---

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, once again my friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to confuse the conflict in Iraq with the war against terrorists and has their genesis in Afghanistan, trying to put it all in one basket. That is not the case. Anybody can have their own opinion, but, Mr. Speaker, they may not have their own facts.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Thompson), a gentleman who is a Vietnam combat veteran of the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

Mr. Thompson of California: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me for time.

Mr. Speaker and Members, as a combat veteran, from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you to the brave men and women who have served in Iraq, each with great distinction.

Our troops have done an outstanding job. They have done all that has been asked of them and more. They have performed with the utmost professionalism, making all of us very proud.

Now, I believe it is past time that we start bringing these brave men and women home. They should be home with their families, not in the middle of Iraq's civil war. Moreover, we shouldn't be sending more troops into Iraq's civil war. Some of our servicemembers have been on two, three, and even four tours of duty in Iraq already.

This escalation would put too much strain on our military and not just our troops. Much of our military's equipment is damaged. It will take years and billions of dollars to repair it and replace it. Nearly every Reserve and National Guard member has been mobilized. The escalation is in no one's best interest.

Two weeks ago I joined with my colleague Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania, a decorated Army captain who served in Iraq, to introduce binding legislation to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. Our bill, which has already attracted 20 co-authors from both sides of the aisle and has a companion bill in the Senate, provides a practical and comprehensive strategy for ending our military involvement in Iraq. It sets a firm deadline for phased redeployment of our troops beginning May 1 with all combat brigades out by March 31 of 2008. It provides a concrete plan for shifting security responsibilities to where they belong: with the Iraqis.

I have visited with our troops in Iraq, and I have talked to those who have been training the Iraqi security forces. They have told me that the U.S. troops have finished their job and that Iraq needs to step up and start securing their country. Americans cannot continue to do it for them.

Our bill recognizes that the President's escalation plan is a continuation of his failed "stay the course" slogan and it would not allow the increase of troop levels without congressional approval.

Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors. Our bill is a strategy for success in Iraq and is the best way to bring our brave men and women home as quickly and safely as possible.

While I strongly believe that today we should be debating and passing our binding solution, H.R. 787, I know that this week's debate is the first real debate we have had on Iraq in more than 4 years. In this week alone, we will more than quadruple the amount of time given to debate this war since it began.

Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for bringing this important matter to the floor. This resolution is a critical step in getting our men and women out of this ugly mess, a full blown civil war in Iraq. I support today's resolution, which joins with the American people in sending the President a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer. We need to focus on getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and quickly as possible and making sure that the Iraqis step up and assume the security responsibilities for their country.

I also rise to tell those who have served, those who are serving in Iraq today, and their proud families thank you. Your Nation thanks you for your great service to our country.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In this debate on Iraq, we must always be aware that the remarks are not to be confined only to the American people. Our words will be heard not just by our friends but by our enemies also. They are watching to see what America will do. No weakness of ours, no internal political struggle will go unnoticed.

The suicide bombers, the leaders of al Qaeda, the rulers of Iran, many others are listening, seeking encouragement for their fellow extremists, listening for signs of our defeat.

We know from many sources that al Qaeda, the terrorists in Iraq, and our enemies planning further attacks on us closely follow what is said and what is done in the United States and use that knowledge to help them calculate their next steps against us. They routinely cite statements by U.S. sources as validation of their strategy to defeat America.

Let me quote Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of the Islamic jihad, who said that talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud." He said: "As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud, very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance, this success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

They are looking for concessions of defeat, signs of weakness, and it is within this context that we embark on this debate today.

The question before us concerns not the past but the future. Where should our country go from here? We are not merely debating a resolution, but we are deliberating on our Nation's future.

The war in Iraq is but a part of a far larger struggle, a global struggle, the struggle against Islamic extremist militants. As in the Cold War, our current struggle is one of survival. The enemy does not mean merely to chase us away. The goal of the Islamic extremist radicals is to destroy us. If we run, they will pursue. If we cower, they will strike.

The choice before us is this: Do we fight and defeat the enemy, or do we retreat and surrender? We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can accommodate our enemies and thereby secure their cooperation. We should not believe that the enemies' demands are limited and reasonable and thus easily satisfied or that we can find safety by withdrawing from the world. This strategy has been tried in the past with catastrophic consequences.

Neville Chamberlain genuinely believed that he had brought "peace in our time" by washing his hands of what he believed to be an isolated dispute in what he termed "a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing." That country was Czechoslovakia, and Chamberlain's well-intentioned efforts to withdraw Britain from the problems in that far-away region only ensured that an immensely larger threat was thereby unleashed.

The threat of Hitler did not appear suddenly out of a vacuum. The challenges that we face today thus have been building for many years.

We experienced the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. The destruction of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and then most dramatically the attack on our Nation on 9/11.

As these attacks built over the years, we did little in response. Our enemies came to believe that they could strike us with impunity and that we would shrink from our responsibilities, from defending our interests, that we would not stand up for our very own survival. They felt safe in planning for larger attacks.

Now our fight is truly one of global proportions. Some may not want to believe it. The terrorists, however, are certain to believe it. As stated by senior al Qaeda leader al Zawahiri, " . . . Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate, over as much territory as you can, to spread its power in Iraq."

He continues: "The third stage: extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before, the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."

These are the words of al Zawahiri, not my words. And this al Qaeda leader went on to say: "The whole world is an open field for us."

What then are the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal and surrender? The terrorists, our mortal enemies, will have demonstrated that they have defeated us, the strongest power on Earth. They will have proven that our enemies only have to make the cost too high for us and that we will give up. The result would be an extraordinary boost to their morale and standing in the world, resulting from such a historic and momentous accomplishment on their part. They will become heroes in the minds of millions. They will be inundated with recruits, with financing, with support of all types.

And they will be eager to go after us.

A leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad recently said of an American withdrawal from Iraq, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop." He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove that resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

These are his words, not mine.

We know that the terrorists would draw these conclusions because they have done so before when we recoiled in the face of terrorist attacks. In bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of Jihad and other statements, bin Laden repeatedly pointed to America's weakness being its low threshold for pain. As evidence, he pointed to the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 because of casualties from attacks by al Qaeda and its allies.

Bin Laden said, "When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. The extent of your impotence and your weakness became very clear."

These are bin Laden's words, not mine.

We witnessed the consequences of Somalia and the ensuing inaction. However, the implications for withdrawal and surrender in Iraq could be even greater. There would be an intensification of the violence.

As the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq recently affirmed, "If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation."

Iraq would become, as one of my Democratic colleagues said in December of 2005, a "snakepit for terrorists."

Sunni Arabs throughout the Middle East would certainly view the resulting situation as a Shiite victory in Iraq and, in turn, as a win for the regime in Iran. Neighboring countries would likely seek to prevent Iranian domination of Iraq and the region by providing financial and other support, including potentially troops, to anti- Iranian factions.

It would be interpreted as a defeat of the U.S. and would thus strengthen rogue regimes in Syria and Iran. Iran would be free to expand its influence throughout the Middle East, including its long- term effort to dominate the Persian Gulf and the world's oil supply.

Iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah would likely increase, thereby ensuring the murder of countless civilians and a further destabilization of countries in the region and indeed beyond.

Let us not forget that Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, twice attacked in our own hemisphere, in Argentina, in the mid-1990s. Let us not forget that in 2002 a court case in the United States found that one of two men were convicted of financing Hezbollah of $2 million in illegal activity here in the United States and that last year an individual from Detroit was charged with supporting Hezbollah financially and was described by the United States Attorney in the case as a "fighter, recruiter and a fundraiser."

Let us not forget that Iran is a nation believed to be pursuing nuclear weapons, and thus leaving the region vulnerable to Iranian domination, and that would have grave consequences for the U.S. security priorities.

Surrendering Iraq over to the terrorists would erode the trust of the U.S. in that region and affect our critical regional interests in the entire neighborhood. Our allies, such as Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain and Egypt may become reluctant to continue their cooperation with us, which currently includes providing access to their facilities, logistical support that we need to protect our interests in the region.

The damage would not be confined, however, to the Middle East. Our enemies would be encouraged to join forces in a coalition to directly challenge the United States and expand their efforts to undermine us and our allies.

It is already happening. Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez is openly forming an alliance with Iran, and recently called on Iran and Venezuela to join forces to "finish off the U.S. empire," quoting him.

Let us consider the consequences of withdrawing and surrendering Iraq to Islamic militant extremists. As James Woolsey, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has emphasized, "We have to do our damndest to win this thing, in spite of the history of mistakes in tactics and strategy. The stakes are too high to do otherwise. The whirlwind we will reap if we lose means that we owe it to the world and to future generations to do everything humanly possible to avoid giving the Islamists the encouragement they will certainly obtain if they win."

Mr. Speaker, this is not just an abstract policy discussion for me. This is a subject close to my heart. My stepson Doug and his wife Lindsay are both marine pilots who served in Iraq alongside many other brave Americans. They understand the consequences of defeat. They recognize the deadly enemy that we are facing.

Lindsay will soon be deployed to Afghanistan, in just a few weeks, where, depending on our actions in this Chamber this week, she could face a more deadly enemy. All of us, all of us long for a world in which the mortal challenge of Islamic militant extremism does not exist. But that world is a fantasy, and that is the world that this resolution seems to address.

Many times in our history we have met with great challenges, and many of them seemed insurmountable. And yet every time we rose to face them, and we prevailed. We are faced once again with an overwhelming challenge, that of Islamic militant extremists focused on our destruction and on world domination. There is no path backward, there is no retreat, because that will only bring disaster.

I am saddened that some in this Chamber have felt the need on this floor to characterize the decision of our young men and women to join the military as being motivated by money, by bonuses and by other financial benefits, rather than their patriotism.

My stepson Doug and my daughter-in-law Lindsay are both college graduates. Doug is a graduate of the University of Miami. Lindsay is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has a master's in English. They have many, many opportunities they could have pursued. They chose to serve their country, because they and many others are patriots. They did not do it for bonuses. They did not do it for money.

Let us not just support our troops. Let us support their mission. And their mission is to defeat the Islamic extremists.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, during his 20 years of service to this country, the gentleman to whom I am about to yield earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Bronze Stars, the Soldiers Medal and other awards. A Vietnam combat veteran serving two tours as an assault helicopter pilot, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

Mr. Boswell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the time. I appreciate being part of this discussion today.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but be somewhat taken by Mr. Rangel's comments about the lack of urgency and the lack of sacrifice in our country because of what is going on with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I can say to you, whoever is listening or watching, wherever you are, when I go through my communities, my towns, I sense the same thing. Where is the sense of urgency and where is the sense of sacrifice?

I will tell you where it is. When you go to see the troops off, to see their families, to see them, then you know where the sacrifice is. Then you know where the urgency is, to be there when they go back the second or third time, and, as some have said, the fourth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, a resolution in support of our troops who are serving with distinction in Iraq, and opposing the President's call for escalating the troop levels in Iraq.

As a two-tour combat veteran of the Vietnam conflict, as Ike said, as an assault helicopter pilot, I, like many others in this body, know firsthand of the everyday sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform serving in Iraq. And, I might add, if I could, I know the sacrifices of their spouses and children. Branded on me always will be the reminder of my children when I had to leave, and they wondered if their dad would come back. You can't forget that. And it is happening to our troops repeatedly. More than 3,100 have given the supreme sacrifice. Over 20,000 have been injured, many of them very severely.

This resolution recognizes our brave men and women for performing their mission to the best of their ability. All Members of this body, all Members of this body stand foursquare behind their efforts.

As one Member of Congress who voted in support of the Iraq war resolution in 2002, I recognize the pretext for going to war was based on faulty, misleading, misinformation. I cannot reverse that vote, but I can no longer acquiesce to a failed and tragic military exercise in Iraq.

Two months ago, Generals Casey and Abizaid stated they did not support the increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, and recently President Bush maintained that that military policy with regard to Iraq would be determined by our military leaders. However, last month, President Bush ignored his top military advisers and called for a 20,000-plus increase in U.S. troops in Iraq.

I and others have been pressing the administration to level with the American people on the status of the Iraqi Security Forces being trained and ready to defend their Nation. If the Iraqis are trained and ready, reportedly over 300,000, as we have been told, it is time to begin now a planned phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. Sending more U.S. troops to Iraq does nothing to enhance the Iraqis' training. It only places more U.S. forces into harm's way to become additional targets of the Iraqi civil war. This failed policy must stop. We can support our troops in the field and oppose this escalation of U.S. forces.

The sectarian civil war violence in Iraq is increasing, and U.S. troops are becoming an increasing target of the various tribes and factions. We cannot continue to place ourselves in the middle of this civil war. It is time to insist that the Iraqis resolve their own civil war. We must insist and allow the Iraqis to defend their own Nation. The Bush administration stated that Iraq Security Forces are trained and ready in sufficient numbers to do the job. Again, they stated over 300,000 trained and equipped.

Therefore, I believe now is the time to oppose any further escalation of U.S. troop levels and now begin the planned, phased withdrawal of U.S. forces. I regret today's resolution is nonbinding. We need to begin addressing this matter in real substantive legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and to work in unison to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, you know what we do best? You know what we do best? I will bet everybody who is paying attention intends to file their income tax April 15. We do best when we are under pressure to get it done.

I think it is time to say to Mr. Maliki, you know what? You have got your government in place. You have got your chance for democracy. It has been given to you. We went in there and Saddam is gone. He is history. You have got your chance. It is up to you. Now, you have got your problems, but you have got your government and it is in place. You have your problems, but you have to work them out. We cannot come in there and settle a civil war. And that is exactly what is going on.

We were, like you were there and I was with you in the White House, 14 months ago when they said to the President, the Vice President, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice and General Pace, if you have got at that time, 14 months ago, if you have got over 200,000 troops trained, equipped and in field, then what is your plan to bring our troops home? And just like now, silence fell in the room.

Now, the claim is over 300,000 trained and equipped in the field and we are not bringing ours home. So we should say to Mr. Maliki, you have got to do it, pick something, whether it is oil fields or pick something and say starting next week or the week after you are responsible for their security because we are going to bring our troops out and bring them home and we are going to take them to Baghdad, put them on airplanes and fly them home. You have got to do it. It is yours to do and we hold you responsible to do it.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time that has been consumed and the time remaining on each side, please.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) has used 1 hour, 3 minutes, having 3 hours and 57 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has used 45 minutes, leaving 4 hours and 15 minutes remaining.

Mr. Skelton: Then subject to the Chair, I wish to recognize more than one speaker in a row on our side.

I yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), a gentleman who is a Vietnam combat veteran, rifle platoon leader of the 101st Airborne Division.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from Missouri, is it your intent to keep going or will you come back to the Republican side? Mr. Boyd and I are lucky enough to be in the same committee, and I think we are probably working under the same time constraint, if we could go back to the Republican side. That is what I wanted to ask you, after he speaks.

Mr. Skelton: That would be fine.

Mr. Kingston: Thank you.

Mr. Boyd of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, for giving me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my fellow veterans to express strong opposition to sending more than 20,000 additional United States troops to Iraq, and I rise in strong support of the underlying resolution that we are debating today.

Mr. Speaker, when thinking about our political and military situation in Iraq, I often reflect on my own service in Vietnam and my thoughts there as a person, when I served there as a young man in uniform proudly defending the ideals on which America was built.

I often think, how is it different today? How is today's soldier in Iraq different than soldiers 40 years ago in Vietnam? I think there are some differences, but there are obviously many striking similarities.

Obviously, our soldiers today have communications technologies and other war-fighting technologies that are far superior to what we had 40 years ago in Vietnam. Soldiers now have access to a 24-hour news cycle that we did not have in the 1960s.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is the same, what is exactly the same, is the fact that our soldiers are trained and equipped to accomplish the mission given to them by their political leaders in Washington. They are trained to execute this mission and to the best of their ability, without any thought to whether that mission is right or wrong, or even whether that mission is well thought out. Clearly, this is very similar to what we experienced during Vietnam.

When I served in Vietnam, we were trying to execute a mission that was impossible to do because our political leaders had given us a poorly defined mission that we could not win militarily.

Our brave men and women serving in Iraq rely on us, their political leaders, to develop a winning strategy, and it is very clear that we are not winning in Iraq by any standard of measurement that you might want to use.

I returned from my service in Vietnam at the height of the anti-war sentiment; and let me tell you, there was no worse feeling than coming home after a tour of duty to find that you had come home to an American society that was not grateful and was not behind you.

I want to make sure that our sons and daughters serving in Iraq today do not experience what we experienced 35, 40 years ago. The American people and their leaders in Congress all support the men and women executing the outlined mission. These men and women who have fought and defended our country should be proud of the job they have done, and we all are proud of them.

However, we should have learned from the mistakes our political leaders made in Vietnam and not make those mistakes again.

The problems we are having in Iraq have nothing to do with our troops and their ability and their training and their equipment. Our problem is with our policy.

The men and women serving in Iraq are counting on their political leaders to develop a successful strategy in Iraq, and interjecting more young American men and women in uniform into the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach.

The warring factions in Iraq have been at odds since the death of Muhammad in 632 A.D., and the United States military is not going to solve an Iraqi political problem, a problem that has existed between the Sunnis and the Shias for more than 1,400 years.

Past troop surges aimed at stemming the violence in Iraq have failed, and continuing to deploy more American troops will not bring us any closer to a self-governed Iraq.

We have been training and equipping Iraqi security forces for almost 3 years. We have 325,000 trained, conducting security operations there. The continuing presence of large numbers of American troops in Iraq only postpones the day when Iraqis will have to assume responsibility for their own government. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon the Iraqis to make peace and promote democracy in their own country.

With 140,000 of our troops in Iraq, the war in Iraq is exhausting our resources, resources that we, our people, are demanding that we have at home to solve some of our domestic priorities such as health care and education. And those resources are not only dollars; they are human blood.

Again, I stand here today to oppose the Iraqi troop surge because all evidence suggests that it is not a path to victory in Iraq and will only put more Americans in harm's way.

Ultimately, the debate today is about one thing, the men and women that proudly wear the uniform and the best way to take them out of the center of an increasing sectarian conflict and civil war in Iraq.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Kingston such time as he may consume, a member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Kingston: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding, and Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

I want to say this, that if the troops in Baghdad watched what Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us in the Free World, they do not sit around and watch C-SPAN and what silly politicians do. They live in a real world where there are real bullets.

This resolution, on the other hand, is not real. It is a political whip check designed for press releases. It is nonbinding.

The Democrat National Chairman, Howard Dean, famously said: "The idea that we are going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

Speaker Pelosi called the war "a grotesque mistake."

So if the situation in Iraq is so hopeless, and unwinnable, why are we messing around with nonbinding resolutions? If the war is a lost cause and there is no longer an American interest, why do we not just go ahead and get out of there now? It is not worth another life or another dime.

Conversely, if the cause is worthwhile, should we not fight to win? Nonbinding resolutions, Mr. Speaker, are great for the Democrat club back home, but for those of us who serve in Congress, we are the law of the land. We are elected to pass laws, fund wars and influence policies. Our opinions, as expressed in nonbinding resolutions about what should happen in Sudan or Israel or Cuba, they are appropriate, but when it comes to American soil, our job is to pass real legislation and make real laws. We do not have to vent our frustration. We can change policy.

This week's resolution is just a cover-your-rear-end political design to give the legislative branch a chance to say I told you so. But, Mr. Speaker, as you know, like it or not, a real vote is coming.

It is coming in the form of the fiscal year 2008 supplemental bill. In that supplemental resolution, $5.6 billion is designed to pay for 21,500 new troops in Iraq. All Members will have a chance to vote on that supplemental bill; and as you know, an amendment can be offered to delete the $5.6 billion. A "no" vote would be against it, and a "yes" vote would be to say we are against having the troops there and we are not going to pay for it. That is what is real.

I think in November the electorate made an adjustment. They did not like what the Republican House was doing, and I certainly understand that. I think we did fail on many levels to deliver the products which we promised we would deliver to the people. But the Democrats are in the same situation. It was an anti-war fever that swept so many of them into office, but here we are with a nonbinding resolution.

Now, I understand that it is frustrating. I serve, as you do, on the Defense Committee; and as you know, many times we do not get all the information that we want. We have heard, as Mr. Boyd said, general after general after admirals after captains telling us we do not need more troops in Iraq, and now they are saying that they do. We have also heard the President say the decisions for military changes in Iraq will be made in Baghdad, not in Washington, DC, and I hope that is the case with this situation.

I am very frustrated about it, but one thing we have been told unequivocally by those same generals and admirals and Secretaries of the Navy and Army and Secretary of Defense and today from the ambassadors from Jordan and Egypt is that if America withdraws from Iraq at this time, it is sure to bring chaos and destruction. That will lead to a full-scale sectarian war which could lead to a division. It could be so chaotic that the United States of America would have to return to Iraq in larger force numbers than we have now. It could lead to Iraq becoming a nation state controlled by terrorists or terrorist sympathizers and that would be in control of the third largest oil reserve in the world.

Now, we have seen what Mr. Putin and Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela are doing with their petro-dollars and all the anti-American ill will they are spreading around the globe. Would you really want to empower a bunch of terrorists with those kinds of oil revenues?

Then the other thing we are told is if you pull out immediately or quickly what happens to U.S. credibility abroad? As we are dealing with China, who very recently shot down a satellite, we are very concerned about that. North Korea, we are at the negotiating table with them right now. And Russia seems to be slipping away from democracy and going back to some of its older ways that we are worried about. As I have just said, Hugo Chavez is spreading bad street money all over South America, which is not a good sign.

And then finally, Mr. Speaker, if we pull out, what does it say to the American servicemen who have already lost their lives? Hey, sorry, we did not mean it; your sacrifice was not worth us gutting it out, if you will.

You know, it is interesting, the President has been criticized for "staying the course," and he is no longer staying the course. Who is supporting staying the course by a "yes" vote to this nonbinding resolution, but the Democrat leadership and the Democrat Party.

If you are saying it is a lost cause but we support you, how are you saying, no, we are not going to send recruits? It doesn't make sense. You just can't have it both ways. This is staying the course. The President no longer wants to stay the course. He is saying let's plus- up the numbers, let's divide Baghdad nine different ways. And that is something the RAND Corporation has called for as it has studied the history of nations that have insurgencies. Subdividing the areas is an effective way to fight insurgencies. The President has said let's go into al Anbar province; let's go into Sadr city. Those are changing of the course.

Mr. Speaker, a "yes" vote is a vote to stay the course; a nonbinding resolution is an insult to those who are in harm's way. If you truly believe that the war is a lost cause, why mess around with a nonbinding resolution? A "no" vote to this is a vote for change, and I believe it sends a stronger signal to the troops that we support you and we are sending new recruits to help you finish and complete this job.

Mr. Patrick J Murphy of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, my fellow Blue Dog, Colonel Tanner, a Vietnam Navy veteran, retired colonel of the Tennessee Army National Guard.

Mr. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here with the other Democratic Members who are veterans to talk about this resolution.

I want to start off by saying what Allen Boyd said. I was on active duty during the Vietnam years. The problem here is not the troops; the problem is the competency of the civilian leadership that has gotten us into this mess.

This resolution supports our troops and calls for a different strategy by our civilian leadership with respect to Iraq.

When I was on active duty when I was in the military, I followed orders. That was my job. My role here in Congress as I see it is to try to help formulate some sort of competent civilian leadership and strategy so the troops can be successful. We have not seen that in 4 years. The war began in Iraq in March of 2003. Since then, we have lost 3,124 people dead and over 23,000 wounded, and it is not a bit better today than it was the day we started.

The war has cost Americans almost $400 billion, with another request for $285 billion more, with no end in sight. Competent civilian leadership for our men and women in uniform on the diplomatic and political fronts must be demanded by Congress and the American people if we are to properly honor the sacrifice of the dead and the wounded and their families.

Instead, what do we have? We have unbelievable reports that the Pentagon can't identify 170,000 guns issued to the Iraqi forces in October of 2005; some of our soldiers buying their own body armor; up- armored Humvees sitting in Bosnia or Herzegovina while we needed them in Iraq. And David Walker, the Comptroller General, says he believes that almost 30 percent of the money spent over there has been wasted, stolen, or otherwise unaccounted for.

I think any patriotic American ought to come to this floor if he or she has the opportunity and ask questions about the incompetency of the Pentagon and civilian leadership thus far.

I believe any viable Iraqi strategy to be successful must contain clearly defined goals to hold the Iraqi leaders accountable for their own security. Mr. Boswell, a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, said as much earlier.

Our men and women in uniform have performed magnificently. They have completed every task assigned to them. But impressive military might alone is not enough if the Iraqi people cannot or will not make progress in securing their own country and establishing a civil democracy.

Western-style democracy works because we have a theory called separation of church and state. When people don't go to the same church, they nonetheless can get together Monday through Friday and build a civil society and get along with each other. If these folks are unwilling or unable to do that for philosophical or psychological reasons, then we can only try to force a square peg into a round hole for so long. It has been going on for 4 years, and they are seemingly incapable. And I say that what we need to do is rethink our strategy and that a pullback to the perimeter is preferable to prolonging a costly and deadly military strategy toward a political goal that is out of reach.

Whether or not this new strategy works, I am glad to see that General David Petraeus will be commanding our men and women on the ground. He has proved himself a strong military commander, and I wish him well. It is not his strategy that I question.

Here is why this resolution is important to me: not only do the majority of the Iraqis in every poll that has been taken over there say they will be better off if we leave or get out or pull back, or however one wants to talk about it, but what it is doing in Iraq to our effort in Afghanistan. I am going to be leading a delegation to Brussels next Saturday to talk about Afghanistan. We are losing our momentum in Afghanistan because of the Iraqi whirlwind that is sucking everything into it in terms of our military supplies, our military approach, and so forth. Almost everyone who has looked at this situation agrees, from the Baker-Hamilton Report to everybody else, that we need to radically change our strategy.

Listen to these words from the Council of Foreign Relations. They say: "The United States' interests in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region can be more effectively advanced if the United States disengages from Iraq. Indeed, the sooner Washington grasps this, the sooner it can begin to repair the damage that has been done to America's international position."

Speaking of Afghanistan, they also say: "Iraq is siphoning off so many resources that we could end up failing in Afghanistan as well." The report warns that Iraq is all consuming and makes it difficult for the United States to address other priorities.

That is exactly what we are talking about here, a different strategy for Iran, for our troops to be successful; an accountability from them as to their own security, so that we can concentrate with 26 other nations in NATO who are helping us fight the war in Afghanistan, a war that we can win, a war that we must win, and a war that is every bit as important if not more so in the war on terror than Iraq ever was.

Mr. Patrick J: MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a veteran of the U.S. Navy.

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

Mr. McDermott: Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand today with fellow veterans as the House debates the most damaging, costly, and divisive course of U.S. military involvement since Vietnam.

At a naval station in California, I treated combat veterans returning home from Vietnam, many with severe physical and psychological wounds like PTSD and the effects of agent orange. After Vietnam, America swore there would never be another tragic military misadventure, but that is exactly what is happening in Iraq.

The American people want this Congress to end the war and to bring our soldiers home now, not 2 years from now at the end of this President's term. That is what the American people elected Democrats to do in November.

What we do this week is a miniscule little step. Step two will come when we get to appropriations next month.

We have to get out of Iraq. We have to get out now, not 2 years from now. We are killing them, they are killing us, and nothing is getting better. And the reasons we started this whole war have turned out to be false. The American people know this, and today they are watching our debate. They will judge our actions.

Getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq has been my top priority since they were sent there 4 years ago under false pretenses. And the new claim by the President that escalating the war will reduce the violence is just another attempt to mislead the American people. It is a lot like Lyndon Johnson sending the bombers into Cambodia and Laos. They don't accept it. The American people don't accept it and they won't.

Those who claim we cannot leave Iraq without causing chaos ignore reality.

I ask to insert in the Record a piece by Retired Lieutenant General and Reagan administration NSA Director William Odom that decisively debunks this argument.

Chaos, not democracy, has taken root in Iraq, and chaos will continue to take U.S. lives until we act in our best interest and order our people out of harm's way.

News accounts continue to remind us that our soldiers don't even have the proper body and vehicle armor. We cannot adequately protect the soldiers already serving, but more were ordered in anyway. If you want the most basic reason to vote to oppose escalation, it is that we haven't properly equipped the troops already in Iraq, and we are not doing any better by the troops we are sending in now.

Just being on the record against the President's escalation of this war is not enough. The only way to diffuse the violence in Iraq is to defund the war in Iraq. Congress has the power to control the funding, and we have the responsibility to exercise the power vested in us by the Constitution. That is what the American people elected us to do. We must exercise our constitutional power as a co-equal branch of government and do what the President is unwilling to do: bring our soldiers home.

When appropriations for Iraq come to the floor, I intend to offer an amendment based on the 1970 Hatfield-McGovern appropriations amendment to end the war in Vietnam. It will be an amendment to provide funding to protect our soldiers as we bring them home in a planned, safe, and orderly way, and to prohibit taxpayers' monies from being used to continue or expand the war in Iraq. This will provide a transition for the Iraqi security forces using a benchmark that matters: the date when U.S. troops will be out of there.

The Iraqis can't help themselves until we get out. Right now, almost anything constructive that Iraqis do is seen as collaborating with the United States occupiers. We have to get out of the way so the Iraqis can solve their own problems. We can't help; we just make good targets.

So I want to encourage everyone in the House to vote for this resolution. I want to make it the biggest, strongest, clearest vote that we can get to let the President know for the second time, he ignored the election, that the Congress says "no."

I know that many Members of the Republican Party are as distressed as I am about Iraq, and I admire their courage in standing up to their President. Every veteran, including myself, in this House and in this Nation is very proud of our soldiers. They have done what we have asked them to do. It is time for new orders to be issued. It is time to end the U.S. role in the Iraq civil war. It is not a war on terrorism; it is a civil war. And bring our soldiers home. We can begin to do it immediately. That is what I advocate and that is what the American people expect from us.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Burton of Indiana, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, and a long-time veteran on leading the fight against Islamic jihadists.

Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, those who don't profit from history are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again.

When I knew this debate was going to take place, I went back and started having my staff go through all the newspapers they could find prior to World War II criticizing Winston Churchill for his stand against Hitler and the build-up in violation of the Treaty of Versailles of Nazi Germany, and nobody listened. And as a result of nobody listening, 62 million people died. Not 1,000, not 10,000; 62 million people died. You ought to read these articles. They are very interesting. He was maligned; he was criticized. They said he should be run out of Parliament. And, of course, once the war started, he became Prime Minister and one of the greatest men of the 20th century.

We are in a world war now against terrorism. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said this isn't a world war, this is a civil war. But if you look at the record, since 1983, there have been numerous attacks, numerous attacks, on the West. There have been attacks at the World Trade Center in 1993. There was attacks in 1994; the Khobar Towers in 1996; the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; USS Cole in 2000; the September 11, 2001 attacks which brought this country into the war; the London bombings in 2005 and countless other attacks. This is not confined just to the Middle East. These people want to spread their venom throughout the world.

Now, if we pull out of Iraq, what does that do? Everybody knows right now that the President of Iran wants to expand his sphere of influence. He is sending terrorists across the border from Iran into Iraq. He is helping Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Let me read to you a quote from him. He said, "Israel should be wiped off the map" and that "anybody who recognizes Israel," anybody who recognizes Israel, "will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury." And they have been involved in terrorist attacks. They are trying to build a nuclear bomb right now, and they are watching us on television as we speak, make no mistake.

Iran and the terrorists are watching, and they are thinking, my gosh, the will of the American people is waning, and we are going to turn tail and run. We are going to pull out.

This isn't Vietnam. Vietnam was a country, Cambodia and Laos are countries in southeast Asia. This is a world war. They have attacked the United States of America. It was a worse tragedy than that which took place in Hawaii in 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, and now they are trying to develop a nuclear bomb.

If we pull out of Iraq, you may rest assured that Iran's sphere of influence will grow, and the fear of Iran throughout the Middle East and the world will grow. They will not back down from their development of a nuclear weapon and a delivery system that can reach not only the Middle East and Europe, but the entire world.

What I am trying to say now is if we start pulling out and looking like we are turning tail and running, we are likely to be in another huge war in the years to come. I don't know whether it will be 2 years, 5 years or 10 years, or quicker than that. But if they develop a nuclear weapon, and they see that we are weak, and we are pulling out, they are going to push like they have been pushing, and they will push, and they will push, and they will push until we have to go into a war that is much greater than what we face today.

There is a lot at stake right here, right now. My colleagues, I think, are being very myopic. They are not looking at the big picture. This is something that I think all of us ought to think about.

You know, we all have kids, and we all have grandkids, and we all have friends who are fighting in Iraq right now. We know young men who have gone over there and sacrificed, lost their arms and legs and have died, and it is tragic, it is a horrible thing. World War II was horrible.

Every war was horrible. When you see people dying, in combat, you can hardly stand it, because you know how their families and they feel, those who survive.

War is hell. But sometimes it is necessary. If you don't stand up to a bully or a tyrant, then they will push, and they will push, and they will push until you have to fight. If you wait too long, the fight is so severe that you really get hurt. It is better to whip them at the beginning than to wait until later on when the cost is much, much higher.

Lord Chamberlain went to Munich in 1938. He signed a peace agreement on Herr Hitler's terms, gave the Sudetenland to him and said, Hey, if you don't go into Poland or Czechoslovakia, we'll let you have it. All we want is peace, peace in our time.

He came back, and he had given the green light to Adolf Hitler because he appeared weak, and the allied forces appeared weak, they were dismantling their weapons and their military, and he said, They're weak. We can do whatever we want. So he started World War II, and 62 million people died.

We are in the same situation today, in my opinion, with the radical terrorists and Iran. We need to let them know that we are going to be firm, and we are going to stand up to whatever they throw at us right now so that we don't face a major Holocaust down the road. I really believe this. I am not just saying this as a political speech. I am not saying any of my colleagues are just making political speeches now, today. I really believe what they are saying.

But I am convinced after studying history and watching what happened in the past, that if we don't deal with this problem now, we will deal with it later, and the costs will be a heck of a lot more than it is today, and it may involve millions and millions of lives. Can you imagine what would happen if a nuclear weapon was launched in New York, California or someplace else in this country? Can you imagine?

Can you imagine a Holocaust if a nuclear war broke out involving Iran throughout the world, not only in the Middle East? This is what I think we face right now. Deal with them now, let them know we are going to stand firm, Iraq is going to be a democracy. We are not going to let Iran or any of the terrorists prevail, and we are going to stop a Holocaust in the future.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) first and only Iraq war veteran to serve in this body, a Member of the 82nd Airborne Division, who received the Bronze Star and his unit received the Presidential Unit Citation.

Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I take to the floor today, not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an Iraq war veteran who was a captain of the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad.

I speak with a heavy heart for my fellow paratrooper Specialist Chad Keith, Specialist James Lambert and the 17 other brave men I served with who never made it home.

I rise to give voice to hundreds of thousands of patriotic Pennsylvanians and veterans across the globe who are deeply troubled by the President's call to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq.

I served in Baghdad from June of 2003 to January of 2004. Walking in my own combat boots, I saw firsthand this administration's failed policy in Iraq. I led convoys up and down Ambush Alley in a Humvee without doors, convoys that Americans still run today because too many Iraqis are still sitting on the sidelines.

I served in al-Rashid, Baghdad, which, like Philadelphia, is home to 1.5 million people. While there are 7,000 Philadelphia police officers serving, like my father in Philadelphia, protecting its citizens, there were only 3,500 of us in al-Rashid, Baghdad.

Mr. Speaker, the time for more troops was 4 years ago, but this President ignored military experts like General Shinseki and General Zinni, who, in 2003, called for several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, our President, again, is ignoring military leaders, patriots like General Colin Powell, like General Abizaid and members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group who oppose this escalation.

But most importantly, Congresses in the past did not stand up to the President and his policies. But today I stand with my other military veterans, some who were just elected, like Sergeant Major Tim Walz, Admiral Joe Sestak and Commander Chris Carney. We stand together to tell this administration that we are against this escalation, and that Congress will no longer give the President a blank check.

Mr. Speaker, close to my heart is a small park on the corner of 24th and Aspen Streets in Philadelphia. This is the Patrick Ward Memorial Park. Patrick Ward was a door gunner in the U.S. Army during Vietnam. He was killed serving the country that he loved. He was the type of guy that neighborhoods devote street corners to and parents name their children after him, including my parents, Marge and Jack Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, how many more street corner memorials are we going to have for this war? This is what the President's proposal does. It sends more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war. Just a month ago, Sergeant Jae Moon from my district in Levittown, Bucks County, was killed in Iraq.

You know, a few blocks away from this great Chamber, when you walk in the snow, is the Vietnam Memorial, where half the soldiers listed on that wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then, and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. That is why sending more troops in the civil war is the wrong strategy.

We need to win the war on terror, and reasonable people may disagree on what to do, but most will agree that it is immoral to send young Americans to fight and die in a conflict without a real strategy for success. The President's current course is not resolute, it is reckless. That is why I will vote to send a message to our President that staying the course is no longer an option.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for a new direction in Iraq. From my time serving with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, it became clear that in order to succeed there, you must tell the Iraqis that we will not be there forever. Yet, 3 years now since I have been home, it is still Americans leading convoys up and down Ambush Alley and securing Iraqi street corners. We must make the Iraqis stand up for Iraq and set a timeline to start bringing our heroes home.

That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor, with Senator Barack Obama and fellow paratrooper, Congressman Mike Thompson, of the Iraq De-escalation Act, a moderate and responsible plan to start bringing our troops home, mandating a surge in diplomacy and refocusing our efforts on the war on terror and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, our country needs a real plan to get our troops out of Iraq, to protect our homeland and to secure and refocus our efforts on capturing and killing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. There are over 130,000 American servicemen and women serving bravely in Iraq. Unfortunately, thousands more are on the way. An open-ended strategy that ends in more faceless roadside bombs in Baghdad and more street- corner memorials in America is not one that I will support.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Pence, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, whose minority staff director, Greg McCarthy, setting up the posters, is an Iraq war veteran and a marine as well.

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

Mr. Pence: I thank the ranking member for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the concurrent resolution for the House, and I do so from a position of a humble public servant, one who has not served in Iraq in uniform, as our previous speaker did, and others have who are in this Chamber at my side, but as one who has been there. I rise as one who is charged with public responsibility as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee.

While this resolution before the Congress today and this week, while this resolution expresses support for our troops in Iraq, the heart of the resolution is a statement of disapproval of the President's so- called surge of troops in Iraq, and I cannot support it.

I see Iraq, as others have eloquently stated, as the central front in the war on terror. I rise today in opposition to this resolution out of a fundamental sense that we have a moral obligation to finish what we started, to confront the enemies of our way of life, and to support our duly elected Commander in Chief as he makes those decisions that he deems necessary and appropriate to achieve those ends.

Let me say from the heart, for a moment, my reasons for supporting this troop surge. A few days before President Bush addressed the Nation, he invited a handful of Members of Congress down to the West Wing of the White House. I must tell you that I had my doubts about this troop surge. In all four of my trips to Iraq, I had heard consistently from our military commanders over the past several years that a large American footprint in Iraq was actually counterproductive to our goals.

But August and the aftermath of 2006 changed all of that. All of that advice predated an extraordinary increase in violence that commenced in the late summer of last year, when it became clear to all of us in this body, and to freedom-loving people around the world, that our strategy and tactics on the ground in Iraq were not working.

Now, I took that skepticism and that counsel into the Cabinet room of the West Wing, and there I heard the President describe a new strategy and new tactics. For all of the world to have read the newspaper accounts, Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed the President was simply sending more troops for more troops' sake. But that was not the case.

Despite what the previous speaker on this floor suggested, this is a new strategy. It is a new way forward. It is an effort on the part of the President to embrace an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad that was initially recommended by the Iraq Study Group, and more on that in a moment.

But let me say that I believe this new way forward, this new approach ought to be given a chance to work. I believe to oppose the President's new strategy in Iraq is to accept the status quo. And the headlines of the last 24 hours should tell every man and woman of good will in this Congress that the status quo in Iraq is not acceptable.

Now, earlier I mentioned that the approach of a troop surge in Baghdad was first recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I am quite struck, Mr. Speaker, that the previous speaker who is a freshman Member of Congress from Pennsylvania spoke, as many have in the Democrat majority, quite glowingly of the report of the Iraq Study Group. And I admire this work product greatly.

A bipartisan work authorized during the last Congress, James A. Baker, III, former Secretary of State, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a former chairman of the House International Relations Committee bringing together a bipartisan group of wise counselors developed the Iraq Study Group report.

While I do not agree with every aspect of it, particularly those that talk about having a dialogue with terrorist states in the region, there is much that recommends the American people to the Iraq Study Group. And again I site in evidence the gentleman from Pennsylvania's glowing reference to that report just moments ago.

Now, let's look, if we can, at what the Iraq Study Group has to say about the idea of a troop surge in Iraq. I would offer very humbly, and maybe startling to some who are looking in, Mr. Speaker, that the very words "troop surge" comes from the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

Allow me to quote from page 73 of the book that is available in book stores all over America. The Iraq Study Group said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."

Let me emphasize that again. The Iraq Study Group that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and many in the majority have heralded as an important work that provides us with a vision for going forward says: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment of surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad."

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what President Bush called for in January. And it is precisely that which Congress this week is poised to reject in a nonbinding resolution. I submit to you today that if the Iraq Study Group is to be cited again and again by the majority as source authority, and a fount of wisdom, and I believe it is, then let's be clear about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

It is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that a short-term redeployment or surge of combat forces in Baghdad will solve the present crisis and impasse that we face. It simply is a strategy to quell violence with Iraqis in the lead, to create the conditions of stability whereby a long-term political solution can be achieved.

Now let me say, Mr. Speaker, it was my great hope that the resolution before us today would have come to the floor under procedural rules that allowed for amendments. For my part I spent much of last evening offering an amendment, along with others, that would state that it is the sense of Congress that we should not take any action that would result in the elimination or reduction of funds for our troops.

I rise today not to complain about procedure, but to say, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this newly minted majority could not do as the Democrat chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee appears prepared to act.

My amendment that was offered, similar to others, has nearly identical language to a resolution being offered by the distinguished Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And both of us agree that Congress should affirmatively state that it will not cut funding to the troops.

I deeply regret that we were not able to make that declarative statement today. And let me say with great respect to the chairman of this Armed Services Committee, who needs not to hear from me about the deep respect I have for him, that I have to believe that somewhere in his heart of hearts, knowing his extraordinary record of service to this country, that he may well have hoped for a stronger statement as well.

While the Democrat resolution before us expresses the hope that Congress and all Americans will continue to support and protect our brave men and women serving in Iraq, it does not take the next step to show tangible support for our troops in the nature of funding. And let me say this with great sincerity: there is a fundamental difference between pledging to support and protect our troops and pledging not to cut off the funding for our war in Iraq.

It is a specious distinction, and one that is not lost on our colleagues in the Senate. I would submit to you that words have consequences, and "support" and "protect" do not assure the American people that we will continue to fund our troops in the field.

I believe the American people understand this point, Mr. Speaker. A poll cited this morning in USA Today shows that even though a majority of Americans are opposed to the surge of troops in Baghdad, a majority also oppose cutting off funding for the troops.

The American people do not want Congress to defund this war in the majority, even if they are concerned about the course and direction the war is taking. And Congress should tell the troops and the American people that it will never use the power of the purse to accomplish policy ends in the field of battle.

With this I close. Listening to this debate today and to the opposition to the surge being espoused by the Democrat majority, I have begun to wonder a very simple question: What if it works? I have made it clear that I support the surge and the President's new strategy.

My good friends on the Democrat side of the aisle and, as has been said, some Republicans have made it clear that they oppose the surge of forces in Iraq. And that is their right, and if it is in their heart, it is their duty. And at this moment, it appears that a majority of Americans are with the majority in this Congress.

But what if? What if they are wrong? What if you are wrong? What if the surge and the new leadership of General Petraeus and the courage and bravery of American men and women in uniform and the sacrifices of Iraqis in uniform succeed in the coming months?

You know, it is a snow day back in Indiana today, Mr. Speaker. And my kids are even home watching this on TV. I give my kids some pretty basic advice sometimes. One of the pieces of advice I give my kids when they are facing challenges, I say to them, you know, people don't like losers, but they like quitters even less.

And I think we ought to reflect on that old maxim as we come upon this decision today. If this new strategy in Iraq succeeds in the coming months, what will those who vote for this resolution say? The truth is, we must fight and win a victory for freedom in Iraq. The truth is we have no option but victory.

In their hearts the American people know this, and the American people are willing to make the hard choices to choose victory. Courage. Courage is the key in this moment.

C.S. Lewis wrote that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. Courage then is the answer, not recrimination and retreat. We are at a moment when the American people and the Members of this body will take a stand. This is a moment for courage. Our brave men and women in Iraq exhibit courage and uncommon valor every day.

It is my hope and prayer that we in this House might follow their lead and show them that such courage resides here as well. Let's vote down this resolution and find it within ourselves to lead the American people by bringing forward the resources and the support necessary to see freedom within Iraq.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Nadler: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution and to call upon my colleagues to make a commitment to protect our troops and to bring them home as quickly and safely as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the American people and Members of Congress were deceived. Every reason we were given for invading Iraq was false. Weapons of mass destruction, not there. Saddam Hussein working hand in glove with al Qaeda, not true.

I ask you, if the President had gone to the American people and said, we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us and sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have assented? I think not.

As the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, should Congress continue to consent? I think not. We need to say enough already. Enough with the lies and the deceit and the evasions, enough with the useless bloodshed.

We must protect our troops and ensure their safety while they are in Iraq. But we must not send more troops there to intervene in a civil war whose outcome they cannot determine.

And we should set a swift timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq and let the contending Iraqi factions know that we will not continue to expend American blood and treasure to referee their civil war.

Only if faced with the reality of imminent withdrawal of American troops might the Iraqis strike a deal with each other and end the civil war. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the administration has botched the handling of this war. They stood by as Baghdad was looted, they failed to guard ammunition depots, they disbanded the Iraqi Army, they crippled the government by firing all of the competent civil servants in the name of debaathification, and they wasted countless billions of dollars on private contractors and on God only knows what with no accounting.

And all this while they continued to deny resources to the real war on the real terrorists. They let Osama bin Laden escape.

They allowed the Taliban to recover and to reconquer. They allow our ports to remain unprotected from uninspected shipping containers, and they let loose nuclear materials remain unaccounted for, waiting to be smuggled to al Qaeda to be made into nuclear weapons.

And why does the President want more troops in Iraq? To expand our role from fighting Sunni insurgents to fighting the Shiite militias also. Of course, when we attack the Shiite militias, they will respond by shifting their targets from Sunnis to American troops. American casualties will skyrocket, and we will be fighting two insurgencies instead of one.

I believe the President has no real plan other than not to "lose Iraq" on his watch, and to hand over the whole mess to a successor in 2 years. He will ignore anything we do that doesn't have the force of law. That is why this resolution must be only the first step.

In the supplemental budget we will consider next month, we should exercise the only real power we have, the Congressional power of the purse. We will not cut off the funds and leave our troops defenseless before the enemy, as the demagogues would imply. But we should limit the use of the funds we provide to protecting the troops while they are in Iraq and to withdrawing them on a timetable mandated in the law. We should provide funds to rebuild the Army and to raise our readiness levels. We should provide funds for diplomatic conferences in case there is any possibility of negotiating an end to the Iraqi civil war. And we should provide funds for economic reconstruction assistance. But above all, we must use the power of the purse to mandate a timetable to withdraw the troops from Iraq.

We must use the power the people have entrusted to us. The best way to protect our troops is to withdraw them from the middle of a civil war they cannot win and that is not our fight.

I know that if we withdraw the troops, the civil war may continue and could get worse. But this is probably inevitable no matter how long our troops remain. And if the Iraqis must fight a civil war, I would rather they fight it without 20,000 more Americans dying.

Yes, the blindness of the administration is largely to blame for starting a civil war in Iraq, but we cannot end it. Only the Iraqis can settle their civil war. We can only make it worse and waste our blood and treasure pointlessly.

So let us pass this resolution, and then let us lead this country out of the morass in Iraq so that we can devote our resources to protecting ourselves from the terrorists and to improving the lives of our people.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, United States Army veteran, Mr. Etheridge.

Mr. Etheridge: Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, as you have heard, of the United States Army, myself, I strongly support our troops, our veterans and their families. Let me state at the outset that our troops have done everything that has been asked of them to do. They have done it well. Exceptionally well, I might say.

More than 34,000 from North Carolina have been deployed on Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. And more than 5,000 are currently over there now. More are preparing to go back to the desert once again.

I am tremendously proud of all the troops from North Carolina and across America who have laced up their boots, followed their orders, and done their duty. They are our heroes, and we salute them.

Regardless if one terms the President's announced change in policy a surge or an escalation or an augmentation, the so-called new plan can be summed up in four words: more of the same.

I myself have traveled to Iraq twice. And after I returned last year I said the administration must change from this failed policy. Specifically, I said that we need more burden-sharing support from other countries, more communities and countries in the region, because the whole world has a tremendous stake in a stable Iraq and a peaceful Middle East.

This administration's arrogant disregard for our international partners has destroyed U.S. alliances that were decades in the making. Those alliances saw us through the darkest days of the cold war when the very existence of our country hung in the balance. Yet, this administration tossed them aside like yesterday's news.

It is a sad tragedy to witness the forfeiture of America's moral standing in the world and the abandonment of diplomacy as an effective asset for America's interests.

We need to bring all the parties to the table and discuss cooperative action to secure Iraq's long-term stability and a peaceful Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I voted to give the President the authority to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq because he said it presented a "grave and gathering threat to America."

The President said Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and intended to use them against America.

The President said Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorists. I took the President of the United States of America at his word. We have learned, to our great regret, what that was worth.

Now the President wants to send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad. Republican Senator Arlen Specter called the new deployment "a snowball in July." An outgoing commander of the Central Command, with responsibility for Iraq, told the Senate last November, and I quote, "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe the troop levels need to stay about where they are."

And the former Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, a decorated marine and former Secretary of the Navy, said last month, "I feel very strongly that the American GI was not trained, not sent over there, certainly not by resolution of this institution, to be placed in the middle of a fight between Sunni and Shiia and the wanton and just incomprehensible killing that is going on at this time."

Mr. Speaker, I have voted for every defense bill and war funding legislation that Congress has passed for Iraq. I am very concerned about the state of readiness of our American Armed Forces.

As the Representative for Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, I know that America's military and our military communities have many unmet needs, while the war in Iraq continues to consume more and more public dollars, with no end in sight.

In conclusion, I rise in support of this resolution with no joy in my heart, but with solid conviction in my soul. The failure of this administration has gone unchecked and unchallenged by the Congress of the United States for far too long. We need a new direction in Iraq.

The question before Congress is this: Is more of the same in Iraq an acceptable policy? The answer is no.