---

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

The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 63

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to House Resolution 157, debate shall extend not beyond midnight on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, or Wednesday, February 14, 2007, with 12 hours of debate commencing on Thursday, February 15, 2007, in each instance equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their designees.

Pursuant to section 2 of the resolution, on each demand of the majority leader or his designee after consultation with the minority leader, it shall be in order to debate the concurrent resolution for an additional hour, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their designees.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) each will control 5 hours.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we entered today and we will be, for the next 4 days, involved in the most serious of discussions.

It is a heavy responsibility for any Member of Congress to determine whether or not to send our people in harm's way for the purposes of defending freedom. We should consider that with great solemnity and with great care. The reason for the extensive period of debate is because we believe that all Members of Congress ought to have the opportunity to express their view.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of this House, Nancy Pelosi of California.

Ms. Pelosi: Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and the solemnity with which he introduced this debate.

My colleagues, in a few weeks the war in Iraq will enter its fifth year, causing thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of casualties, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and damaging the standing of the United States in the international community. And there is no end in sight.

The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of action in Iraq, and they are demanding a new direction.

On January 10, President Bush proposed deploying more than 20,000 additional combat troops to Iraq. This week we will debate his escalation.

In doing so, we must be mindful of the sacrifices our military personnel are being asked to make in this war and the toll it is taking on them, on their families, and on our veterans. Each one of us must determine, in a manner worthy of their sacrifice, whether the President's proposal will make America safer, make our military stronger, and make the region more stable.

As this debate begins, let us be clear on one fundamental principle: we all support the troops.

In this bipartisan resolution that is before us today, it clearly states: "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq." We honor the service of our troops by asking the difficult questions about this war. As Republican Senator Robert Taft of Ohio said 2 weeks after Pearl Harbor: "Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any democratic government."

And just 10 days ago, President Bush told House Democrats: "I welcome debate in a time of war . . . I do not believe that if you don't happen to agree with me, you don't share the same sense of patriotism I do," the President said.

In the spirit of responsibility to our troops and the patriotism we all share, let us consider whether the President's escalation proposal will lessen the violence in Iraq and bring our troops home safely and soon.

From the standpoint of the military, the President's plan must be evaluated for its prospects for success. It is based on a judgment that the way out of Iraq lies in sending more troops in. Our experience in Iraq has proven just the opposite. Four previous troop escalations have resulted in escalating levels of violence.

And as with any military action, the President's plan must also be evaluated on the additional burdens it will place on our troops and military families who have already sacrificed so much, the impact it will have on the already dangerous state of our military readiness.

Our military has done everything they have been asked to do, and they have performed excellently. But in order to succeed in Iraq, there must be diplomatic and political initiatives.

There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically, and there has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically. The Iraqi Government has failed to honor promises made last year when the constitution was adopted by failing to propose amendments to include all sectors of Iraq in the civic life of the country. As a result, today we are confronted by little political accommodation, hardening sectarian divisions, ethnic cleansing by neighborhoods, and waves of refugees burdening neighboring countries.

After the Members of this body, this House of Representatives, have fully debated the President's escalation proposal, we will have a straight up-or-down vote. In a few days, and in fewer than 100 words, we will take our country in a new direction on Iraq. A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor.

Friday's vote will signal whether the House has heard the American people: no more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq. Our taxpayer dollars must go to protect our troops, to keep our promises to our veterans, and to provide for the safety of the American people.

In light of the facts, President Bush's escalation proposal will not make America safer, will not make our military stronger, and will not make the region more stable; and it will not have my support.

I urge my colleagues to support our troops and vote "aye" on the bipartisan Skelton-Lantos-Jones resolution before us today

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our Republican leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Boehner: Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today we begin an extended debate on a resolution criticizing the latest effort by American forces to win in Iraq.

There is no question that the war in Iraq has been difficult. All Americans are frustrated that we haven't seen more success and that we haven't seen it more quickly.

But war is never easy and almost never goes according to plan. Al Qaeda and their supporters in the region have been steadfast in their efforts to slow us down and frustrate our efforts to succeed. But because they cannot defeat Americans on the battlefield, al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at home.

Over the next few days, we have an opportunity to show our enemies that we will not take the bait.

It is fitting that yesterday was President Abraham Lincoln's birthday. And not since the dark days of the Civil War has our homeland been a battlefield. Lincoln's leadership preserved the Union through a turbulent age that threatened to undo the American experiment. His belief in the promise of the United States, a promise enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that stated for the first time in history that all men are created equal, this is what drove him to pursue victory.

Surrounded by personal and political rivals, Lincoln could have given up. He could have recalled the Union forces and sent them home. But he didn't.

I think we need a similar commitment to victory today.

The battle in Iraq is about more than what happens there. This is one part of a much larger fight, a global fight against Islamic terrorists who have waged war on the United States and our allies. This is not a question of fighting for land or for treasure or for glory. We are fighting to rid the world of a radical and dangerous ideology. We are fighting to preserve and defend our sacred way of life. We are fighting to build a safer and more secure America, one where families can rear their children without the fear of terrorist attacks.

Lincoln famously said in 1858 that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe, as Lincoln did then, that we must choose sides on a very critical issue. Then it was whether we should abolish the evil institution of slavery. Today it is whether we will defeat the ideology that drives radical Islamic terrorism. Will we do what it takes to stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs? Will we commit to defending the freedoms and liberties that we all cherish? Or will we retreat and leave the fight for another generation? These are the questions with historic implications that will be answered this week.

Many of my friends across the aisle think this is exactly what we should do, give up and leave. This nonbinding resolution is their first step towards abandoning Iraq by cutting off funding for our troops that are in harm's way.

And we know what al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the battlefield. They think that we can't stomach a fight. This is why they haven't been afraid to strike us whenever and wherever they have had the opportunity to do so.

This war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979, went on for well over a year. Then on October 23, 1983, the suicide attack on our Marine barracks in Beirut occurred, killing 241 American servicemen and injuring 60 others. On February 26, 1993, was the first World Trade Center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others. On June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 20 and injuring some 372 others. On June 7, 1998, the Kenya embassy bombing killed 213 people and injured 5,000 more. And on June 7, 1998, the Tanzania embassy bombing killed 11 people and 68 others were injured. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked; 17 American sailors killed, 39 other sailors injured.

We all know what happened on September 11, 2001, when 3,000 Americans died for no other reason than they were Americans.

Do we really believe that if we pack up now, if we abandon Iraq and leave the country in chaos, that our enemies are just going to lay down their arms and leave us alone?

For too long, world leaders responded to terrorism by retreating and just hoping for the best. In a post-9/11 world, this is no longer an option.

God forgive us that it took such a loss of life to open our eyes, but our eyes are open. We are engaged in a global war now for our very way of life. Every drop of blood that has been spilt in defense of liberty and freedom, from the American Revolution to this very moment, is for nothing if we are unwilling to stand up and fight this threat.

We didn't start this war. They did. Now we have got a duty to finish it, and, for the sake of our kids and theirs, to win it.

The nonbinding resolution before us today criticizes the new strategy for succeeding in Iraq implemented by General Petraeus. It "disapproves" of the strategy before it even has a chance to begin. The general's goal is to stabilize the Iraqi democracy, deny the terrorists a safe haven and ensure stability in the region. It is a prudent strategy that puts the performance of the Iraqi Government front and center.

I can't guarantee that this plan is going to work. I hope it does. Republicans have put forward a complementary bill aimed at helping it succeed. But I again can guarantee you this: If we cut off our funding for the troops that are in the field and we abandon Iraq, as many supporters of this nonbinding resolution want to, the consequences of our failure will be catastrophic.

Last year, Osama bin Laden issued this warning to the United States regarding the war in Iraq. He said, "I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

Now, think about this for a moment. Al Qaeda knows what the stakes are and it issued all of us a challenge. Now, tell me, what message does it send if we are afraid to meet that challenge? What message are we sending to North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and other enemies of freedom around the world? If we abandon Iraq, regional stability is going to be jeopardized. Iraq will become a fertile breeding ground for radical Islamic terrorists. Without a central government or other stabilizing force, Iraq's neighbors will be compelled to enter Iraq to protect their own interests. The consequences will be devastating and could easily lead to regional war.

If we abandon Iraq, the instability, coupled with the damning image of another American retreat, will embolden Iran and Islamic militants and endanger Israel. Iran's leaders and terrorist groups have made it clear of their intentions to wipe Israel off the map. We would be leaving a staunch ally in the Middle East with nothing but chaos and instability separating them from their greatest enemy.

If we abandon Iraq, those who seek weapons of mass destruction will know they have nothing to fear from a fearful America. Neither al Qaeda, North Korea or Iran are going to give up their quest for weapons of mass destruction if they know they are free to pursue these weapons, secure in the knowledge that America doesn't have the stomach to stop them. We will be leaving for our children, and theirs, a vastly more dangerous world.

During the Cold War, we took some small comfort in the idea of mutually assured destruction, that the Soviet Union wouldn't attack us because we could retaliate with equal devastation. There is no such comfort in a world where terrorist gangs roam free. It is the nature of our enemy to fight us wherever and whenever they can. Whether it is in Asia, in Africa or elsewhere, al Qaeda has supporters and sympathizers throughout the world. They have the ability to strike us at any time with their lethal force across the globe.

Right now, we are fighting them in Iraq. The battlefield is the most visible part in the global war against these terrorists, but it is but one part. If we leave, they will just follow us home. It is as simple as that. We cannot negotiate with them. We can't reason with them. Our one and only option is to defeat them. And this nonbinding measure before us today will only embolden them.

Now, it is important for this body to debate the important issues of our day. Last summer, the House held an extended debate on the war in Iraq and the global war on terror which gave all Members an opportunity to go on record. We worked closely with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft the language of that resolution, and I believe that we had a productive debate.

What we are dealing with here today isn't even a resolution to debate the war itself. It is a nonbinding resolution attacking a single strategy in the prosecution of a much larger war. "Nonbinding" means nonleadership. It is not accountable, and I don't think it is the right message for our troops.

This is a political charade, lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it is meant to represent. And, as I said before, the question before us today isn't actually in this resolution. I think it is much more fundamental. The question is, do we have the resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies? Will we stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs?

As President Eisenhower once said, "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." Does Congress have the fortitude to do what needs to be done? Our soldiers do. The men and women of our military are the greatest force for freedom that the world has ever known. They are brave, they are committed and they can win this fight if we ask them to. I think the big question is, will we support them?

My colleagues, the world is watching. The question is, how will we respond

Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of the time available to this side be jointly managed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman of the International Relations Committee.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Weiner): Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 ½ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I speak today with a heavy heart. I am deeply saddened as I take the floor this afternoon; saddened because we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in Iraq, a conflict that is involved with insurgents that we failed to acknowledge or recognize, a conflict that is overlaid by sectarian violence between the Shiite Muslims on the one hand and Sunni Muslims on the other.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great American tragedy. The mission of this Congress is to urge the change of course.

We are here today because of a series of irretrievable strategic mistakes. Let's understand the goal of this resolution: number one, to fully extend our support to those in the uniform of the United States. I have been on the Armed Services Committee now throughout the years, and more recently as its chairman, and I cannot tell you how proud I am of those who are in uniform, whether they be deployed in the Middle East or somewhere else in the globe or here in our country. We must let them know, and this resolution does let them know, that we fully support them, as well as their wonderful families.

The second part of this resolution deals with the Presidential decision to increase our troops by 21,500. However, it is not clear what support troops are needed. The Pentagon says 2,500 support troops. The Congressional Budget Office says 13,000 minimum. But whatever it is, we find ourselves not seeing a change in strategy, as was promised by the administration and the White House, but just another tactic that had been used before, an increase in troops. No more, no less. We are here to say that is not a good idea.

The series of irretrievable mistakes is a serious list: the skewed intelligence we received from the Defense Department Office of Special Plans; the postwar phase of conflict that did not have sufficient planning; not enough troops, as pointed out by General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff; allowing the uncontrolled looting and the breakdown of law early on after the occupation began; the dismissal of the Iraqi Army, rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel or having them do security work that is important to the stability of that country; the deBathification, that put so many thousands of Iraqis out of business, out of work, including thousands of school teachers. The administration has consistently refused to adjust its overall strategy.

I take no pleasure in this, but it is a moment of "I told you so." On September 4, 2002, and again on March 18, 2003, I sent letters to the White House predicting some of the deadly outcomes we are experiencing today, and I warned against a jagged ending to the conflict. While there is a peacefully elected Iraqi Government, it is a government so divided along sectarian lines it has not been able to accomplish even the most basic steps needed for national reconciliation. And now we have the President's plan for a troop increase, which is a tactic that we do not approve.

The President's plan will embroil our troops even more deeply into the sectarian conflict. Put together hastily, it is insufficient as a requirement for success. Forty percent of all of the Army equipment of our country is either in Afghanistan or Iraq. The readiness of our troops is in peril. We are stretching the Army and the Marine Corps to the breaking point. That is where we are, and basically it is because of the conflict in Iraq.

Today is an opportunity for us to express our support for the troops and to say it is not a good idea to increase the troop level in Iraq because it has been tried unsuccessfully before.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our Republican whip.

Mr. Blunt: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution. General Petraeus said a resolution like this would discourage the troops. The Secretary of Defense said a resolution like this would embolden the enemy. This Congress should be doing neither of those things.

What this resolution will not do is take a position on what we should do as we face the challenge of our generation.

President Johnson was criticized a generation ago and still today for choosing bombing sites in Vietnam. He was the Commander in Chief; yet he should have left those tactical choices to the military.

But his actions made imminently more sense than this. It is hard to imagine a group less capable of making tactical decisions about specific troop deployments than 535 Members of Congress.

The resolution today is about the exact number of troops. Will the one tomorrow or next week be a vote on which block in Baghdad to target or which car to stop?

And, of course, today what we debate is a tactic in the greater fight we are in. The new commanding general determined this surge is the right course of action. The Iraq Study Group was supportive of "a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such a step would be effective."

Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that the current situation in Iraq cannot continue. That is why the President has advanced a new way forward.

Actions do have consequences, and this resolution the Democrats advance today is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for the current strategy because it is a vote not to change that strategy. The current strategy is not working, and as a southwest Missourian told me yesterday, We are there. He went on to say, It really doesn't matter how we got there or what we thought. We are in a fight that won't stop if we leave.

The fact of the matter is that Congress does have the power to end the war if it has the political will to do so.

Almost 24 years ago, in November of 1983, the Congress voted to withdraw from Lebanon by March of 1984. Many of the proponents of this resolution voted then, who were Members of Congress then, voted to leave. They lost 153-274, but the message was sent, and we left anyway, and when we left, the myth of American weakness began to take hold in al Qaeda.

The language of this nonbinding resolution does not tackle the tough issues of war. It tries to have it both ways: disapproving the tactics but supporting the troops. It does not say we will fund the troops in the future or not fund the troops. It does not say we will supply the troops in the future or not supply the troops. This resolution just says enough not to say anything at all.

America should see this move for what it really is, a political first step to cutting off funding to the dangerous mission our troops face.

The truth is, we are in a war against a hostile and ferocious enemy that will stop at nothing. Imagine how this debate this week bolsters those radical terrorists whose sole goal is to destroy America because we disprove, as no society ever has, the dogma of religious totalitarianism that they use every day to recruit followers and funders and suicide bombers.

Our diversity, our ability to live together, and the prosperity and vitality that are the result have produced the enemies we face today. As long as we live as we do, they must be wrong.

This week, the Congress will send the signal to those enemies and to those who fight to protect us from them that America has the will and indeed the courage to continue fighting these Islamic totalitarians or that we do not take the consequences of failure seriously

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding.

I must begin by reacting to the two distinguished Republican speakers who preceded me. The distinguished Republican leader recited movingly and accurately terrorist outrages across the globe. Those terrorist outrages make the passage of our resolution all the more urgent and all the more imperative. We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are attempting to referee a religiously based civil war which saps our strength and destroys our fabric as a society.

As to the distinguished Republican whip, may I say this resolution does not make tactical decisions. It reverses a mistaken course. The administration is recommending an acceleration of the wrong course. Our resolution reverses that course.

Mr. Speaker, it is too late to go back and make right all that has gone wrong in Iraq, and clearly carrying on with more of the same will do no good. But the administration has yet to learn that you cannot unscramble an omelet. Instead, it is trying to add to the mix another 21,500 men and women who deserve better than that.

In pursuing its policies in Iraq, the administration cannot unscramble and undo its many mistakes: buying into rogue and flawed intelligence; disbanding the Iraqi Army; conducting mindless and extreme de-Baathification; permitting the early looting and destruction and violence; allowing the growth of a government based on hate-filled sectarianism; allowing waste, fraud and abuse in the use of U.S. taxpayer funds; and on and on ad nauseam and ad infinitum.

While we all hope that the goal of a quiet and stable Iraq will be achieved under General Petraeus, I am deeply skeptical. It will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. The place is just too much of a mess.

Our continued heavy presence in Iraq has not forced Iraqi leaders to take the requisite actions on power-sharing, resource-sharing, and national reconciliation. In fact, it has done the exact opposite. They have made minimal and cosmetic efforts in the knowledge that we will fill the gaps.

In the meantime, there are so many other fronts, globally and here at home, on which we might have made much more progress if we had not been fixated these last 4 years on Iraq. Domestic and foreign problems have festered while we invested blood and treasure in Iraq. As our Iraq problems have mounted, our commitment and ability to resolve other pressing issues have vanished.

Last November, the American people sent a loud and unmistakable message. With the announcement of an escalation of the war in Iraq, it is obvious that the administration did not get it. So we are trying one more time.

The resolution before the House is the second chance for this administration to hear a strong and clear message on Iraq, one it ignores at its peril and at ours as a country.

The majority of Congress wants de-escalation. The majority of the American people want de-escalation. Many Republicans throughout the Nation, and even our Republican colleagues in this Congress, want de- escalation. Poll numbers show that the Iraqi people want the United States to gradually withdraw, and Prime Minister al-Maliki has indicated in virtually every way that he can that he, too, opposes the surge.

But the administration wants escalation. So it is going its own way, nearly alone.

There is a clear-cut policy difference here, Mr. Speaker. It is reflected simply and unambiguously in our resolution. Those of our colleagues who oppose escalation should vote for the resolution. Those of our colleagues who stand with the administration in supporting escalation should oppose it.

Along with 52 hearings on Iraq in the House and the Senate over the past 5 weeks, this resolution represents the first phase in a long overdue process of congressional oversight of the war in Iraq. It is not the last phase. Congress will be dealing with the Iraq issue for months to come, in fact, for as long as it takes to end this nightmare. But this simple resolution will establish the first marker. Those who want to draw down the U.S. presence will be on one side of that marker. Those who want to take further steps into the quagmire will be on the other.

Mr. Speaker, we are throwing our soldiers into the midst of a civil war, particularly those whom we are sending to Baghdad. It is utterly unrealistic and grossly unfair to expect soldiers straight out of Iowa, Alabama, or California to be able to differentiate between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shias, much less to be able to tell at a glance which of these groups are with us and which are against us. But that is exactly what we are asking them to do, and we are asking them to do it in an urban terrorist setting and to do it without any linguistic or cultural background.

The first sentence of the recent National Intelligence Estimate tells us everything we need to know on this issue: "Iraqi society's growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi state in general, and all sides' ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism."

Every day we read another article illustrating the impossibility of the situation into which we have inserted our brave men and women. One day, we read how the Iraqi Army is infested with militia members. Another day, we read that countless members of al-Sadr's violently anti-American Mahdi Army have actually been trained by U.S. soldiers unaware of the trainees' true affiliation. On yet another day, we read that U.S. soldiers cannot even tell their Iraqi counterparts the object of their joint military missions for fear that the mission will be compromised.

This weekend, we read an interview with a U.S. soldier who acknowledged that he had no idea whatsoever whether an arrest he witnessed by Iraqi security forces was justified or merely another instance of sectarian revenge.

Mr. Speaker, Iraq is a hall of mirrors, and the administration has utterly lost its way. More troops will not help. The United States wants Iraq to be a state based on the rule of law, but too many Iraqis prefer score-settling, chaos, and civil war. We cannot create a stable Iraq when the Iraqis themselves do not seem to want it.

Let us not leave our finest young men and women literally stranded in an Iraqi maze. Let us make this resolution the first step on their journey home. We must begin a reduction in force at the fastest responsible rate possible, consistent with the safety of our troops.

And then it will be time to rebuild our battered military and, just as importantly, rebuild the battered reputation of the United States.

For the sake of our troops and our national interests, I strongly support this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Putnam of Florida, the Republican Conference chairman, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Putnam: I thank my friend from Florida for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution because, unfortunately, it is anything but resolute. In one legislative breath it offers support for our troops, but then expresses disdain for the mission they have been asked to carry out. And then, I must admit I am surprised, after all the tough talk we heard from the other side, this is a rather toothless 97 words. The resolution does nothing to help win the war, but it doesn't do anything to help stop it either, which allows the majority to offer its support and withdraw it too.

Now, the majority has surely studied its constitutional law, and knows that the most direct way that it can affect current strategy is to cut off the funds necessary for winning this war. So why are we not having this week a real vote, a real up-or-down vote on funding our men and women in harm's way? Actually, the Congress has had one up-or-down vote, it was up only, when the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as our commanding officer in Iraq. General Petraeus, who took over just last Saturday, literally wrote the book for the Army on counterinsurgency strategies. And now, after unanimous Senate approval and just days into his command, the House is prepared to pull the rug out from under him. If that is not a mixed message, then what is it, Mr. Speaker?

Indeed, it is a shame that the majority has brought to the floor such a narrow, nonbinding resolution that misses the bigger picture, because this is so much larger than what is going on in any given neighborhood in Baghdad.

It is easy enough to go back and list all the disappointments we have had in Iraq; it is easy enough to wring our hands about any one particular tactic. But it is like focusing on one jungle, on one atoll on the march to Tokyo over 60 years ago. The very nature of our enemy requires us to look at the bigger picture. The harsh reality we have encountered in 5\1/2\ years since militants attacked us on American soil is that its intricate web of terror is utterly global.

Today, al Qaeda operates in over 60 countries, with members in the hundreds and supporters in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions. This is the case even after the tangible successes that we have had.

More than three-quarters of al Qaeda's known pre-9/11 leaders have been captured or killed, more than 4,000 suspected al Qaeda members arrested, and more than $140 million of its assets seized from over 1,400 different bank accounts worldwide. And after having accomplished all that, the majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of California. And when ideological militants achieve their objectives, history tells us that they don't settle, that they only attempt to expand their reach even further. And that means following us home.

The consequences of failure in Iraq read like a far-fetched war game, but I assure you they are quite real: the inevitable incursion of Iranian and Syrian combatants into the country, the threat to peaceful Arab states, and the further emboldening of Hamas and Hezbollah.

So we have arrived at one of those muddy historical crossroads. Will we continue to take the fight to the enemy, or will we fall back and hope that the enemy does not follow us home? That question is one that we must continue to ask ourselves, even if it is much larger than the narrow scope of this resolution, this resolution that was born of what has become an overly politicized debate.

Time was, politics stopped at the water's edge; but no longer, it seems. A discussion of this nature should be about more than political labels and single tactical issues. It should be about the consequences for future generations.

The history of free peoples divides itself as neatly as it can into generations for a reason: because it aspires to celebrate the contributions made by that group of people who consciously join together to vanquish a common enemy. If we do not join together now to defeat this insidious foe, then it will almost certainly fall to our posterity do so. And they will have a much larger concern than any one troop deployment in any one city. They will be tasked with rebuilding the lasting damage that was done to America's resolve this week. They will look back upon this discussion and seek to understand what we were thinking when, with just 97 words, we considered shrinking from this critical moment.

The poet Robert Frost once wrote that, "The best way out is always through." We doggedly seek the way through. Success in Iraq, security for our allies, and everlasting victory for freedom. This week's discussion should be about the way through, not the way back

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a veteran of the Second World War, Mr. Dingell.

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

Mr. Dingell:Mr. Speaker, I wish I could rise in support for the administration's policy. I wish it made sense. I wish it was in the best interests of this country to support that policy.

It has been now 4 years since the first American soldier entered the deserts of Iraq, and about 4 years since the President has declared victory. Since then, more than 3,100 Americans have been killed, 24,000 and more have been wounded, and anywhere between 40,000 and 100,000 Iraqis have died.

You know, I am proud and grateful that I could have the privilege of serving my country and making some small offering to its success in time of war. I understand how important it is we support our troops there. They have done a magnificent job, and everyone in this Chamber, including this speaker, support them fully. It is regrettable, however, the leadership in Washington that has been less than stellar.

Unfortunately, the veracity of this administration and the respect in which it is held on these matters ranks somewhere around that great fantasist Baron Munchausen, the teller of fantastic tales.

I am against this plan, if it can be called such, because it is just more of the same policies and programs that have consistently failed for 4 years. I am against this surge because it will not make Americans safer, because it will put more American lives at risk, because it continues to neglect the battle in Afghanistan, and because it completely disregards the necessary diplomatic and political recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group.

Twenty-one thousand is too many to kill and too few to succeed. And, more importantly, that number is going to be sent over there away from the adventures that we are confronting in Afghanistan and the troubles that we are seeing in that place, and we are going to send people over there without adequate preparation, proper equipment, and training.

Vice President Cheney has told us that insurgency is in the last throes. Mr. Speaker, the national Intelligence estimates said that fanatical terrorism has now, and I quote, "metastasized and spread across the globe."

At each possible turning point, the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue, the dissolving of the Army, the creation of the Iraqi Constitution, the vote for the constitution, the Parliamentary elections, the capture of Saddam, the death of Zarqawi, the Bush administration has told us that victory is at hand. And yet the killing goes on and seems to have risen to new levels and new evidence of risk.

I don't believe that we can any more condone this long train of failure which has brought us so little success and such tremendous sacrifice in blooded treasure. It is time that we recognize that our troops are in the middle of a civil insurrection or a civil war. It is time that we recognize that we must turn this situation now over to the Iraqis. The matter will be decided by the Iraqis, not by us. It will not be decided militarily, but rather politically, by the people in the area, and not by Americans who are coming increasingly to be viewed as intruders and to be less liked and less supported.

I know that commentators and defenders of the administration will assert that Iraq is too important, too vital to our national interests to be debated or criticized. I happen to think the debate in this body on matters of great importance is the reason that we exist, and it is time that we speak on behalf of the American people to tell this administration: "Find a new mechanism to prevail in this matter. Find a new way to spend our lives and treasure. Find a new way to see to it that we prevail and that we make this country safe," because it is clear that this is not going to happen with the current policy as exemplified by this administration.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I hope that the country will see to it that the President finally hears the message that his policies are failed, it is time to make changes, and that we have to do so in the interest of the United States and world peace

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to Mr. Hunter, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution by the Democrat leadership sends a message to three parties: America's enemies, America's friends, and America's troops. And I think it is going to be received by friend and foe alike as the first sound of retreat in the world battle against extremists and terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, we are not stopping anything with this resolution. In fact, the Big Red One is already moving its first brigade toward Iraq; the 82nd Airborne, America's all-American division, is already in Iraq. In fact, the Second Brigade is already in their sector in Baghdad. As a matter of fact, in the Baghdad plan, which reinforcements are serving, all nine sectors now have American and Iraqi forces in place and operating. So you are not stopping anything; you are simply sending a message, and it is the wrong message. Because this Nation has been for the last 60 years involved in spreading freedom, and it is in America's interest to spread freedom. Nobody would say that it is in our interest or it is not in our interest, for example, to have a free Japan on that side of the Pacific, or to have a free El Salvador in our own hemisphere, or to have those nations which were behind the Iron Curtain, nations like Poland, now standing side by side with us in Iraq. It is in our interest to spread freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here before. A lot of us have. I remember in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was standing up to the Russians in Europe and the USSR was ringing our allies in France and Germany with SS-20 missiles, and the President of the United States moved to offset those missiles with Pershing IIs and ground-launched cruise missiles, and you had from the left a call that this was going to start World War III. And you had pundits throughout this country, as a matter of fact somebody showed me an old headline the other day, "Better Red Than Dead," which emanated from that debate and that action.

But we stood tough, we offset the Russians, we showed strength, and at some point the Russians picked up the phone and said, "Can we talk?" And when we talked, we talked about the disassembly of the Soviet Empire.

In our own hemisphere, when we went in and helped that fragile government in El Salvador and stood up a little shield around that government, we had people saying that is going to be the next Vietnam for the United States. Well, it wasn't a Vietnam for the United States, and Salvadorans are standing with Americans now in Iraq. In fact, I think we have got people who died of old age waiting anxiously for the next Vietnam.

Now we are in a different part of the world, and it is a tough mission, and moving freedom and spreading freedom in that part of the world is very, very difficult. And I would just say to my colleagues, my friends who have talked about the smooth road not taken, how we have made mistakes; if we just kept that Iraqi in place of Saddam Hussein's, somehow things would be better now. Saddam Hussein's army had 11,000 Sunni generals. Now, what are you going to do with an army with 11,000 Sunni generals whose mission is to stabilize a population which is in the majority Shiite?

A lot of people have said we should have had 200,000 to 300,000 troops in country. Now at the same time they would say we have got to put an Iraqi face on this occupation. How do you put an Iraqi face on the occupation with 200,000 or 300,000 Americans in country?

The facts are, there is no smooth road. This is a tough and difficult road. Our military planners have come up with a strategy. It involves nine sectors in Baghdad with Iraqi troops to the front and with backup American battalions behind them, mentoring them, giving them advice, and in many cases stiffening their spine.

Now, there is no guarantee of success. But this is a first time. I think we should check our history, and my friend, Mr. Skelton, I think you should check our history and see if this Congress has ever, after a military operation is already in place, is already moving forward, the Big Red One is already moving out. The all-American division, the 82nd Airborne, already has troops in place in combat, in the city, that we retroactively say, you know, we don't support this. The only message that can possibly send to the rest of the world is a fractured message.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to end with a comment, with a quotation from Douglas MacArthur in his farewell speech at West Point. I thought it was appropriate for these times. He talks about the American soldier, and he says this, "Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.

"His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast."

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers are engaged in combat right now. The worst disservice that we can give to them is to retroactively blast and degrade the mission that they are currently undertaking. There is no good role, there is no good purpose that is served by this.

So I would ask all my colleagues, let us get behind not only our troops, let us get behind their mission. Let us vote "no" on this resolution.

Mr. Skelton: I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a Korean War veteran, recipient of the Purple Heart, recipient of the Bronze Star, Mr. Rangel.

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

Mr. Rangel: Mr. Speaker, I didn't come down here, my colleagues, to talk about General MacArthur, but I guess I knew of him better than anyone in this room.

General MacArthur was called out of Korea. He was the commander of the entire Armed Forces there, and left us in the Second Infantry Division completely surrounded by the Chinese in November of 1950. The last I remember, he was called back by the Commander in Chief, Harry Truman, for defying his direction. So with all due respect to the great late general, this is hardly a time to talk about what soldiers have to do when they defy authority.

I want to thank those who have given us an opportunity today to express ourselves under question of life and death. Very few people have this responsibility, yet those here in this House, you didn't get elected to do this, but today you have to decide whether or not you want this war to continue and how many people have to die before it is stopped.

You here talk about me supporting a draft, but I challenge anyone to tell me that their feelings about this war in Iraq would not be different if they thought that their loved ones, their family, their community, would be placed in harm's way.

Whether you are for or against the war, or no matter how you voted, when you see the casualties mounting up, when you visit the hospitals and see young dedicated people without their skulls, their faces, their legs, their arms, you don't have to know any of these kids to start crying. But if you have children and grandchildren, and your imagination allows you to believe that they would be included in the 21,000, and no matter how many times they go, there has to be a feeling that maybe this is the last chance I have, you have to have a different feeling if you are not dealing with someone else's children.

Now, people would say these kids want to fight. I mean, they are different from most kids. They volunteered. They want to do it.

It is strange how most of them sought the $40,000, $30,000, $20,000 bonus or sought educational benefits, or don't come from families that are affluent in this country. It is strange that you never heard the President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense ever make a plea to the patriotism of America to say, Give me your young, your able body, give me your patriots, we have a war to fight. You have never heard that.

Oh, no, we applaud those who enlisted, but there has never been a plea out there for America to make sacrifices. A country at war, and the President doesn't ask people to sacrifice anything.

Well, my son in the Marines got out of the Persian Gulf. He is out, and he too enjoyed the GI Bill. But recently I attended a funeral in my district of a young man who died in Iraq, and I have gone to others, and the family was outside, and they pled with me, please, Congressman, tell them our son was a hero. Please, Congressman Rangel, we thank you that you are here, salute my son, please.

I have gone to these funerals before. Most of these young men and women were marines. So I was so used to seeing this blue uniform with the red stripe. The family actually walked me to the coffin, and my knees buckled. Why? Because as sensitive and as passionate I am about the loss of life, instead of seeing a brown-skinned Dominican in a marine outfit, I saw a soldier about 20 years old. I saw a soldier of about 20 years old in an Army uniform, not a Marine uniform. Guess what, he looked just like me.

I ask my colleagues to try to figure, if you were involved as an individual, as a kid, or your family was involved, that this great country and this great Constitution has given you the right, right in your hand, to determine who lives and who dies. You cannot make a mistake in supporting this resolution, it is not going to hurt our beloved warriors, it is going to help our country, it is going to help them, and it is going to make us proud one day to be able to say, when asked, What did you do when this was going on in the world, and your Congress was asked?

You would be able to say, There was a resolution. It may not have been a profile in courage, but I supported it, and I am proud that I did

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. King of New York, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. King of New York: I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate, which as my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, isn't this a historic debate? It is part of our job. It is our obligation. It is a legal obligation; it is a moral obligation to be heard on this most pressing issue of our time.

I would also add at the outset, when we have talked about those who died in Iraq, and all of us go to the wakes of those who were killed in our district. Just the other day, if we are talking about the quality of the type of person, where they come from and who was killed in Iraq, there was a young man who was actually in what used to be the heart of my district, very affluent area, Manhasset. He was a graduate of Duke University, all-American Lacrosse player, was offered a scholarship to law school, but he turned it down to go in as an enlisted man, as an Army Ranger.

He served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he was killed on his third tour of Iraq. His family was proud of what he did, what he accomplished, what he stood for. I think it doesn't really add to the level of debate to somehow be suggesting that those who go to Iraq because they cannot be anywhere else or somehow it is all driven by economic need, he was a young man with everything in front of him.

He had all the opportunity in the world, and he went, and he joined the Army, went in as an enlisted man, died as a sergeant, and he was on his third tour in Iraq. So I think it is important to put that in the Record. Also, I know there are any number of Members in this body who have had members of their families serving in Iraq.

I think if we are going to talk about the gentleman from New York who wants to bring back the draft, we can have that in a separate debate. But I don't think it should be part of this debate.

Now, when this debate was actually scheduled, I actually thought it would serve a constructive purpose. But as I look at the resolutions being offered, if I could really, I guess, quote from Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, rather than a resolution, it is really a resolution of irresolution.

It is inherently contradictory, because it pledges support to the troops but also at the same time washes its hands of what the troops are attempting to do. I have heard speaker after speaker get up here today and say the new policy cannot work. The new policy is more of the same. This is the President's policy. He hasn't gotten the message from the American people.

Well the fact is, this policy is strongly supported by the new commander in Iraq, General Petraeus. As was pointed out, the Senate unanimously approved the appointment of General Petraeus by a vote of 81-0. Now, for people to come here today and say this is an inherently flawed policy, this is a policy that cannot work, this is a policy that is doomed to failure, to me, after General Petraeus has said that he believes the policy can work, that he supports the policy, is to attack directly either the credibility or the competency of General Petraeus, and that is a terrible message to be sending to our troops.

Actions do have consequences. I don't doubt the good faith of anyone on either side of the aisle when it comes to supporting the troops. The fact is, often you have to think beyond what the actual words are saying and realize the consequences those words have. For instance, my good friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who I have actually traveled to Iraq with in 2003, where we met with General Petraeus and others in Mosul and with others and troops in Baghdad, he said that Iraq is a mess, and we have to end the nightmare.

Does anyone really think by Americans pulling out the nightmare is going to end, that the Middle East will become stable if we leave? Certainly al Qaeda doesn't believe that. Certainly the mullahs in Iran don't believe that. And also our allies don't believe that.

Again, what are the consequences of our actions? Are we saying just draw down for the sake of drawing down? I heard the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives say our goal is to get our troops home.

Well, I would say our goal should be to have our troops come home after we have achieved a goal, a goal of at least a stable Iraq, an Iraq which is able to protect its borders against Iran, and an Iraq which is able to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a privileged sanctuary in Iraq, and an Iraq which is able to create a situation in the north where the Kurds and the Turks are not fighting with one another.

So these are all serious issues that have to be addressed. I regret to say this resolution does not address it in any way. If anything, it is a serious step backward.

Now, also we have heard that we have to listen to the polls. We have to listen to what public opinion has to be at any particular time. Well, if anyone wants to go back and look at the polls, in 1952, President Truman's popularity rating was 22 percent. War in Korea was amazingly unpopular, and yet today he is acknowledged as one of our greatest Presidents, and the war in Korea is looked upon as an absolutely indispensable step in the defeat of communism, because they drew the line in Asia at the 38th parallel.

I know my good friend Mr. Rangel served in Korea, he was wounded in Korea, and he performed valiantly in Korea. That war now is looked upon as one of the linchpins of the Cold War strategy, which, again, brought down the Communist menace.

Also I tried to research this. I am not aware of any time in the entire history of our country where the United States Congress has adopted a resolution questioning a particular battlefield strategy.

Like him or not, and I certainly support him, but the President is our Commander in Chief. I said the same thing when President Clinton was our Commander in Chief, and I was serving in this body at that time when there was tremendous criticism directed at him.

But the fact is, the President, no matter where he or she happens to be from, is the Commander in Chief. And we are at war. It was a war that was authorized by this Congress. And we should not be, I do not believe, setting the precedent of adopting resolutions questioning specific strategies.

Should we have adopted a resolution in the winter of 1944, 1945, questioning President Roosevelt's strategy in allowing the intelligence failures that brought about the Battle of the Bulge? We can go step by step. Certainly President Lincoln, during the Civil War when strategies were changed throughout the war and finally resulted in a victory.

Also we have to realize that the war in Iraq is part of an overall war against Islamic terrorism. As the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, certainly we see that this is an enemy which is overseas and it is here. It is an enemy which is plotting every day to find ways to attack us.

I know later the distinguished ranking member of the Intelligence Committee will also speak to this part of the issue. But the fact is, we do not live in vacuums. We cannot isolate battlefields and silos and say this is Iraq, this is Afghanistan, and this is the Twin Towers.

The fact is, we are talking about actions having consequences. And I have been very critical of the Republican Party for 1983 when I believe we precipitously withdrew from Beirut. That had consequences. I was in this body when we precipitously withdrew from Somalia. I was also in this body when the Twin Towers were attacked the first time in 1993 and we took no action, or Khobar Towers when a constituent of mine was killed in 1996. We took no action.

The USS Cole in 2000 when we took no action. In 1998 the attacks on the African embassies, where we took very limited action. All of those had consequences. In fact, now we see after September 11, 2001, we find the historical record where Osama bin Laden said that when we saw that the United States was willing to withdraw from Somalia, how that emboldened Islamic terrorists throughout the world, how that showed them that we did not have the staying power, we did not have the guts to stick it out.

Listen, those who are really putting it on the line, those who have the guts are the men and women of the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. But also we as elected officials have to show some courage and not just give in to the zeitgeists, not just give in to the latest public opinion poll or to the latest election, because quite frankly we were not elected to win elections; we were elected to show leadership and to do what has to be done.

When future generations look back at this, will they really say that we helped the struggle against Islamic terrorism by pulling out of Iraq, by not continuing that fight? Does anyone really think that that will not embolden al Qaeda, that that will not embolden Iran? Can anyone honestly say that?

And so I believe that what disappoints me about this debate and this resolution is we are treating Iraq almost like it is a pinpoint. It is one issue standing by itself, and it is not. It is part of a mosaic; it is part of a worldwide struggle. As someone who lost more than 100 friends, neighbors, constituents on September 11, I have seen firsthand the evils of Islamic terrorism.

As ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, I know how there are forces in this country who would take action against us. I know the connections between forces in this country and forces overseas. It is no secret. It should not cause us any confusion as to why al Qaeda wants us to lose in Iraq.

It should not cause us any confusion as to why al Qaeda encourages the enemy against us in Iraq, and in fact has al Qaeda in Iraq itself fighting against us.

So now we come to the question of, with our troops committed there, with this being an absolutely essential part of the war against terrorism, what do we do? I agree that there is a consensus that the current policy has not been successful. There have been successes, but the policy itself has not been fully successful.

That is true in almost every war in which America has been engaged. It was certainly true during World War II, it was certainly true during Korea, and even take a war like Kosovo, which is probably almost as antiseptic as a war could be, even though every war when anyone's life is on the line is brutal and deadly.

But from a strategic point of view, we are talking about it should have been a simple war. We ended up bombing a Chinese embassy in Belgrade. So, I mean, mistakes are made. And for us to say because mistakes are made we should redeploy our troops, which really is a euphemism for withdrawal.

We are sending signals to the world. We are sending signals to our troops, we are sending signals to our allies, we are sending signals to our enemies. On the one hand if we are unanimously confirming General Petraeus who supports this policy, and on the other hand we are saying we know the policy cannot work and we are actually going for the first time in American history going on record opposing a particular strategic policy, then I would say, where are we getting this from?

People say that this is just the same policy as we have had all along. General Petraeus says it is not. And I do not believe it is. Can I guarantee the new policy will work? No, I cannot. But I have met with generals, I have met with military experts, and they give good reasons why it can work. And there are people of very good faith on the other side who say it will not work.

But as I look at this, our commander, who is looked upon as the expert in counterinsurgency, who is the general who has certainly achieved the most in Iraq, and anyone who has been to Mosul knows the job that he achieved there, if he says this policy should work, and can work, then I believe we have the moral obligation, we have the legal obligation, and we have the obligation to history and for our children and grandchildren that we not undercut General Petraeus, that we not tell our troops we do not have faith in their ability to carry out the mission which General Petraeus says can be carried out, and we do not embolden our enemies by saying just wait this out a few months, wait it out a few months and you will get it, wait us out a few months and we will pull out like we did in Beirut or Somalia.

We cannot allow that message to be sent. The burden is on us. And if we fail in this mission, and the mission I believe of standing with our troops, standing with our commander in the field, and standing with the policy that the overwhelming majority of Congress voted for in 2003, and also the pledge that all of us made on September 11, 2001, then we will have failed in our obligations as Members of the United States Congress and failed in our obligation to our oath of office to do what has to be done, which should be done, which is essential if we are going to win the war against Islamic terrorism.

Mr. Skelton: I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I find it rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, that those who oppose this simple, straightforward resolution tend to confuse a permissive war with a necessary war. The goals of the insurgents in Iraq are far different from the terrorists that had their genesis in Afghanistan. Let us not be confused between the two conflicts or their origins or those against whom we fight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a veteran of the Korean War, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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

Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I thank our chairman, Mr. Skelton, and I stand proud today with my fellow veterans in the House of Representatives to register our opposition to the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and to show our support for our men and women in uniform.

Now, last November 7 the American people sent a clear message to Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq. Now after nearly 4 years of bloodshed, death and destruction, Congress is likely to go on record as opposing the plan for escalation of this war.

No longer will Congress stand by while the President wages a war that defies logic, common sense and human decency. This week we shall take a stand. This week, we tell this administration enough is enough, stop ignoring the American people, stop ignoring your generals. And by the way, I include to the gentleman from New York two speakers ago, General Colin Powell, no less agrees with us.

Stop ignoring the foreign policy experts. Stop wasting American lives and resources on this disastrous and unnecessary conflict. This week's debate on this resolution represents an important turning point in public dialogue about Iraq. And so I welcome it, but it is not enough. The escalation must be stopped, and we cannot let the momentum against the war subside after we deal with the escalation.

Our priority must remain ending the fighting and dying in Iraq. We must end the senseless deaths of servicemembers like marine Tarryl Hill of Southfield, Michigan, who only last Wednesday died when his vehicle drove over a bomb in Fallujah.

Tarryl Hill was 19 years old. He had joined the military to help finance his education to become a chemical engineer. I do not want to see one more promising life like his extinguished on the altar of this administration's arrogance. The loss of Tarryl's life brings to mind the bereavement of another patriot from Flint, Michigan, Lila Lipscomb, whose 26-year-old son, Michael, died in Iraq in April 2003, when his helicopter was shot down.

A member of a military family, Ms. Lipscomb initially believed President Bush when he told the Nation that war was necessary for our national security. But her son's letters from the front lines and his tragic death showed her that he should have never gone to Iraq.

I need to spend a little time explaining my opposition to the troop surge, which is simply even more of the same. This policy is going in precisely the opposite direction recommended by the generals who get transferred if they do not agree.

It would simply expose GIs to more intense door-to-door fighting, in the vain hope that in the meanwhile the Iraqis will miraculously reconcile with us still being in their country.

The real and underlying question is how we remove ourselves from this quagmire. As I have emphasized many times, our Constitution gives Congress the central role in decisions of war and peace. Last fall the American people spoke loudly with their votes. We should be here showing the voters that we heard them and that their trust was well placed.

The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of the purse. And so we must use it. Supporters of the President's failed Iraq policy have argued that using Congress's spending power to end the war means that we do not support the troops. It is beyond absurd to suggest that those of us who favor ending funding for the war would simply abandon the troops in the field without equipment and the supplies they need.

Cliches about supporting the troops are not really about our service members' best interests. The true purpose of these accusations is to distract us from the fact that we are bogged down in an unwinnable war that threatens to drag on for years, if not decades. Keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is the best possible way to support them. The American people understand that marching ahead blindly into oblivion is no way to support our troops. That is why they have asked us to end this war.

Mr. Speaker, the administration continues to live under the illusion that it can salvage its reputation by achieving a military victory in Iraq, when it is clear that diplomacy is the most effective means at our disposal. The recent National Intelligence Estimate reflecting the collective judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies only confirms what we have seen in the daily headlines for almost a year. It concludes that the civil war has reached an intensity that is "self-sustaining" and that there are no Iraqi national leaders with the ability to stop it. No wonder the administration stalled completion of the NIE until after the election and the President's presentation of his latest proposal.

Most of the American people know that there is only one way to proceed in Iraq. We must begin the phased withdrawal of American troops in the next 4 to 6 months and conclude it within the year. Redeploying our Armed Forces does not mean "cutting and running." On the contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the region through renewed diplomacy, a regional conference and reconstruction that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is the only one that can lead us to victory.

Announcing the Passing of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by House leaders that our colleague, Congressman Charlie Norwood, has passed away. I would ask our colleagues to join me as we rise in a moment of silent prayer for Charlie.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues and visitors.

Congressman Norwood was a proud Vietnam veteran, and his service to our Nation will be sorely missed. Mr. Deal will soon come to the floor to make a statement on behalf of his State's delegation.

With that, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. 0

Mr. Hoekstra: I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear of the purpose of today. We face a real test of what this House of Representatives stands for and who we, as Representatives, really are.

Do any of us really believe that the resolution in front of us today is a serious piece of legislation? Does it properly recognize all of America's military and other national security professionals who defend us day and night? What of the hundreds of folks in the Intelligence Community that are ignored in this resolution, who each and every day are working hand in hand with our Armed Forces trying to achieve success in Iraq?

Does this resolution discuss or force a debate on the really tough issues of who it is that hates America and others so much that they are willing to kill innocent men, women and children? Again, this resolution comes up short.

What is the threat, and how should America respond? That is the debate that we should be having on this floor. This resolution is all about staying the course. It says, Support our troops and don't engage in new tactics; just keep going down the same path. That is not good enough.

There are people who hate us enough to want to kill. I speak of militant Islam's hate for America, a hate that extends to others, including Muslims. And these militant Islamists kill, they kill violently and indiscriminately, but this resolution is silent on the threat that we face as a Nation, and it is silent on how we should respond.

Who are these radical Islamists, and what should America's response to this threat be? We face this on a global basis. What is America's response to jihadism? How will America win this war against this calculating enemy? And how will America lead the world once again in the face of such a ruthless threat?

The resolution that we are debating today simply asks, Do you support America's fighting men and women, and do you support or oppose a tactic in a battle that is only one front in the war with these military jihadists who are bent on the destruction of the infidel America and others around the world.

Let me say to my colleagues that I don't believe I am wrong in saying that this debate is really about whether or not America is a great Nation that leads in the face of difficulty. Nor do I believe that I am wrong to question what actually happens when this debate and vote are over. Have we really helped the American people understand the threat? What message do we send to our troops in harm's way? And what is it that the American public needs to understand so that it can better understand the challenges that we face? My own answer, Mr. Speaker, was that we need to understand the consequences of failure. We need to fully understand the nature of the threat that is posed now, and moreover in the future, if we fail in the larger war against militant Islam.

Mr. Speaker, let me outline some things about this very real threat to our very existence that needs to be known by the American public and, indeed, this body. This is not a global war on terror. I have never liked that term, I don't know why we keep using it. This is a global war with jihadists. We are not at war with a tactic, we are at war with a group of militant Islamists who hate us and who hate much of the rest of the world. What is a jihadist, other than someone or some group so full of hate that they are willing to kill?

I have a passion for understanding this threat. And thanks to a great deal of superb research done by many experts on the subject, in particular the author Mary Habeck, we have been enlightened as to who these individuals are, and perhaps also get an insight into the question of why do they hate, and why do they hate so much that they are willing to kill.

I can tell you that these militant Islamist jihadists are a fringe element of Islam who have very specific ideas about how to revive Islam, return Muslims to world power, and how to deal with their enemies. They are committed to a violent overthrow of the existing international system, and to its replacement by an all-encompassing Islamist state, the Caliphate.

Mr. Speaker, in studying this threat, this militant Islamic jihadist threat, we must also understand why Iraq is such an important element of their war against the West. This is where the letter from al Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahari, to the late al Zarqawi outlining the Islamic Caliphate that would stretch from Indonesia across the Middle East and Africa is instructive. In that letter, Zawahari outlines a four-stage plan to create this religious empire.

Stage one. "Expel the Americans from Iraq." Expel them in defeat. I fear that this debate may be the first step in that process.

Stage two is to create an Islamic religious government in the old Mesopotamia, that is, Iraq, developing it and supporting it "until it achieves the level of a Caliphate," until it fills the void stemming from the departure of the Americans.

Step three is to extend the jihad way to secular countries neighboring Iraq. The jihadists will attack heretic Muslims, as they define them.

And stage four is the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

Let's be clear about this. This jihad is about them. It is about their god, their religion, before it becomes anything about anyone or anything else. That's right, it is about them before it is about us.

The militant jihadists believe that Islam worked well for over a thousand years, spreading a true gospel, a unified society that followed the Shari'a, a law handed down by God. They believe that the modern world has forsaken that pure religious life, and they believe that only in a Caliphate governed by the Shari'a is the way to return to that pure life.

This is the world that they now want to recreate and force on the rest of the world. That is why they are fighting and that is why they are killing. They see today's world as one where unbelievers, the United States, Japan and others, dominate politically, culturally, militarily and economically. This directly assaults their religious beliefs, as in effect, much if not all of the world is controlled by unbelievers, unbelievers who must be destroyed, including secular Muslim states in the region.

To illustrate, let me quote from Osama bin Laden's Fatwa. Listen to what these people tell themselves and each other: "There is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the Holy Land, no other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it. There is no precondition for this duty, and the enemy should be fought with one's best abilities. If it is not possible to push back the enemy except by the collective movement of the Muslim people, then there is a duty on the Muslims to ignore the minor differences among themselves. Even the military personnel who are not practicing Islam are not exempted from the duty of jihad against the enemy."

It should be clearly understood that a central tenet of jihadists' beliefs is the belief that God is one; he has no equals, he has no partners. This is important. If one believes that God is one and all that matters of rule giving or law making belongs to him, no human being, no government could make laws or alter the Shari'a laws of God. This would be, for all intents, setting oneself up to be the equal of God. Herein lies the problem that these militant Islamists have with the West and secular Muslim countries. This belief is applied equally to infidels and Muslim heretics.

The bottom line is that any government or order of law other than Shari'a is illegitimate. This belief, in their minds, justifies the killing of heretical Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This is not recent thinking. A prominent early 20th century Egyptian Muslim ideologue named Hasan al Banna professed this point about Muslims and nonMuslim heretics. He stated, quote, we will not stop at this point, but we will pursue this evil force to its own land, invade its western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam are spread throughout the world. All religion will be exclusively for Allah.

He went on to say that this violence would not be to avenge wrong suffered, nor to kill the unbelievers, but to save mankind from its many problems. Are we starting to get a picture of who the enemy may be? It is also important that jihadists' interpretation of Islam is they will reject any system of laws not based on Shari'a.

Democracy. Why do they hate us? Democracy, he claimed, is the ultimate expression of idolatry, giving reason for the hatred of Western values. This is about them, it is not about us.

Al Banna is not the only studied ideologue. Another name, Sayyid Qutb, wrote, "Islam has a mandate to order the whole of human life, and that the Western idea of separation between religion and the rest of life is, quote, a hideous schizophrenia that would lead to the downfall of white civilization and therefore its replacement by Islam."

Qutb maintained that political and religious ideology of the jihadist is derived directly from the Koranic argument that God, unique and without partner, is the only being of sovereignty. Therefore, the only role for national leaders is to implement God's laws. This gives the jihadists their belief that attacking secular or Muslim heretic societies is justified. Qutb basically justified all-out warfare on all of these societies.

Where does that leave us today? It leaves us with a discussion that should be much deeper than the resolution that is in front of us. The resolution in front of us is a shallow political document.

Let me return to Osama bin Laden's Fatwa against the West. Let me use his own words. In calling on all Muslims, he says, "The explosions at Riyadh and Al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging."

To further his murderous goals, bin Laden then went on to outline the terrorist approach to his holy war to by saying, "It must be obvious to you that due to the imbalance of power between our Armed Forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e., using fast-moving light forces that work under complete secrecy; in other words, to initiate a guerrilla warfare where the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it. And as you know, it is wise, in the present circumstances, for the armed military forces not to be engaged in conventional fighting with the forces of the crusader enemy, unless a big advantage is likely to be achieved and great losses induced on the enemy side. That will help to expel the defeated enemy from the country."

He goes on, "Therefore, efforts should be concentrated on destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the grace of Allah, it is completely defeated. The time will come, by the permission of Allah, when you will perform your decisive role so that the word of Allah will be supreme and the word of the infidels will be the inferior. You will hit with iron fists against the aggressors."

The modern words of bin Laden alone do not adequately explain the current militant Islamic threat to the United States and its friends around the world. Again in their own words, this quote from a senior al Qaeda leader, quote, Islam became to be the only hope in jihad under the banner of Islam to become a solution for all of the enemies of America and of those weakened nations, even to the leftist and peace groups in the Christian world. Whoever follows the writings of some of the Western authors will find that some of them started to declare, through their writings, about the American tyranny, that there is no hope to face America other than through the armed Muslims. To the extent that in one of the demonstrations that included hundreds of thousands against globalization and war in Italy, the demonstrations carried a picture of bin Laden placing Che Guevara's hat on it, drawing him to be a Che Guevara look-alike. They wrote under his picture, "anti-American." Through this action they expressed that the symbol of today's Islamic jihad is the only solution to face America.

Mr. Speaker, here is the true threat to America and the West: this militant Islamic jihad, a jihad that spans the globe, including attacks in Bali; in Spain; the United Kingdom; in the Philippines; in Kashmir; in Kenya; in Jordan; Israel; Nigeria; and, yes, in the United States and Iraq. What is not being discussed is this global problem, this threat to peace and stability everywhere in the world. Why, I ask, is the focus so keenly on Iraq as the problem, the only problem for us to debate? Iraq is not the problem. It is but one front in this larger war. The American people are not being well served by our leaders and the media that are solely focused on the conflict in Iraq. This is but a single front in a much larger war.

Mr. Speaker, let me close with these final thoughts about the militant Islamic threat we face not only in the front in Iraq but, indeed, around the world, including here in America.

There is a fundamental clash of civilizations at work here. There is a fundamental belief by the jihadis that Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so. This belief includes their facts that democracy, liberalism, human rights, personal freedoms, international law, international institutions are illegal, illegitimate, and sinful. Democracy, and in particular the United States democracy, is the focus of their wrath because it is considered the center of liberalism. This is not an enemy with whom we can negotiate. We must contain them and defeat them.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us does not address this threat, a real threat to our very existence. We are at war, and I fear we don't even know that we are under attack. This myopic resolution does not recognize or address that threat.

I urge my colleagues and the House to vote "no" on this resolution.

Moment of Silence Observed in Memory of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we recognize the Members of the Georgia delegation to make the sad commentary on Congressman Norwood's passing.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Moran of Virginia): Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?

There was no objection.

Mr. Deal of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

On behalf of my colleagues from the State of Georgia, it is with great sadness that I announce that our colleague Charlie Norwood passed away at approximately 12:45 today.

Charlie was a great Member of this body and a friend to all.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this body observe a moment of silence in his memory.

Amen.