like 
nothing more than to see our men and women home safely, I know that 
pulling out now would be a disaster for U.S. security and would only 
mean that those men and women would have to go back to the Middle East 
to fight a stronger, recharged enemy. Because the enemy knows that all 
he has to do is make life difficult for a couple of years and the 
United States will back down in retreat.
  In this resolution, where is the Democrat plan for success, where is 
their plan to fight terrorism? What is the Democrat plan to stop al 
Qaeda from turning Iraq into a base of operations for worldwide 
terrorism if we leave? What is the plan to deal with Iran, who has 
already targeted the Shia majority, when they fund allies against 
Israel, America, you and me? These are the questions the American 
people need answers to.
  Unfortunately, we have seen how the Democrats respond to terrorism, 
to those whose stated goal is to kill Americans and destroy our Nation. 
Their response is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. 
September 11, 2001 was not the first time this enemy attacked us--there 
were numerous attacks preceding that horrible day--the first World 
Trade Center bombing in 1993, the 1998 bombing of our embassies in 
Tanzania and Kenya, and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Our 
enemies are looking for signs that we will resume that attitude of 
ignorance. Today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
telling our enemies that the United States does not have the 
wherewithal to fight the Global War on Terror. In fact, today's 
resolution will carry no weight--except with our enemies.
  Let me put this war in perspective. On June 6th, 1944, General Dwight 
David Eisenhower sent 156,000 allied troops ashore in Normandy in the 
D-Day invasion. That is about 7,000 more troops than we will have in 
Iraq after the surge.
  Now, Eisenhower was coming off of three pretty rough years in North 
Africa. The campaign there displayed the serious shortcomings in the 
Allies' ability to diplomatically engage the Vichy French, establish 
and maintain lines of communication and hold terrain in key locations. 
The Allied Forces were forced to retreat from engagements with the 
Germans in battles like the Kasserine Pass.
  What if Congress, after assessing the difficulties in the North 
Africa Campaign, called on President Roosevelt to tie Eisenhower's 
hands? What if they asked Ike to pare back the D-Day landing party 
because it was just too risky?
  We didn't have that problem because in 1944 Congress, like President 
Roosevelt, knew that we were fighting to secure the future of the 
world. After reading this resolution, I am convinced that the Democrats 
have yet to grasp the importance of today's struggle.
  What will happen if we pull out now? What will the Middle East look 
like?
  Iraq will become utter chaos, violence will only increase and 
terrorists will have an unchallenged base of operations. It is likely 
that Shia extremists would dominate Iraq. Iran is eager for this to 
happen so that it can control Iraq. This is extremely worrisome. 
President Bush was correct when he labeled Iran one of the axes of 
evil. We know that Iran is gaining the capabilities to become a nuclear 
power. Iran is also collaborating with many radical Islamist groups, 
including Hezbollah and Hamas. With Iraq also under its thumb if the 
U.S. pulls out, this could cause a regional war that threatens Jordan, 
Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is hard to see how the U.S. could avoid 
being drawn into such a conflict. This would put our troops in an even 
graver situation than they are today, with less hope for success. It 
also will reverberate through our economy at home, with skyrocketing 
oil prices.
  The Democrats need to understand the reverberations of defeat.
  House Republicans take our role in Iraq seriously, and we want to see 
success. Our leadership has called on the Speaker to appoint a 
bipartisan select oversight committee to monitor and implement the 
effectiveness of the President's new strategy. Instead of taking this 
responsible suggestion, what is their response? Spending a week on a 
do-nothing resolution to embarrass the President and encourage our 
enemies. Even in the majority, they are still more comfortable with 
being the party of ``no'' rather than the party that governs.
  Republicans on the other hand have a plan, because we know that 
success in Iraq means a safer, more secure America. We have proposed 
strategic benchmarks to measure our effectiveness. We are prepared to 
work with the Democrats to construct a plan for success in Iraq. The 
Democrat leadership will not allow us to present our plan this week 
because they do not wish to see success in Iraq, they want to pull out 
despite its effects on Iraq and the United States. We need to support 
our military, our new Secretary of Defense, and our Commander-in-Chief 
as they work to achieve success in Iraq and the Global War on Terror.
  I leave you with a question a constituent asked me recently: If the 
Democrats get their wish and we pull out of Iraq without attempting to 
achieve victory, what happens the next day? Unfortunately, we know that 
answer because our enemies have made it clear: they bring the fight to 
the United States.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I thank you for the time to debate the 
very important issue of the war in Iraq. The resolution we are debating 
today is technically non-binding--however, we must not discount the 
influence of the words of this body. I am here today to reiterate to 
the American people that the war in Iraq, as a part of the larger 
Global War on Terror, is absolutely vital to the security of our great 
nation as well as the rest of the free world.
  It is true, we were led into this war with poor intelligence; yet 
intelligence that every major fact-finding and data-gathering agency in 
the world believed to be true. Nevertheless, spreading freedom to the 
Muslim world is our best long-term strategy in the Global War on 
Terror.
  Four years after the invasion of Iraq, our brave military men and 
women are still actively engaged in combat, and their actions have not 
gone without great achievement--the Iraqi people participated in their 
first true democratic election, they have established a representative 
government, elected a parliament and written an Iraqi constitution. 
These great accomplishments should not be brushed

[[Page 4508]]

off as mere side notes, because to do so would diminish the 
achievements of the Iraqi people and the tremendous courage of our 
soldiers; some of whom have bravely given their lives for the chance an 
Iraqi citizen would be able to vote and live free from fear.
  The establishment of a democracy in the Middle East is fundamental to 
winning the Global War on Terror. The United States is in our 231st 
year of a democratic government, and as I am sure many of my colleagues 
will agree--we haven't exactly perfected it yet. The Iraqi people are 
barely in their second year of a democratic government. The Iraqi 
government needs time to grow their citizens' confidence in the 
institution of democracy and become a stabilizing force in the region. 
We must help them achieve this.
  We are fighting an enemy who does not believe in democracy, freedom, 
or the inherent value of human life. These radical Islamic terrorists 
see a democratic Iraqi government as a direct threat to the mayhem and 
havoc they seek to impose on the free world. To retreat from Iraq--to 
wave a white flag in submission to these terrorists, would only worsen 
the instability we now see in the region, and embolden terrorists 
around the world.
  When the United Sates ridded Iraq of Saddam Hussein, we committed 
ourselves to assisting the new Iraqi government become self-
sustainable. The President has consulted his commanders in Iraq, who 
have heard from the soldiers on the ground. The result of these hours 
of consultation has led the President to ask for an increase in troops 
so we may finish the job we set out to do. I ask my colleagues to trust 
the military commanders, and allow our courageous military do their 
job. I ask my colleagues to not support this resolution.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today not because I want to take 
part in this debate, but because I am ashamed that this Congress is 
engaging in it at all.
  I've heard a lot of posturing so far this week. I've heard a lot of 
hyperbole and a lot of revisionist history. I've also heard some things 
that just don't mesh with reality. I don't think that everything my 
colleagues say is completely honest. So for a moment, let's be honest--
because that is the least we owe to our constituents and to the men and 
women who are fighting this war.
  I am willing to admit that if Congress knew in 2002 what it knows 
today it might not have voted to authorize the war. Knowing that Saddam 
Hussein apparently did not have weapons of mass destruction, Congress 
might have preferred to contain him, perhaps bomb him, strengthen 
international sanctions, and work with our allies in the region to 
undermine his regime.
  But we can't go back to 2002 and redo that vote. We have to deal with 
the situation that is currently before us. And what is before us right 
now is a Congressional resolution that undermines our troops while they 
are in the middle of fighting a war that Congress sent them to fight. I 
do not understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
don't see that.
  For just a moment, I want to ask my colleagues to put themselves in 
the positions of the thousands of soldiers on the ground in Iraq. What 
would you think if you learned that the very people who sent you to 
fight this war are now saying that they don't support what you are 
doing? On the ground in Iraq, there are two things that keep you going: 
the thought of returning home to your family and the knowledge that you 
are doing something to protect your nation from terrorism. But if 
Congressional Democrats have their way today, they will take away from 
our soldiers the support of their Congress and of their country. What a 
terrible message to send to these brave soldiers.
  For just a moment, put yourself in the shoes of the terrorists. What 
would you think when you heard the U.S. Congress is voting against the 
war? You would think you were winning. You would be encouraged by the 
news. You would think that everything Osama Bin Laden had said about 
Americans had been true all along. You would think that Americans 
cannot stand bloodshed and will cower from the fight. You would think 
that they don't have the stomach for a long-term battle and if the 
terrorists just hold on, the United States will eventually leave with 
its tails between its legs. What a terrible message to send at the 
exact moment that we are preparing to send more troops into battle.
  At some point, my colleagues across the aisle have to let go of the 
fact that their newfound opposition to the War in Iraq is popular in 
their districts and act in the best interests for the future of our 
Nation. This resolution isn't a diversion, a side-show, or even a shot 
across the bow. It is a dangerous message to send.
  I don't say any of this lightly and I don't say it for political 
reasons. I say it because I mean it. In 2006, I was the only Republican 
to vote against the rule when my party tried to embarrass Mr. Murtha. 
Then, I thought that my party was playing games with the war and I 
refused to support that effort. Today, I think that the other party is 
playing games with the war and I refuse to have any part of this.
  I would rather we consider a motion to pull all of our troops out of 
Iraq immediately than vote on this Democrat resolution that undermines 
our troops while at the same time puts them in harm's way. This 
resolution is the worst of all worlds.
  My final thought today is that it is clear to many of us that this 
resolution is simply a Democratic attempt to embarrass President Bush. 
My friends across the aisle know they can not impeach him. They know 
they can not change the fact that many of them voted for the War in 
Iraq. And most of them recognize the dangers of voting to defund the 
war. So instead, they are trying to embarrass the President.
  I say fine, embarrass the President. Send him a message that you are 
now in charge. Remind him that voters demanded change last November. Do 
whatever you need to do, but don't undermine our troops in the process. 
Leave them out of your plans for payback because they did nothing to 
attract your anger or frustration.
  Madam Speaker, what we are doing today is wrong. We're better than 
this. We're smarter than this. We're above using the war, and our 
troops, for political gain. What the Democrats are doing with this 
resolution is not just intellectually dishonest, it is morally 
bankrupt.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, five and a half years ago, our Nation 
was attacked by terrorists opposed to freedom and individual liberty. 
Our President vowed to keep Americans safe by taking the fight to the 
terrorists, and holding the regimes that support them accountable. We 
are currently engaged in that fight. Like any war this size, mistakes 
have been made, but we must continue to progress.
  The consequences of failure in Iraq would be dire. Allowing al-Qaeda 
the opportunity to gain a safe hold would be dangerous to Americans. 
Leaving before the Iraqi government can defend itself would only lead 
to further destabilization, and open the door to outside influence from 
countries such as Iran, which has called for the downfall of our 
society and for the destruction of Israel, our ally in the Middle East.
  With violence headlining the nation's nightly news, at times we 
forget that successes have been achieved. Through successful elections 
which achieved a 70 percent turnout, we know that the citizens of Iraq 
have rejected the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein, and strive for peace 
and prosperity. But violence supported by al-Qaeda, the remnants of 
Saddam Hussein's government, and armed militias, have created difficult 
conditions for diplomacy.
  Our President, working with a wide range of involved professionals, 
has created a new strategy to ensure progress in Iraq. James Baker and 
Lee Hamilton, the leaders of the Iraq Study Group, have called for 
support of the President's plan. General Petraeus supports the 
President's plan. But Democrat leaders are bringing a non-binding 
resolution to the floor, denouncing the President's objectives.
  This resolution, without any power of law or policy objective, is 
merely political gamesmanship, and it is dangerous to Americans and our 
troops in harm's way. We are in the midst of an ongoing military 
operation; our soldiers are engaging al-Qaeda and violent insurgents. 
We have set objectives, but Democrat leaders want us to vote on a 
resolution that sets us up for failure and attempts to retroactively 
impede a military operation that is currently underway. General 
Petraeus has stated this will only embolden the enemy, and I agree.
  Many Democrats have stated this is only the first step toward cutting 
the funding for our troops in Iraq, and forcing a withdrawal before 
stability has been achieved. But the majority offers no plan to achieve 
stability. Without any other alternative, withdrawal can only lead to 
defeat.
  Our troops should have every confidence their government will ensure 
they have the necessary supplies and funding to achieve their mission. 
Military leaders should be able to move forward with their directives 
without fear that Congress is working to tie their hands. Yet this 
objective has been the stated one of the majority: to precipitate a 
withdrawal by slowly cutting off funding to our soldiers. I believe 
this is the wrong approach to supporting our troops currently involved 
in the military operation.
  This resolution does nothing to win the war, and by not allowing 
amendments or other measures to be considered, true debate is being 
restricted. It is my hope, for the safety of our troops and for the 
good of the Nation,

[[Page 4509]]

that all members of the House may reject this political maneuver and 
truly stand behind those men and women called to duty by our Commander 
in Chief.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, due to my recovery from 
a medical procedure, I regret that I am unable to participate in the 
debate on the resolution that is before the House of Representatives 
today. The Iraq War Resolution offered by the Democratic majority is 
nothing more than a political exercise, and does nothing to support our 
troops or help solve the issues that we are facing in Iraq. The 
resolution offers no solutions or recommendations, but instead 
criticizes an action that is already underway. As ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Military Readiness in the House Armed Services 
Committee, I am open to supporting legislation that actually presents 
solutions to stabilizing Iraq. Unfortunately, this resolution does not 
provide anything other than criticism, and I would have opposed this 
resolution if I had been in Washington, DC for the vote.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
resolution.
  Four years ago, President Bush plunged our Nation into a misguided, 
pre-emptive war with Iraq. I voted against authorizing it then--and I 
have come to the floor today to affirm my strong opposition to this 
irresponsible war.
  Unfortunately, after 4 years of failed strategies by this 
administration, the President is now poised to confound his tragic 
blunder, and ignore the will of the American people, by attempting to 
increase our presence in Iraq. And that is why this resolution is so 
important. Because it sends a strong statement. A statement that the 
vast majority of the country supports. And that is: escalating our 
presence in Iraq will not lead to success in the region, and more blank 
checks will not make America more secure.
  Madam Speaker, our brave men and women in the military have done all 
that is asked of them over the course of the last 4 years. They are 
heroes who represent the finest our country has to offer--and they 
should be treated accordingly. But, from day one, this administration 
has spent more time planning its attacks on those who offered 
legitimate criticisms of the war and its tactics, than it has on 
planning for a stable and peaceful reconstruction of the region. And 
the results have been devastating and unworthy of our brave men and 
women serving in harm's way.
  Enough is enough. Troop surges have not worked in the past, and there 
is no evidence that the same failed policies will work today. In fact, 
former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in December, ``I am not 
persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of 
suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.'' 
Yet, this administration continues to ignore the guidance of military 
experts, the Iraq Study Group, diplomats, decorated war heroes and 
former senior White House officials of both parties.
  And rather than being open to debate and discussion with these 
experts, this Administration has routinely attacked their character and 
questioned their patriotism. Many of these individuals have bled on the 
battlefield. But to this administration, and its swift boat 
strategists, they are treated merely as political pawns. It is truly 
shameful.
  Because of this Administration's hubris, we have seen troops without 
proper equipment, without basic body armor, without vehicles equipped 
to deal with roadside bombs and without the appropriate veteran's 
services when they return home.
  Because of their ignorance, we have seen giant banners saying, 
Mission Accomplished, when today Iraq has spiraled into a bloody, 
religious civil war.
  Because of their arrogance, we were told that we were going to be 
treated as liberators, not as occupiers.
  And because of their incompetence, we were told that future oil 
revenues would more than cover the cost of the reconstruction.
  They could not have been more wrong. The cost of the war continues to 
grow at an outrageous rate. To date, we have spent approximately $379 
billion on this war, with estimates from some experts saying that the 
total long-term cost could exceed $1 trillion.
  Think about that for a minute: $379 billion spent, more than $8 
billion a month. That is enough to fully fund Head Start--100 times 
over. To give virtually every student in America a computer. Pay for 
prescription drug coverage for virtually every senior in our Nation. 
Offer summer jobs to every teen in our country. Put hundreds of 
thousands of additional police officers on the streets. Provide 
millions of scholarships to public universities for deserving students. 
And pay the salaries of millions of public school teachers.
  But what do we have to show for that $379 billion--a country plagued 
with hardened religious sectarian violence.
  Madam Speaker, it is time to stop this charade. It is time for the 
truth. It is time for the administration to really level with the 
American people.
  Resurrecting and rehashing failed policies of the past is not the 
answer.
  Real action is needed. Leadership is needed. Courage is needed. And 
that is why we are engaged in this debate--to stand up to the deception 
and the dishonesty.
  We are here today to begin to set our strategy back on the right 
course. To protect our soldiers. And to ensure that we can win the real 
war on terror.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today as patriots because we love our 
country. We are here because we support our troops. And we are here 
because we want our troops to be able to come home to their families 
and loved ones.
  Thank you, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important 
resolution.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I stand before you today, offering a 
candid reflection of the tasks before us. As someone entrusted to be a 
leader in this great nation, I find myself humbled by the decisions we 
make and the traditions of this institution. In times of hardship, 
America has often looked to the House of Representatives, the 
``people's house,'' as a place for deliberation and decision. Many 
great leaders have preceded our place in this Chamber, and many more 
will undoubtedly follow. By design we find ourselves here again today, 
in the footprints of those who stood so firm against the winds of 
adversity. It was in this very room that President Franklin Roosevelt 
so famously addressed the Nation after the tragic events surrounding 
Pearl Harbor had unfolded; and Members of Congress were faced with the 
daunting effort of placing our nation in a second world war.
  America was forged long ago as a beacon of democracy, shining bright 
onto the shores of the world. Ever since our bold proclamation to 
others that we would shelter ``your tired, your poor, your huddled 
masses yearning to breath free,'' we have called on this body to answer 
the question: How tired, how poor, how yearning must the oppressed be 
to warrant our assistance? And so we find ourselves here today, paused 
at an intersection on the road of democracy. Will we turn back and 
embolden those that oppress the free and murder the innocent? After 
careful consideration, I must vote against this resolution and choose 
instead to follow the path blazed by those who pledged our commitment 
to freedom.
  On September 11, we were forced to witness the consequences of a 
decade of inaction against a determined enemy. Osama bin Laden and 
other radical Islamists, have declared war on every American, for no 
other reason than we practice freedom and democracy. Beginning in the 
1970s, radical Islamists began targeting America with a steady campaign 
of terror. Although the images of that tragic September day remain 
seared in our minds, it forced us to awaken from our long period of 
denial and realize the true determination of our enemy. The war in 
Afghanistan and subsequent invasion of Iraq have discouraged any major 
terrorist attack from occurring on our soil in the last 5 years. Our 
enemy is patient, calculating, and determined. However, by supporting 
Iraq's efforts to become a free and Democratic society, we have forced 
the terrorists to focus their resources in the Middle East and away 
from American soil.
  The only impact this resolution will have: is embolden our enemy and 
convince them of our weakness. The overall commanding officer in Iraq, 
General David Petraeus, recently agreed that a resolution such as this 
would only ``give the enemy some encouragement.'' Although I will 
continue to be an advocate of free speech, we must remain aware of our 
speech's impact. One can only imagine the result here at home if we 
formalize a resolution of no confidence in this body.
  As a member of this body, I have made clear my support for the war in 
Iraq and our fighting men and women. I stand behind our military and 
appreciate the importance of our mission, but am also aware that some 
mistakes have been made along the way. War is unpredictable and we can 
do no better than by putting our armed forces in the capable hands of 
our military leaders. We owe it to the generations of Iraqi's murdered 
under the reign of Saddam, and our brave country men and women who have 
paid the ultimate sacrifice, to move forward with our mission.
  The decision to commit our military to harm's way, is the toughest 
made of any leader. Some of my colleagues in Congress will argue that 
we cannot afford to vote in approval of the job our military men and 
women have done in Iraq. After looking at the facts, I say we can't 
afford not to. This non-binding resolution being offered by Democrats, 
is little more than a political sound bite. Although I have respect for 
many of my colleagues

[[Page 4510]]

across the aisle, I urge them to consider the negative effect this 
resolution will have.
  It should be clear to all that have listened to this debate, that 
this resolution is the first step by the majority party in their quest 
to cut off funding for our troops in Iraq. This is not fair to our 
soldiers on the ground and it dishonors the fallen and injured heroes 
that have so bravely served this Nation.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, ``this is a dangerously wrong-headed 
strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a 
great cost. And if it's carried out it represents the most dangerous 
foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.''
  This assessment the Bush escalation policy was made by the Republican 
Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel--a decorated Vietnam veteran who 
originally supported the invasion of Iraq.
  And I concur with his observation. But his conclusion should come as 
no surprise. After all, this administration's Iraq policy has been a 
series of mistakes and bad choices from the beginning.
  The Bush/Cheney team was obsessed with Iraq. In fact, according to 
former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, their very first 
National Security Council meeting focused on Saddam and Iraq. Just days 
after President Bush was inaugurated. And a map, noting Iraqi oilfields 
and potential bidders for oil contracts, was presented for review. That 
was in February 2001. Months before 9/11.
  We all remember that awful day in September 2001. When America was 
attacked by al Qaeda. Not Iraq. But by al Qaeda. Nevertheless, almost 
immediately, plans for attacking Iraq were initiated. With the Vice 
President as its most vigorous advocate. Secretary Powell is reported 
to have observed that the Vice President had ``the fever''--war fever.
  Former counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke has described how, even as 
the smoke was still rising from 9/11, the administration began looking 
for ways to use it to attack Iraq.
  The American people were told that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons 
of mass destruction. That he was a clear and imminent threat. That he 
was an ally of al Qaeda. That if we did not invade Iraq, there could be 
mushroom clouds over American cities.
  None of that was true. To the contrary, there was plenty evidence 
that the secular Baathists of Saddam Hussein's regime and the religious 
fanatics of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda were rivals. In fact bin Laden 
had publicly condemned Saddam as an apostate who had corrupted Islam 
and repressed Muslims. There was little evidence that Saddam's regime 
possessed nuclear or biological weapons, or--even if it did--that it 
would share such materials with an uncontrollable group of apocalyptic 
terrorists like al Qaeda.
  But the administration did not listen to those who knew what they 
were talking about. Professionals like Greg Thielmann, the Director of 
the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State 
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He told me personally 
that in his professional opinion, after years of studying the issue, 
Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program.
  Instead, the administration relied on the likes of Ahmed Chalabi. An 
embezzler who had been convicted in Jordan of bank fraud. Who is 
alleged to have provided Iran with information about U.S. troop 
movements. And who is presumably still under investigation by the FBI.
  Chalabi provided so-called ``defectors'' from Iraq who--surprise, 
surprise--said exactly what the Administration wanted to hear. The most 
notorious was codenamed ``Curveball''--how appropriate--and was the 
source of the now-discredited claim about a mobile bioweapons program. 
The German intelligence agency warned that the man did not live in Iraq 
and described him as an ``out of control'' and mentally unstable 
alcoholic. It later turned out that he was the brother of one of 
Chalabi's top aides. But he was one of the primary sources for 
Secretary Powell's statement at the United Nations that convinced many 
to support the war.
  Furthermore, in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, the 
administration told the American people that it would be easy. That we 
would be greeted as liberators. That Iraq would pay for its own 
reconstruction. And that peace and democracy would flourish.
  None of that was true. The American people were sold a bill of goods. 
But those of us who raised doubts were ignored. Some even questioned 
our patriotism.
  But the responsibility for this mess is not the President's alone. It 
is shared by the preceding two Congresses, which abdicated their 
constitutional responsibility to oversee and review the conduct of the 
war and the occupation. We will never know if serious oversight and 
insisting on answers over the past 4 years would have made a 
difference.
  But we do know that thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died. 
Billions of American and Iraqi taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The 
Middle East is on the verge of a war that could devastate the region 
and the global economy. And terrorist groups are multiplying because of 
Iraq. Some confuse the war on Iraq with the war on terror. But that 
could not be further from reality.
  The fact is that the war in Iraq has severely damaged our efforts to 
fight al Qaeda and terrorism. That's not just my judgment: that's the 
consensus judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies. In April 2006, they 
prepared a National Intelligence Estimate. It represents the consensus 
judgment of the entire U.S. intelligence community. Here's what it 
said:

       The Iraq conflict has become the ``cause celebre'' for 
     jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in 
     the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global 
     jihadist movement.

  Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has done nothing to stop al Qaeda and its 
affiliates from launching attacks around the world. I refer you to a 
Dear Colleague letter sent by two of our Republican colleagues which 
clearly describes that reality. It includes a list of attacks that 
plainly demonstrates that terrorism is global in nature. While we are 
stuck in the sands of Iraq, radical Islamists are launching major 
assaults everywhere. Because this Administration, as a result of its 
bungled misadventure in Iraq, has hurt our efforts against terrorism.
  Remember, we were attacked on September 11, not by Iraq, but by al 
Qaeda. Which was based in Afghanistan. And we responded, with worldwide 
support, by going to war against al Qaeda and liberating Afghanistan 
from al Qaeda's allies, the Taliban. But then what happened? The 
administration took its eye off the ball. And invaded Iraq. It's as if 
we had responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by invading 
Mexico. Even though we had not yet defeated al Qaeda, the 
administration pulled intelligence and Special Forces assets from 
Afghanistan in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Now we are in 
danger of losing Afghanistan to al Qaeda and their Taliban allies.
  Enough. As Senator Hagel said, this is ``Alice in Wonderland . . . it 
is folly.'' And the American people know it. It's time to get back to 
fighting the terrorists. It's time to concentrate on victory in the war 
on terror.
  Oppose the escalation. Support the resolution.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the 
President's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 American troops in 
Iraq. I oppose this course of action and feel that contributing more 
troops to this war is not in the best interest of our country.
  One only needs to look back on the timeline of events in Iraq to 
realize how much we have given that country. From the deposing of 
Saddam Hussein and his ruthless heirs, to the drafting of a 
constitution and free elections, the United States has fulfilled its 
role in liberating Iraq. However, the sacrifices our country has made 
must be met by an even stronger commitment by Iraq's leaders to face 
the challenges of a fledgling democracy and ensure the safety and 
freedom of its own people.
  Our troops have served with tremendous bravery during this nearly 4 
year endeavor. The resolution we are discussing today contains a pledge 
that Congress will ``continue to support and protect'' our courageous 
men and women who are serving or who have served in Iraq. This is a 
promise we must keep and I will work with like-minded colleagues to 
ensure that the members of the United States Armed Forces continue to 
have the resources they need while they are in harms way and after they 
return home.
  However, I am in disagreement with the President on sending 21,500 
more troops to Iraq because the time has passed for the leaders and 
citizens of Iraq to ascend and defend their country. The people of this 
country sent a message to the Congress a few months ago and my 
constituents have made it increasingly clear to me that they do not 
support the escalation of U.S. troop involvement amidst the seemingly 
endless sectarian strife inside Iraq.
  Therefore, I rise in support of this resolution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I made a statement on the House 
floor as part of my participation in the debate on the War on Terror 
and House Concurrent Resolution 63. In that statement, I repeated a 
quote I had read as part of an article from the Washington Times, that 
I believed at the time was attributed to Abraham Lincoln, because it 
was cited as such. I have since learned that it was not true Abraham 
Lincoln quote, and even though the Times never corrected the mistake, I 
retract my attribution. I do stand by the sentiment however, which is 
that in wartime, Americans, especially America's elected leaders,

[[Page 4511]]

should not take actions that damage the morale of our soldiers and 
military--and that is exactly what the non-binding resolution does. I 
could never in good conscience support H. Con. Res. 63. Instead, I 
choose to support our men and women in the military.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, there are two fundamental questions we 
face in voting on this resolution: First, is it appropriate for 
Congress to express its views on the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq? 
And second, is the escalation the best use of military forces in our 
war on terrorism?
  First let me say that it is wrong for anyone in this debate to 
question the patriotism of someone on the other side of that issue. 
That tactic was tried by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. It was 
wrong then, it is wrong now.
  In our democracy, there is nothing patriotic about questioning the 
patriotism of someone with an opposing view. We all love our country; 
we all support our troops; and we all want to defend America from 
terrorism.
  On the appropriateness of this resolution being before the House, I 
believe this debate is consistent with our Founding Fathers' deep 
commitment to the constitutional checks and balances of government. 
They chose to make the President our Commander in Chief of the Armed 
Forces. At the same time, they chose not to give the President the 
authority to declare war or to fund a war. Those solemn 
responsibilities were given to the Congress in article I of the 
Constitution.
  It is noteworthy that on the most solemn act of government, to put 
citizens into harm's way, our Founding Fathers clearly chose to put in 
place constitutional checks and balances on the executive branch. This 
resolution is a proper exercise of that constitutional principle, 
especially given this war has now lasted longer than America's 
involvement in World War II, with no end in sight. Blind allegiance to 
the executive branch is not a constitutional principle.
  The second question before us is whether the escalation in Iraq is 
the best use of U.S. military forces in our war on terrorism.
  After nearly 4 years of combat, two facts are indisputable: First, 
our service men and women have served our Nation with courage and 
professionalism. They and their families have sacrificed above and 
beyond the call of duty, and I salute them.
  Second; there have been major mistakes made by policymakers in 
Washington that have complicated at every step the challenges our 
troops have faced in Iraq, dead wrong intelligence on weapons of mass 
destruction and Iraq's involvement with September 11; rejecting General 
Shinseki's call to send an adequate amount of troops to Iraq in 2003, 
the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, the de-Baathification process, 
inadequate armor for our troops; and the repeated assertion that the 
insurgency was on its last leg, despite facts to the contrary.
  Given mistakes made in the build-up to this war and its management, 
and the enormity of this issue in terms of lives at risk and our 
Nation's future, it is time for Congress to give a voice to the clear 
majority of the American people who oppose escalation in Iraq.
  Since the President has already started the escalation, I personally 
hope and pray that he is right, and that more U.S. troops in Iraq will 
lead to long-term stability there. However, in good conscience, I must 
express my profound concerns for this policy for several reasons.
  First; I believe until the Iraqi government creates a government that 
is respected by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, no amount of U.S. forces can 
stop sectarian violence there in the long run.
  Second; I want U.S. forces fighting terrorists, not standing on 
street corners in Baghdad as target practice for Sunnis and Shiites 
locked into deep-rooted sectarian violence.
  Third; I believe it is necessary to send a blunt wake-up call to the 
Iraqi political leaders that America has sacrificed our sons and 
daughters and hundreds of billions of dollars for their nation, but we 
will not do so forever for an incompetent government that is rife with 
corruption and sectarian bias. This is not a test of America's will, 
rather, it is a test of the Iraqi government's will to make the tough 
choices to ensure its nation's own future.
  Fourth; with the increasingly serious situation in Afghanistan, where 
al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurging, we will definitely need 
additional U.S. troops there to prevent the kind of chaos that is 
rampant in Iraq.
  For these reasons, I believe this resolution is the appropriate and 
right thing to do. This resolution will send an unequivocal message to 
the Iraqi political leaders that the time to end their corruption, 
incompetence and sectarian favoritism is now.
  When that message is truly heard, then and only then will there be 
real hope for stable and lasting peace in Iraq.
  I urge support of this resolution.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 157, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246, 
nays 182, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 99]

                               YEAS--246

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--182

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jindal

[[Page 4512]]


     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baird
     Boustany
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hastert
     LoBiondo
     Nadler

                              {time}  1522

  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 99, H. 
Con. Res. 63, I was unable to vote due to medical reasons. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________