---

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, before I turn over our segment of the debate to Mr. Hoekstra of the Intelligence Committee, I would like to recognize our last speaker for our segment, Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania, a member of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, "So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent." The words of Winston Churchill on the eve of World War II ring true today as clearly as they did decades ago describing our state of affairs.

I am disappointed with my colleagues in the majority. They spent the time and effort solidifying their caucus against the war in Iraq. They devised a number of plans to withdraw our troops. They made Iraq the focus of their agenda in November and not staying the course their slogan. However, they stand today, as Churchill said, resolved to be irresolute in their position on Iraq.

The resolution we debate in the House today is based on flawed logic. The resolution states that Congress supports the efforts of our troops in mind but not in body. The fact is, this resolution is framed upon the idea that the current state of affairs in Iraq is beyond recovery and should be abandoned.

Instead of offering any real alternatives, the Democrats have drafted a nonbinding resolution that rejects the President's plan to reinforce our troops and give the Iraqi Security Forces the assistance they need. This resolution does not bring us one step closer to victory. This resolution does nothing more than reinforce the status quo.

This resolution does show the American people that yet again, the Democrats, for all of their rhetoric, have no plan, no alternative to fight the threat of Islamic jihad. They instead have chosen, amazingly, to simply stay the course.

I will be the first to admit that, despite the outstanding jobs that our troops on the ground have done, progress in the war is slow and frustrating. We overthrew a violent despot, only to see a new and dangerous threat emerge. But we can not be fooled into thinking that by leaving Iraq this threat will melt away.

By the very admission of the Islamic fundamentalists we fight, this war is only part of a larger power play to consolidate power and form a jihadist Islamic state in the center of the Middle East.

In a speech released this month, Ahman Zawahiri praised al Qaeda's master plan for Iraq. He asked Allah to consolidate Iraq so that it unites all our Muslim brothers in Iraq and sets up an Islamic state which will proceed to liberate Jerusalem and take steps towards reestablishment of the Caliphate.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a grave mistake for us to not take our enemy at their word. The jihadists do not want peace. They want capitulation. We ignored their threats in the 1980s and they bombed our Marine barracks in Beirut. We ignored their rhetoric in the nineties and they bombed the World Trade Center and our embassies in Africa. We ignored their threats in the days leading up to September 11, and our world was changed forever.

Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards described this resolution best when he compared it to a child standing in a corner, stomping his feet. This resolution may draw headlines, but it will not change a thing.

We have one Commander in Chief, not 435 separate executives. What the Congress does have is the power of the purse and the ability to cut off the funding for the war. Let's be honest. This resolution is the first step in that direction.

If cutting off funding is the Democrats' plan, and I believe it is, then let them state it openly. They are no longer the voice of the opposition in Congress. They are the majority, and they have an obligation to govern. It is time for them to create a plan, a real course of success. The American people are waiting.

Mr. Carnahan: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the Representative from California, Diane Watson, senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ms. Watson: Mr. Speaker, the escalation of the conflict in Iraq is an exercise in futility. It has been 3 years now since the President declared that our original mission was accomplished in Iraq.

And then the President let victory escape from our grasp. He confused the toppling of Saddam Hussein with accomplishing the mission.

But there is a more important question being raised here on the House floor. It is an issue which has confused our mission in Iraq from the beginning. And it is the preposterous argument that Iraq is part of the war against al Qaeda.

The al Qaeda attack on America killed almost 3,000 innocent Americans in New York, at the Pentagon, and in a field outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We pursued al Qaeda into Afghanistan, dislodged the Taliban and cornered Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. We had al Qaeda on the run. We had the world united against terror and in favor of freedom and democracy.

But then the President switched his focus at a critical time. He dismissed the factors which had brought success in Afghanistan, a just cause, clear evidence, and a community of nations, and instead pursued his Iraqi adventure based on faulty intelligence and employing a strategy rejected by his own Army Chief of Staff and numerous other generals.

Thus, the President gave al Qaeda breathing room; he let them regroup, because he lost focus on the war on al Qaeda, to wage war on Iraq. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouped.

Iraq is not the central front in the war on al Qaeda. Iraq is a distraction from the war on al Qaeda. Each day we spend in Iraq is a day we are not working to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.

Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden? Why aren't we looking for him?

We have a direct connection to 9/11. The families of those who perished on 9/11 are still waiting for an answer.

This escalation is an appalling display of our weakness. We are sending only 21,000 combat troops to Iraq because, after stretching our military thin for 4 years, that is all the troops we have available at the moment.

The President cannot tell us what victory is or when he hopes to achieve it. What is really our goal in Iraq? What are we trying to achieve? And are we going to leave this mess for the next President?

Today, Iraq is consumed by civil war. Her neighbors, including our allies, Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, are overwhelmed with refugees, and Iran is strengthened and emboldened. If that is not already destabilized, then the word truly has no meaning.

The occupation itself is what is destabilizing Iraq. The occupation is placing Americans on the killing fields. The occupation undermines American prestige and authority, and the occupation in Iraq makes it harder to defeat al Qaeda.

The military battle is over. Our only hope is to change course, to acknowledge the reality that we have lost the military struggle in Iraq. Only then can we reengage with a strategy to give us a political victory.

We must remove our forces and move forward with a political and diplomatic strategy to engage both our allies and our adversaries in the region. This will mean talking to Iran, not capitulating to Iran. Even at the height of the Cold War, Reagan was willing to talk to Moscow. Until we are willing to engage with Iran, our friends in the Middle East, who fear Iranian dominance as much as we do, will not believe we are serious about confronting the Iranian threats.

Last, and most appalling, is the desperation accusation that we are going to cut off funds for our troops. Simply not true.

This attack is especially galling when it has been a Republican Congress and a Republican President who, for 4 years, left our troops vulnerable, without proper equipment, without proper armor, and in an effort to fight this war on the cheap.

I will never vote to leave our troops without the support they need. But neither will I vote to continue down a path that is putting them at needless risk.

Vote for this bill.

Mr. Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Alabama, who recognizes the danger of believing that we can negotiate with al Qaeda and bin Laden, Mr. Everett.

Mr. Everett: Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, my friend from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 63, the Democrats' nonbinding resolution that does nothing to improve the outcome of the war, but does much to hurt the war against terrorism.

The resolution claims they support the troops. However, regardless of what the previous speaker said, they refuse to protect the money our troops must have while they are in harm's way.

If we wanted to have a meaningful debate on the real issues facing this country, we would take up Congressman Sam Johnson's bill that opposes any effort to cut off or restrict funding for our military.

But that is not the debate we are having today. Instead, we are debating a nonbinding resolution that, in my mind, can only hurt our troops who are on the battlefield as we speak, and this resolution can only give comfort to those who wish to kill Americans.

Making Iraq a secure place is difficult because of deep-seated religious and ethnic divisions. This is highlighted by the murderous acts of Saddam's dictatorship that killed so many thousands. In addition, al Qaeda and local terrorists along with hostile foreign governments, including Iran, have both encouraged and funded the current violence in the hopes that Iraq will not follow the path to democracy. They must not be allowed to succeed.

Any American lives lost in the defense of our Nation is one too many. Yet we must not turn from our task of defeating terrorism before the job is done. President Bush is the Commander in Chief and intends to reinforce American troop strength by 21,000 soldiers to help Iraq's new government finally control violence and restore order. While I believe the decision to increase troop strength in Iraq could have been made much sooner and in greater numbers, it today presents the only viable option to bringing order to the country and laying the foundation for Iraqi Government control of that nation's security.

Iraq's government is taking new steps to control the violence from all ethnic groups and made it clear that our abandoning them at this stage would guarantee failure for democracy in Iraq. And it would ensure a tremendous setback in America's battle to deny terrorism a foothold and give them more chances to continue to kill Americans. Pulling back now with no viable plan to stabilize Iraq would be a disastrous action. This sentiment was expressed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the NIE is the intelligence community's most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and is designed to help us develop policies to protect U.S. national security interests. Specifically, this report states: "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq." In addition, it goes on to say: "If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation."

While America must not be in Iraq indefinitely, we should not leave without ensuring that the terrorists that are there are put down. To do otherwise would be terribly shortsighted and would ultimately embolden our terrorist enemies who have made no secret of their desire to continue to kill Americans.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee, I have monitored the developments in the war on terrorism, including those in Iraq. I met with President Bush in the White House to discuss the military mission in Iraq shortly after he outlined his strategy for Iraq in early January. We explored what would happen in Iraq, the Middle East, and America if we withdrew from the fight before Iraq's democratic government is strong enough to maintain the peace. Our conclusion was that Iraq would become a sanctuary for terrorists and a base from which they could launch future attacks against Americans.

Some Members have tried to claim that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. That is the only way they can justify this nonbinding resolution, and that is pure nonsense.

We have the greatest military on the face of the Earth, one that no other military dare stand before lest they be destroyed. The only thing that can defeat us is the lack of will. And may God help us if we lose the will to defend this great Nation against terrorism.

Mr. Carnahan: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Hilda Solis, member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Vice Chair of the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

Ms. Solis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 63.

I am a strong supporter of our service men and women and strongly committed to finding a reasonable and responsible resolution which includes a redeployment of our troops. However, a responsible resolution does not include the deployment of more of our brave service men and women to Iraq. Sixty-six percent of Americans oppose the President's escalation plan to send additional troops to Iraq. They believe, as I do, without a new policy to secure the peace and stabilize Iraq, further escalation will do nothing but unnecessarily risk the lives of more U.S. service men and women.

There are currently 135,000 U.S. troops courageously serving in Iraq. At the direction of our government, they left their fathers, mothers, brothers, children, and wives. This war is having, as you know, a significant impact on their families and our communities.

In the district that I represent, the 32nd Congressional District of California, we have lost 13 sons to combat. Note the photograph that I have here on display. This includes Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez from the city of Duarte in the San Gabriel Valley, who bravely served our country despite not even being a U.S. citizen. I was able to meet his parents. They were very humble individuals who spoke only Spanish and proudly stated that their son served their country with honor. It breaks my heart to think that this was only one servicemember, only one of the more than 3,000 families that have been through this since the war started almost 4 years ago.

The past 3 months, as you know, have been the deadliest months in the war in over 2 years. While Latinos make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 17 percent of the service men and women in combat in Iraq, and 11 percent of those have already been killed. U.S. casualties are now more than 3,100 and more than 23,400 service men and women have been wounded in action, and nearly half of those wounded will not be able to lead a normal life because of severe injuries, permanent disabilities, and post-traumatic stress syndrome. Yet many of these service men and women will return to Iraq for a second, third, and maybe even a fourth tour.

The President's proposal to escalate ignores the real needs of our troops and the grave reality of this situation. Three times in the past 2 years the number of U.S. troop levels have increased in Iraq. Three times this approach has failed. And during Operation Together Forward, additional troops were sent into Baghdad because of an increase in sectarian violence. U.S. military spokesman General William Caldwell stated that the increase was a failure and had "not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence." Even the commander of the U.S. Central Command in Iraq has testified that top military commanders in Iraq do not believe that increasing the number of troops is the right approach. He stated, "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to this problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are."

Increasing the number of U.S. troops is not a solution. The increase does nothing to improve long-term security and end sectarian violence. Our country needs a policy to secure and stabilize Iraq and one that constructively engages in diplomacy and partners with our neighboring countries and the region to create a stable and peaceful nation, not a blank check to send more men and women into harm's way. We need a policy and a plan to put the welfare of our service men and women first so they can come home, rejoin their families, and receive the care they deserve. They should include adequate services for returning service men and women, including culturally competent care, mental health care for veterans, housing and education.

We need a plan to ensure that U.S. tax dollars are not going to war profiteering and fraud, such as the $1.4 billion that has been somehow charged by Halliburton. I strongly believe that this is possible, but it will require courage, cooperation, and leadership on the part of all my colleagues. Let me say to my colleagues that I support our troops and the war on terror. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is not the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to support and protect our sons and daughters who are serving, as these young people have served us so well. I will do so by voting for this resolution and by supporting their redeployment.

Mr. Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 5 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the co-Chairs of the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary of State James Baker and former House Foreign Affairs Chairman Lee Hamilton, wrote late last year: "There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests.

"Many Americans are dissatisfied," they go on to say, "not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress," Baker and Hamilton go on to say, "must work together."

"The President and Congress must work together." "Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric." Good advice, especially when we are in the middle of a war to help a suffering people living in a tortured land striving to matriculate from dictatorship to democracy.

Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I too have serious questions about this war, especially its cost in human life. I too am impatient and want our men and women brought safely home as quickly as possible.

But with so many Americans and Iraqis and coalition forces at risk, it is important to ask what message a nonbinding surge disapproval resolution with no force of law might have on a troop surge already under way and what message do we send to our troops, our allies, and our enemies. Will it demoralize even a little, maybe a lot, those brave Americans who have put their lives on the line so that others may be free? Will it undermine the resolve, commitment, and solidarity of those nations that have stood with us against the hate and murder of the extremists? And how will our enemies regard passage of this resolution? With celebration? Will they step up their already far too robust campaign of terrorism, murder, and suicide bombing?

If the Democratic leadership wants to stop the surge or the war itself, bring a measure to the floor to defund it. The debate on defunding the war and, most certainly, the vote would have predictable clear-cut consequences. The President can't spend money on a war he doesn't first get from Congress. But by offering what is essentially a sense of the House resolution, the weakest, least effective way of driving home a point because it compels nothing, I am concerned that the House this week may, unwittingly, significantly hurt the morale of our warfighters while empowering the hate mongers. Surely no one in this Chamber wants that.

Mr. Carnahan: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Gene Green of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak.

I rise today in support of this resolution. The President's escalation, or surge, as he calls it, is not a strategy that will quell the violence in Iraq.

We have heard for too long that change in Iraq is just around the corner, and we continue to spend billions of dollars and have taken thousands of U.S. casualties.

I supported our goals to bring democracy to Iraq, voted for the Iraq resolution, and voted for the billions of dollars to support that effort. And I will not vote to cut funding for our troops while they are in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are doing their best with a very flawed plan, and that doesn't come from just Gene Green saying it. I heard it less than a year after we went there, from e-mails that parents forwarded me.

Our goals were great in Iraq. The plan was not. The administration's plan has not worked since the first year. It is time we send a strong message to the President that we no longer support the administration's strategy.

President Bush addressed the Nation on January 10 of this year to announce his plans to send an additional 21,500 soldiers and marines to Iraq. This move ignores advice from the military and has been tried before without success.

General John Abizaid, former commander of the Central Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 15, 2006, that he and General George Casey, the Corps Commander, and Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey all agreed that more troops were not needed. The White House is continuing with the same flawed strategy to pacify the country that has not worked, and adding another 20,000 troops will not make it work.

March 19 of this year will mark 4 years since we went into Iraq. May 1 will mark 4 years since the President declared "mission accomplished." But we turn on the news today and still see headlines, "Car Bombers Kill 60 in Baghdad," "Four More American Soldiers Killed in Gunfight With Militia."

We have made great strides in Iraq, but we are now trying to police a war between sectarian armies. Our troops have performed all that has been asked of them, and according to the National Security Council's analysis, we have achieved many of our initial objectives: removing Saddam Hussein from power, assisting Iraq with a constitution and free elections, and helping establish democratic institutions.

It is time for the Iraqis to take control of their own country and that we begin bringing our troops home. This is in the best interests of our military, the Iraqis and our national security.

Our forces cannot indefinitely sustain the demands we currently are placing on them. Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace acknowledged last week when testifying before the House Armed Services Committee that nondeployed U.S. forces are not sufficiently equipped, echoing similar concerns expressed recently by Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker and Lieutenant General Steven Blum, chief of the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau.

The Guard, nationwide, is only equipped to about 30 percent of their needs. Units are taking equipment with them into theatre and being forced to leave much of it for other units to use when they come home. It will cost about $25 billion to reequip the National Guard and Reserves to pre-Iraqi war levels.

We cannot continue to send troops to Iraq for 12-month deployments every other year and expect to maintain a well-equipped and experienced fighting force with high morale.

This resolution expresses the beliefs of many Members of this House that sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq is not in our Nation's interests and not a solution for the violence in Iraq. The solution is for the Iraqi Government, the elected government, to do what they need to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Hoekstra: Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Intelligence Committee

Mr. Issa: Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be modified at page 1, line 6, after the word "Iraq" to include "personnel from the United States Intelligence Community who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably worldwide to counter radical jihadists."

The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur): The previous question has been ordered without amendment.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. Issa: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state it.

Mr. Issa: Madam Speaker, does that mean that unanimous consent cannot be offered?

The Speaker pro tempore: The previous question has been ordered, to adoption of the concurrent resolution without intervening motion.

Mr. Issa: Madam Speaker, further point of inquiry. My understanding is that a unanimous consent request is always in order separate from the rule. Is that not correct?

The Speaker pro tempore: That is not correct. Under the present circumstances the Chair is constrained not to entertain an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Issa: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, that makes it very clear that in fact even if there is no objection to including the brave men and women who operate, often without weapons, who operate behind enemy lines, who in fact are part of our Intelligence Community, they cannot be included in this resolution. It is a sad day when democracy does not even include that which there is no objection to from being considered.

Notwithstanding that, Madam Speaker, I think it is extremely important that we deal with the limited strict language we have been offered, and, in the spirit of that strict language, I must oppose it. I must oppose it because in fact on a strict basis this resolution, if heeded by the administration, says stay a failed course of action.

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the election very clearly told us in November that the American people were not comfortable with the conduct of this war; that in fact on both sides of the aisle, people were calling for a bolder vision, a vision that was more aggressive diplomatically and militarily. In fact, two Presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and, in fact, Senator McCain, are and have been saying we should have had more troops early, we should have more troops now. It is amazing that in fact the one thing this resolution is saying is stay the course, make no changes.

Further, regardless of what my Democrat colleagues would say today, the next step after "Mr. President, we will not send more troops," is, "Mr. President, we will not send more tanks; Mr. President, we will not send further personnel and intellectual gatherers to understand our enemy; Mr. President, we won't send more translators; Mr. President, we cannot and will not support more body armor; Mr. President, we will not support this war on terror throughout the region."

Those are the next steps, because you can't simply say, as this resolution tries to, stay the course. Do nothing. No increases, no decreases. Support the troops, but send them no more.

That makes as much sense as telling the people at the Alamo, stay the course. That wasn't the right solution at the Alamo. At the Alamo they should have either increased their forces so that they could have sustained the bombardment, or withdrawn.

We, in fact, are in a position where the President has made a multitude of new initiatives, one of which includes additional troops to help relieve those tired troops, to help bring the force level up to a level similar to exactly what Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle were clamoring for just a few weeks ago and throughout the election.

Madam Speaker, one of the other things that just amazes me, today I took a little time and I checked out how many Members of Congress served in the military. It turns out it is less than one-third. I checked out how many Members went to Iraq in the previous Congress. It turns out less than one-third.

The fact is that we are considering a resolution as though we were General Petraeus, a man who was unanimously confirmed in the Senate just a few days ago, and deployed to support and defend our troops and this effort, who is solidly convinced that we have to do more and do it better and who is there to do it and was unanimously confirmed.

In closing, Madam Speaker, only here, with less than one-third of the Members having gone and seen what is going on in Iraq, less than one- third having served in the military, even at a minor level of lieutenant or captain or private, have the hubris to say that we have to not add, not subtract, just keep the exact same number that we and the American people believe is not getting the job done. That is exactly what this resolution is claiming to do. We are not given an alternative in any way, shape or form.

So, Madam Speaker, there is no choice on either side of the aisle. Whether you believe we should have more or we should have less, nobody believes that we should stay the exact course with no change, and that is what this is asking for.

So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to realize that in fact this resolution calls for the one thing that the American people most object to, and that is unchanged staying the course at this level. The American people called on us in November to do something bolder, to bring peace in the region, and I call on you to vote down this resolution just exactly to do that

Mr. Carnahan: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.

Mr. Markey: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, this debate marks the beginning of the end of the ill- conceived, mismanaged and ultimately failed war in Iraq. The war in Iraq was launched on the basis of false and misleading intelligence about a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. When the inspectors looked for nuclear weapons in all the most likely places, there was nothing there. When they looked in all the unlikely places, there was nothing there. When this was reported to the world, the world said "don't invade." But when this was reported to the President of the United States, he chose to invade Iraq. In other words, the President did the opposite of what the evidence would dictate.

Here we are, 4 years after the invasion. The American people looked at the facts on the ground in Iraq and voted in November to de- escalate. The generals looked at the situation and said de-escalate. The Iraq Study Group analyzed our options and said we should de- escalate.

So what has the President of the United States decided? After all the evidence, he has chosen to escalate the war. Once again, our President is doing the opposite of what the evidence and common sense dictates.

Our troops continue to fight heroically to prevent Iraq from sliding into anarchy, but they are losing ground to a deep emotional cycle of religious strife and revenge that goes back 14 centuries. Our soldiers cannot be beaten on the military battlefield, but neither should they be faulted for failing to drain a political swamp.

The American people are now speaking out with one clear voice, in frustration and in anger, demanding change, demanding a new direction in Iraq. But the President isn't giving us a new direction. All he has to offer is more of the same, an escalation of our troop presence in Iraq. And this escalation ignores the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which said that all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq by the beginning of 2008.

This week, we have a choice: We can say no to the President's failed war in Iraq, we can say no to the President's escalation, and we can say no to the unnecessary loss of another American soldier, marine or airman; or we can once again vote to stay the course and to continue on with this failed policy.

Many Americans have expressed frustration that the resolution we vote on this week is a nonbinding resolution, and I understand that frustration. On January 9, Senator Kennedy and I introduced companion bills in the Senate and House to block President Bush's new plan to escalate troop levels in Iraq. Our legislation would prevent the obligation or expenditure of a single dollar to increase the number of troops in Iraq unless Congress affirmatively voted to do so.

But I would not dismiss this resolution's importance simply because it is nonbinding. Twenty-four years ago, this House took up another nonbinding resolution when it first debated my nuclear freeze resolution. We passed the nuclear freeze on the floor of the House. It was nonbinding and it never passed the Senate. But it nevertheless changed the course of this Nation's nuclear weapons policy. It did so because of the pressure it put on the White House to change, and it was followed by binding legislation that halted tests of anti-satellite weapons, cut funding for Star Wars and cut in half the plan size of the MX missile force.

That is why I fully understand why some Republican Members have simultaneously denounced this resolution as silly and unserious, and, at the same time, have tried to prevent its passage. Why are they afraid of a nonbinding resolution? Because this resolution exposes the lack of support in the Congress for the President's escalation scheme.

The administration's failed strategy has already ended any chance of a successful short-term outcome. The just-released, deeply pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq simply confirms this situation.

We are in the middle of a sectarian religious civil war in Iraq, and the presence of our troops is preventing the Iraqi people from taking responsibility for their own security and for their own political solution that must follow.

This war should never have been fought, period. It was a mistake, the American people know it was a mistake, our military leaders know it was a mistake and a bipartisan majority in the United States Congress know it was a mistake.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Hoekstra: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur): Please state your parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Hoekstra: Does this resolution include any provisions expressing support for the members of the United States intelligence community serving inside of Iraq?

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair will not interpret the pending measure.

Mr. Hoekstra: Further parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman may state his inquiry.

Mr. Hoekstra: When would it be appropriate to ask for unanimous consent to correct this oversight in this resolution that only addresses support for our armed services, but as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, I feel that it does a great injustice to the hundreds of people in the intelligence community who are not recognized for their service in Iraq?

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair would look to the majority manager of the concurrent resolution for any proposal to alter it.

Mr. Hoekstra: Further parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman may state his inquiry.

Mr. Hoekstra: Would it be appropriate at any time during the debate on this resolution to ask for unanimous consent to modify this resolution to address the significant oversight in the underlying resolution?

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair would only entertain such a request at the instance of the majority manager of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. Hoekstra: I thank the Chair

With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from the State of Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Manzullo: Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our chairman, Mr. Lantos, has scheduled for March a hearing to discuss the different proposals relating to the handling of the war in Iraq. He has promised a lot of time for debate on all the different bills introduced in the House of Representatives, ranging from those that call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, to those that demonstrate our presence there as part of a larger war, not against a nation, but against a movement, Islamic jihadis. They are everywhere and are responsible for attacks in India, Jordan, Israel, England, Egypt, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the Gaza, Morocco, Pakistan and in the United States and Iraq.

Chairman Lantos wants to make sure that all sides are heard, that all possible alternatives are given an airing. But that is what is missing in the bill that the Democratic majority has given us this evening: it can't be amended. Can you imagine three days of debate without the opportunity to amend a bill? That implies the Democratic leadership believes they have a monopoly on truth and fear input from other Members of Congress.

The bill we are debating today condemns the infusion of up to 21,000 more troops in Iraq. However, at a time when we should be excited about a new proposal calling for a major shift in our policy on Iraq, the bill we are debating condemns it. This proposal taps as its new leader Lieutenant General David Patraeus, who should be given an opportunity to succeed. Confirmed unanimously by the Senate, he has extensive knowledge of other wars and military conflicts and has resolved that America can achieve a favorable result in Iraq.

The new policy is a shift in the rules of engagement and calls upon the Iraqis themselves to step up in responsibility and achievement. A Washington Post story dated January 12 of this year with the byline, "Withdrawals could start if Iraq plan works: Gates," repeats the words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 11, Gates said: "If these operations actually work, you can begin to see a lessening of the U.S. footprint both in Baghdad and Iraq itself. Then you could have a situation later this year where you could actually begin withdrawing."

Isn't that what Americans want, a plan of action with a new focus, stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home? But that plan is not being debated today, and that is why I am going to vote against this resolution.

We live in extremely dangerous times. We know Iran is developing atomic weaponry. We also know that six other Arab nations are actively seeking atomic technology, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The stakes are onerous. That is why America's men and women in uniform not only deserve our support in the field, but also here in the House of Representatives, by allowing their opinions to be voiced through their Members of Congress. It is the least we can do for them.

Mr. Carnahan: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Maxine Waters, Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Ms. Waters: Madam Speaker, I rise as Chair of the 76-member Out of Iraq Caucus, and I will be followed by many other members during this hour. I rise in support of our troops and in support of this resolution opposing the President's escalation of this war.

Madam Speaker, I support this resolution, hoping this will be a first step in ending this war and reuniting our troops with their families and loved ones. This is an unbinding resolution. The real test for this Congress is going to be whether or not we will continue to fund this war.

For nearly 4 years, our troops have served bravely and admirably in Iraq. Unfortunately, the President and his administration have decided to pursue a political agenda when it decided to push for an invasion of Iraq. The President ignored the advice of dozens of experts inside and outside the government about invading Iraq. For example, the administration ignored the intelligence community's opinions about the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The administration also ignored recommendations about the number of troops needed to secure Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein. In addition, the President and the administration ignored warnings about the difficulty and danger of occupying Iraq and that Iraq would likely break down into sectarian violence.

In short, the administration ignored everything that conflicted with its plan to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, no one has borne the burdens of the administration's Iraq narrow agenda more than our troops and their families. The decision to escalate the war, to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq, will only increase the burden on our troops. Many of the troops serving in Iraq have served two, three, even four tours of duty. And of course the failed Iraq policy has resulted in the death of 3,109 U.S. troops, including 325 from my own State of California, and injury of more than 23,000 others.

Madam Speaker, many experts believe that the President's latest plan will not work, and early indications support that conclusion. About 5,000 troops have arrived in Baghdad since the President announced the plan in January, yet the violence and devastation in Iraq is increasing. It is estimated that more than 2,276 Iraqi civilians have died so far this year and that more than 1,000 Iraqi security forces and 33 U.S. servicemen have died in just the past week. We are sending thousands more troops to Iraq in what is now known to be a civil war. Sending more troops to Iraq is not the answer. The key to stabilization is bringing our troops home and renewing our commitment to diplomacy.

This resolution is the first step in reining in this President and his misguided policies. However, as many have noted, this is, again, an unbinding resolution. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the war, spending bills that will be considered in the coming months to enact meaningful changes to this failed policy and to finally bring our troops home. The future of the entire Middle East is at stake.

The President does not appear to understand or appreciate the situation in Iraq is deteriorating each day. We are losing; however, we can win. And we will win by using leadership to engage and unite rather than attempting to overpower and conquer. Who are we fighting? The Sunnis, the Kurds, the Shias? Who are the insurgents? Some Sunnis, some Shias, some Kurds? Who are the terrorists? Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, Syrians, Iranians? Who are we fighting? I don't think our soldiers know, and I am not so sure this administration has really given the kind of deep thought and consideration as to who we are really fighting.

Diplomacy is the only answer. Today, we must oppose this escalation. However, I have no choice but in the final analysis to oppose continued funding of the American taxpayers' dollars to the war giant whose appetite cannot be satisfied, but in the interest of peace, must be denied.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Hoekstra: At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Smith of Nebraska: Madam Speaker, I think we need to ask ourselves several questions: Does this resolution make America safer? Does this resolution send a message to our allies that draws them closer to us? Does this resolution encourage our troops, or does it discourage our troops?

We heard about de-escalation and when that might be appropriate, when it may not be. But I can tell you that this resolution does not accomplish de-escalation. In fact, it does not even support the troops on their way as we speak. It only supports the troops who have served or are currently serving.

Madam Speaker, in my conversations with constituents, with soldiers, with those closest to the situation, they see hope, they see hope in a change of strategy. We know that the status quo is not what we need to do, and that is why a change in strategy is certainly in order.

I don't pretend to be General Patraeus, and I hope that none of us pretend to know more about the situation than General Patraeus.

I am concerned when we hear that this resolution is the first step for cutting funding. Why don't we just put that resolution up right now? We can save a lot of time; we can send a more direct message. Is that the appropriate thing to do? I hope that you will join me in voting "no" on this resolution because I support our troops and their mission.

Mr. Carnahan: I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Jose Serrano, member of the House Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Serrano: This is, indeed, a very solemn occasion; and anyone watching this debate, either on television or in the gallery, should understand that we take very seriously what we say here today. We may disagree on what the final outcome should be, but we do take it very seriously.

And I take it seriously as I recall a funeral I attended, it seems a long time ago, for a member of the Armed Forces, Luis Moreno, who was killed in Iraq. I remember that rainy morning, leaving the church on the way to the cemetery, the pain and the sadness that took place in the whole community, the pain and the sadness that engulfed a family and everyone who was there.

We took seriously the loss of that life, and we honor every day the fact that he was sent to that battlefield and he gave his life for that particular cause, which we discuss today.

We are here in his honor to say that we have to make sure that we no longer continue to escalate this war which was presented to us, it seems again, a long time ago based on, at the minimum, false information, and at most, sadly, lies presented to this Congress.

We have to make sure that no further loss of life takes place. So much has been said today about supporting our troops. Well, I know of no greater support than to bring them home tomorrow morning.

I know a lot of people will say, if you bring them home, Iraq will become a mess. Well, has anyone noticed that Iraq is a mess?

Well, if you bring them home now, Iraq will become a country in a civil war. Has anyone noticed that Iraq is involved in a civil war?

The question is, will we wait for more Americans to lose their lives and more to be wounded?

When I say that we were given bad information or possibly lied to, we were told at that time, I remember, how the weapons of mass destruction were stored in Iraq and that we had to get them before they got us, and how there was a link between al Qaeda and September 11 and Saddam Hussein. And now, even the administration and its ardent supporters agree that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11, there was no link between al Qaeda, there was no link between any of that that we were told; and we still haven't found the weapons of mass destruction. It was simply a desire to take us to where we shouldn't be. And in the process, we really blew it.

I was in New York City on September 11; I was not with my colleagues here. It was election day in New York, primary day, and I was there in New York on that day for some local elections. I lived through that moment, and I know how painful that was. But beginning with September 12, the world was with us. Every country was supportive of what we were going through. It always amazed me that countries that live with terrorism on a daily basis thought that, for some reason, the attack on us was in many ways even bigger than the attacks on their own country, and they supported us. We could have taken that goodwill and used it for positive things throughout the world. What did we do? We totally lost the goodwill by going and invading a country that had nothing to do with September 11. And so now, the same people who supported us no longer support us.

What we are doing here today is exerting a constitutional right. This is not a political exercise, this is not a legislative exercise, this is Members of Congress saying that it is our right to oversee the President and to stop him whenever we can when we know that any President, any administration is making a mistake.

Now, how has this administration been able to keep us supportive in some ways up to now? By doing something which is really sad, by questioning our patriotism. And so tonight and tomorrow and for the next couple of days more will question our patriotism. But I ask you, isn't a true patriot he or she who is not holding back to question the actions of his country even during wartime? Isn't that the true patriot who is willing to say, even during wartime, stop it now, stop the madness before it goes any further and before we lose more of our young people?

And so we gather here after 3,109 losses, after 23,000 wounded soldiers saying we have to stop it now, and we have to vote for this resolution.

Mr. Hoekstra: At this point in time, I would like to yield 5½ minutes to a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also a member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska.

Mr. Fortenberry: Madam Speaker, when I left home this week for Washington, my 6-year-old Kathryn became very sad. See, she has big, beautiful brown eyes and they welled up with tears at the prospect of my leaving again for Washington. And she said to me, Daddy, why do you have to be a Congressman? And I thought of the words of the Revolutionary War author Thomas Paine when he said, "I prefer peace; but if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can have peace."

Madam Speaker, this is a pivotal moment for our Nation and a very grave, solemn policy debate. We cannot afford to allow the ups and downs of the daily news cycle set the course for our deliberations. The stakes in Iraq are simply too high.

During last year's debate on Iraq, I emphasized that this war is different from wars of the past. There is no front, no lines of demarcation, no clear enemy in distinct uniforms. This is a war that invades tranquil time and space without warning, carried out by those who hide among populations seeking to exploit the vulnerable for ruthless, ideological purposes.

We have never before waged a war in an era of globalization, in an age when technology eviscerates the concept of distance, magnifies our losses, trivializes our accomplishments, and places our adversaries in a far better position to leverage our freedoms, particularly the freedom of speech, against us. These are the complexities we face now.

Madam Speaker, I submit that our choices now stand to determine not only the future of the Middle East but the very future of civilization. We can point fingers and blame each other, or we can think constructively together.

So what are our choices? The National Intelligence Estimate categorically rejects an arbitrary or precipitous U.S. troop withdrawal. The result would be horrific chaos, a humanitarian disaster, destabilizing the entire Middle East, emboldening the geopolitical aims of Iran, and leading to a much less peaceful world in very short order.

The conflict in Iraq is dangerous, risky, and complex. And we can all agree that our troops are doing an outstanding job, and so are their families who bear the biggest burden in their absence.

I submit that our time and energy as leaders of this Nation should be focused on new, clear military and geopolitical strategies.

First, Iraqis must fight for their own country now. They must lead in the battle for Baghdad now.

Over the past several months I joined colleagues in urging the President to deploy trained Iraqi troops into the heart of the battle for Baghdad, and I am pleased to see that this recommendation is now under way. However, I remain concerned about exposing our forces to unnecessary danger in the sectarian violence of Baghdad. As best we can, our troops should remain in support and training roles. I also believe that it is prudent to send reinforcements to our marines in Anbar province who are achieving good success against al Qaeda elements in collaboration with Sunni tribal leadership.

Second, we must engage responsible members of the international community, particularly the pan-Arab world, to assume a unified and decisive role in neutralizing the forces of chaos and helping secure stability and peace throughout the Middle East.

Third, we must provide meaningful congressional oversight. And I commend Chairman Lantos for taking this lead in the House Foreign Affairs Committee and for his commitment to a substantive and reasoned debate in this regard.

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to support a constructive bipartisan initiative drawing upon the substantive resources like the Iraqi Study Group to enhance congressional oversight and set out meaningful benchmarks to measure progress toward the stabilization of Iraq and the drawdown of our troops.

While it would be politically easier for me to vote for this resolution, I cannot. I see no useful purpose in supporting a nonbinding resolution that may have the unintentional consequence of undermining our efforts while our troops remain in harm's way.

Madam Speaker, this resolution, while wrapped in the mantle of supporting our troops, does not point to a credible way forward in Iraq. I believe I would make the same decision if a Democratic administration were struggling with similarly arduous challenges. If we flinch now, regardless of the goodwill behind our motivations, if we are perceived as weak and divided and eager to throw up our hands in frustration, we will pay a heavy price. And every nation that counts upon us as a friend and ally will also pay a very heavy price. None of us wants to see the repeat of the last helicopter out of Saigon.

I urge my colleagues, let's find constructive ways to get the job done

Mr. Skelton: May I make an inquiry, Madam Speaker, of how much time has been consumed and how much time remains on each side, please.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Missouri has 2 hours, 28 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 hours, 15\1/2\ minutes.

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

The great Chinese strategist and thinker once wrote that war should not be begun unless the end is in sight. Sadly, that admonition of Sun Tzu was not adhered to in this war in Iraq.

Let me bring us back to what we are all about today. We have been hearing discussions ranging from both ends of the football field. This is a very simple, straightforward resolution.

The first part of it is: We fully support the American troops. And I am going to say, Madam Speaker, we are so proud of them. They are volunteers, they are professionals, they understand the word duty.

And, secondly: We do not agree with the troop increase of 21,500, for the simple reason it has not worked in the past, for the simple reason it is going to cause somewhere between 2,500 and 13,000 support troops to support that effort. And, consequently, it is not a well-thought-out tactic. And despite the fact that some wish to call it a strategy, it is a tactic, and there is a large difference between the two.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the Budget Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mrs. Capps: I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution supporting our troops and disapproving the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.

More than 4 years ago, the resolution to support a war in Iraq came before this House. After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments put forth for a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq, I decided I could not in good conscience vote for that resolution.

My "no" vote against the President's plan for war in Iraq is one of my proudest moments in Congress. I didn't believe the case where war had been made. There was no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The administration's arguments about al Qaeda connections with Iraq were specious, and its attempt to link Iraq with the tragedy of 9/11 was shameful.

I was deeply concerned about the effects of preemptive war on America's standing in the world, and equally worried about the ramifications for the greater Middle East, a region of great importance and even greater fragility. And I had strong concerns about the administration's preparation for the aftermath of a war in Iraq. The administration was completely focused on waging war and not on winning the peace.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, all of those concerns have been borne out. There were no WMDs, no al Qaeda connections, no 9/11 link. It was all trumped up evidence by an administration consumed with toppling the dictator in Iraq. Today, Iraq is in civil war, the Middle East is even more unsettled, and our standing in the world is at a low point. The international support given to America after 9/11 was squandered and will take years to repair the damage. And, as a Nation, we are even less secure today than we were the day we invaded Iraq. I point this out only because it is critically important to know where we have been if we want to know where we should be going.

This resolution gives voice to the deep, deep opposition here in the Congress and throughout the country to the President's plan for escalating the war in Iraq.

I speak for the vast majority of my constituents on the central coast of California when I state my unequivocal opposition to this escalation. The administration's plan looks like more of the same failed policies that got us here in the first place. It is a plan based more on hope than on fact, buttressed by hysterical rhetoric. It is a plan opposed by numerous military leaders and experts. It is, quite frankly, simply not believable.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate makes it perfectly clear that the President's grand plan is just never going to work. The resolution here before us puts Congress on record against the proposition that success will come only after more troops are thrown into battle.

The other objective of this resolution is to remind everyone that opposing the war in Iraq, and especially opposing the President's escalation, is consistent with supporting our troops. Our men and women in uniform have done everything we have asked them to do and so much more. Over 3,000 have made the ultimate sacrifice. More than 20,000 others have been injured, so very many of them seriously.

Let no one doubt the bravery of our troops and the support that I and my colleagues who are opposed to this war have for them. I am eternally grateful for the sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families are willing to make every single day. They continue the long distinguished line of soldiers, sailors and airmen that have kept our country and so many others free from tyranny and oppression, but their service is due more than heartfelt appreciation and flowery words from politicians.

Their sacrifice, their service, is owed responsible leadership from those civilian leaders with whom power ultimately rests, and that is where our soldiers have been let down. This administration has taken arrogance, stubbornness and incompetence to new heights. It ignored the advice of military experts leading up to and throughout this war.

It stocked reconstruction teams with political hacks, and it brushed off the indisputable reality of Iraq in a meltdown. It dismissed the considered opinion of the Iraq Study Group, the Congress, most importantly, the American people.

Make no mistake, the failure of the war in Iraq lies at the highest levels of the White House and at the desks of the Pentagon's civilian leadership, and the cost of that failure is borne by our troops, their families and the Iraqi people. It is time for the administration to stop obfuscating the conditions on the ground in Iraq, stop the charade about so-called new plans that will finally bring success in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the war in Iraq. Support the troops. Indeed, bring them home.

Mr. Hoekstra: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Frelinghuysen: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, today tens of thousands of our young men and women are serving in uniform heading for Iraq. More are headed there as we speak. They will do what American soldiers do. They will serve our Nation with courage and pride, and for that they deserve our deep gratitude.

Today in the House we are engaging in a debate on a resolution that declares their military and humanitarian missions failed. I have seen this resolution described in the press as symbolic, toothless and meaningless. I couldn't disagree more. Our consideration of this resolution, the words spoken on this floor, carry great meaning and weight.

The actions of this body have consequences. When Members speak, the world listens: our friends, our allies, our rivals, our enemies and future enemies alike. What are they hearing?

I remember just 2 weeks ago, during the Super Bowl, seeing the video of our troops in Baghdad watching the game. Our soldiers watched that game. Every Member on this floor should know with certainty that our soldiers surely are watching this debate, and so are their families, and so are our enemies and so are the loved ones of those who made the ultimate sacrifice in their service to our Nation.

Instead of showcasing the best partisan rhetoric and working for political advantage, we should be working together with our Commander in Chief to honor their service and commitment, to find a way forward in Iraq that protects our Nation and results in a stable Iraq that can govern and protect itself.

I know that none of us are happy with the progress of the war. I know that the American people are struggling with this war. I struggle too. I am reminded that we have been sent here by our constituents to exercise our best judgment and to bring our experience to bear on the most pressing issue facing our Nation, the global threat of a radical Islamic fundamentalism.

Last week in the House Appropriations Committee on Defense, on which I serve, I asked the chiefs of staff of the Army about the consequences of failure in Iraq. I was reprimanded for getting off topic. But that is the topic. That is the point. Withdrawal from Iraq will have consequences, both immediate and in the seeds of future conflicts.

What will Congress do if we leave Iraq to flounder and descend into chaos, and how will we handle the next challenge laid before us, for there will be others. Do any of us doubt the determination of forces who are counting on our failure, on our resolve? This is the most fundamental question that confronts us, not solely the question of troop reinforcement that is already under way. Our answer to this question will be the legacy, not just of this President, but of all of us in this Chamber.

Over 35 years ago I served with the Army in Vietnam. While I never much advertised this fact, I was proud to serve, even as my father, then a Member of Congress himself, was subject to many personal attacks on the home front from those who opposed the Vietnam War.

Like many soldiers then, I wanted to do my time and come back safely. I promised myself one day that if I had the chance, I would be a better person, a better elected official, for that military experience. I promised myself that I would never let our soldiers down wherever they might be.

Madam Speaker, we are Americans first, and as Republicans and Democrats, we need to come together to work on solutions in Iraq and the Middle East. We are a Nation at war, lives are on the line, and we could do much better than this resolution.

Mr. Skelton: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Northern Virginia, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Congressman Jim Moran

Mr. Moran of Virginia: Madam Speaker, I would like to paraphrase a poem that Rudyard Kipling wrote upon the death of his son in World War I that seems particularly apt to the war in Iraq:

When they ask why the young men died

Tell them it's because the old men lied.

Madam Speaker, when the White House announced 4 years ago the U.S. military would attack Iraq under the guise of the global war on terrorism, there wasn't one single uniformed military officer who believed that Iraq was part of a global war on terrorism. Saddam had had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.

Saddam wasn't harboring any al Qaeda cells that did attack us. In fact, they understood that starting a new war would distract us and limit us from accomplishing our immediate need to eliminate Osama bin Laden. Saddam was a vicious, secular, despotic dictator, but he saw al Qaeda as a threat to his control, and al Qaeda viewed Saddam as an enemy of their religious extremist world vision.

The U.S. Intelligence Community knew that there was no clear evidence that Saddam was a threat to the United States. There was no failure of our professional Intelligence Community, but there was an abysmal failure of our political leadership.

So how did we get to this point? First we were scared with the threat of Saddam's arsenals or weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda training camps, an Iraqi meeting with the 9/11 hijacker, mobile labs, aluminum tubing, yellow cake uranium. But there were no weapons of mass destruction, Madam Speaker.

The training camps didn't exist. Mohamed Atta never met an Iraqi agent in Prague. The White House knew, before they informed us about the mobile labs, that our experts had determined that they were not in any way related to chemical or biological weapons. Likewise, the aluminum tubing was bogus information. Well before the so-called yellow cake uranium from Niger was cited as evidence at an attempt at nuclear armament, our Intelligence Community had informed the White House that it was a hoax.

Yet we were told repeatedly by the President and the Vice President that Saddam was a threat to global stability, that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and September 11. We were told in the buildup to the war that our troops would be greeted by the Iraqis as liberators, being offered flowers in the streets. This was propaganda that the State Department warned the White House not to believe, but they nonetheless peddled it to the Congress and to the American people.

We were told that to liberate Iraq was to spread freedom and democracy, to keep oil out of the hands of potential terrorist- controlled states. We were told that the war would pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenues. Yet all we have done is to finance our enemies, the insurgents and Iranian Shiia interests.

After Baghdad fell, we were told that America had prevailed, that the mission was accomplished, that the resistance was in its last throes, that more troops were not needed. As things went from bad to worse, we were told of turning point after turning point, the fall of Baghdad, the death of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi Government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam, all excuses for triumphant rhetoric while the reality on the ground continued to worsen.

We were told, as they stand up, we would stand down. We would stay the course. Now we are told that there is a new course, but it is in the same misguided direction. Falsehood after falsehood unravels each day, with the morning paper reporting even more deaths.

Now the American people are being asked to put 20,000 more sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives into the line of fire, and into the dead zone between the sectarian sides of a civil war. A message was sent to President Bush on November 7, 2006. This surge of more troops into Iraq defies the will of the American people.

But this is a new Congress. We will no longer be cowed by leaders using 9/11 as a political ploy against sensible people who oppose the administration's failed Iraq policy. Today for the first time since the war began, Congress will go on record opposing the President's failed Iraq policy. Some will argue that it is a nonbinding resolution, that it will not have the impact of a law, that it will not stop a roadside bomb or bring a single soldier home to their family. But the President understands what this resolution means. It is the beginning of the end of this wrong war of choice

Mr. Hoekstra: Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from New York, a member of the Intelligence Committee, roughly 1 minute for every foot of snow that his community has recently received.

Mr. McHugh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very roughly, you owe me a few.

Madam Speaker, listening to this debate tonight, it becomes obvious that kind of like life itself, those of us in Congress have moments of high drama and great importance, and by any measure, the date this evening and tomorrow and the days that follow and, most importantly, the vote that will attend it, is just such a moment.

I would observe, Madam Speaker, in the now nearly 231 years that this great Union has endured, this House has encountered few sessions demanding greater honesty, greater selflessness, and greater wisdom than that of occasions of war. And as I said, this is such a time.

But this debate really does stand alone. It is unique over the more than two centuries and three decades of our history, because from my study at no time in this Nation's history has the Congress considered the matter before us this week. The question of shall we resolve, in a nonbinding resolution, that this House disagree with a mission, duly designated by the constitutional authority vested in the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conduct of the war, that this same Congress, in an earlier session has, in fact, expressly endorsed.

I have listened today with great interest. I have enormous respect for all Members on both sides of the aisle. But I have heard about how wherever they are, many Members tonight will go to the well when they ultimately vote and try to send the President a message, try to signify to the administration that this war has not been conducted in the appropriate way. It has not achieved the objectives that we all felt were possible, in fact, absolutely necessary at its outset.

I would say, Madam Speaker, I understand that perspective; not only understand it, in many ways I strongly share that perspective. But I have to argue the fact of the matter is, for all of the good intentions we have here tonight, the negative aspect of such an action is going to far outweigh, far outweigh whatever good it might attempt to achieve.

The reality is, if this message is heard at all at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it is going to speak in whispers. Whispers. But in other lands, in other continents, in other cities, far, far away, when this resolution comes before us, and if it is passed, it is going to crash like thunder. In places like Ramadi and Basra, from Baghdad and beyond, friend and foe alike are going to hear something far different than what we intend.

They are going to hear that through this vote we have abandoned the Iraqi people. They are going to hear that America has forsaken this struggle. They will hear that we disavow our military objective in Baghdad really before it has meaningfully begun, and most importantly in the shadows where our enemies lurk, in places like Tehran and Damascus, the message will fail where its authors intend, but it will succeed very, very mightily where they wish it would not.

Madam Speaker, for all of the good intent embodied in this proposal, it will not bring a single soldier home sooner. This vote, no matter what the tally, no matter what this board shows as to green and red at the end of the day, will not shorten this conflict by a single month, not by a week, not by a day. It will not change the course of a single battle. It will not even alter a pebble that lies on the battlefields in which those struggles will be fought.

It will, however, say to the insurgents, the Saddamists, the radical Islamic militants and their patrons that time is on their side. It will say that America has no stomach for this fight. And somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan, or in a hut on the Afghan-Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden is going to smile.

His words of a failure of America will be that much closer to reality. As he has said: "The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate rule." They keep reiterating that "success in Baghdad will be success for the United States, failure in Iraq the failure of the U.S. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist crusader tide against us."

Those are bad messages, Madam Speaker. But I would suggest respectfully to all of my colleagues for all the wrong messages this resolution will send to our enemies, nothing it contains will be more devastating than what it says to our troops, to our military, those brave men and women in uniform who answered the call to arms, issued not by some ephemeral entity, but by us, by this Congress.

And how do we say through the resolution we are considering here today, we support your needs, but we reject your mission? We allow for your deployment but we shun the premise of your departure? And what do we say to the wife or husband? How do we respond to the father or the mother or the loved one of the next warrior lost in battle who asks, why did you oppose through that resolution the job they were sent to pursue but did absolutely nothing from preventing them from going from the outset?

That is the tyranny, and I have to say it, Madam Speaker, that is the folly of the resolution before us for all its lack of practical result, for the fact that this resolution will do absolutely nothing. Never has this Congress in its history of war considered an action of such dramatic consequence.

Now, it is said during the Civil War that the great Southern general, Robert E. Lee, was really tired, and I think we can all relate to this, of the criticism, the second-guessing that was directed at his leadership through the major newspapers of his time.

And he observed, Apparently all my best generals had become journalists. Today, tonight, I think it can be fairly said of some, apparently all of our best generals have become Congressmen. My colleagues, we are not generals. The Constitution of this great Nation does not provide for 535 Commanders in Chief, yet that is the reality lost in the proposal that we are considering this night in this week.

But I would suggest, instead of being diminished by that fact, instead of being lessened by what we are not, we need to be empowered by what we are. And I say to my colleagues tonight on both sides of the aisle, we indeed have a grave responsibility in this matter. But it does not lie in nonbinding resolutions that send wrong messages to our troops and absolutely wrong messages to our enemies. It rests in the authorities vested in us by the Constitution of this great land, the power to fund or not all matters of government, especially war.

Like all of us here tonight, I want this war to conclude. I represent the 10th Mountain Division, the most deployed division in the United States Army. I was there 3 weeks ago. I know the pain. I know the suffering. And like all of you, I am frustrated by the path we have traveled to this point, and I am troubled by the course that apparently lies ahead.

And we can, we must have, a different approach, one that especially places responsibility for success where it rightfully lies, and I have heard my colleagues tonight speak about that, with the Iraqi people. I propose an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that will just do that, require the Iraqis to step forward, to stand up, to stop the talking, and to begin to act.

It will fully fund the needs of our troops and provide for us, the Congress, the rightful role and expedite an opportunity to review the Iraqis effort and to judge the progress of this new mission in Baghdad. These things have to be done. But this resolution, in my judgment, in my judgment, is what must decidedly not.

This weekend I took the time to reread John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning work "Profiles in Courage." And in those pages our martyred President spoke: "In no other occupation but politics is it expected that a man will sacrifice honor, prestige, and his chosen career on a single issue."

My friends, this is such a moment. I accuse nobody in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, of any kind of transgression, honorable people, good people. We will disagree, as I expect they will on this and other days, but I do plead that every Member in this House vote on this resolution, not for themselves, not for gain or posture through politics, not because of their alleged attention to public opinion, because it is right.

We can do better. We must. But this resolution is not the path to that objective.

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

My friend from New York, a fellow member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. McHugh, a good friend, I must agree with him on one comment that he made when he said, I am troubled by the course that lies ahead.

Madam Speaker, I am very troubled about the course that lies ahead. That is what we are about this evening. We have seen an irretrievable strategic mistake made in Iraq that put us where we are. And consequently it brings us to this point where we express our concern and disagreement with the increase in troops in this crucial time in Iraq and allows us the opportunity to say thank you. We are proud of you, each of you who wears the American uniform.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Rush: Madam Speaker, I raise today to voice my support for this resolution. For too long now, under a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled Senate, the President has been given a free hand and a blank check to conduct this war in Iraq, for far too long without any oversight, for far too long without any accountability from this the equal branch of government, this U.S. Congress. Madam Speaker, and because of the Republicans' unwillingness and the Democrats' inability to question the President or his administration about the conduct of this war, we now find ourselves embroiled in a civil war on a foreign soil.

We are not seen as liberators. We are seen as an occupying force on a foreign land. We are seen as an occupying army by the Iraqi people. Madam Speaker, we are trapped in a deadly situation where American soldiers and Iraqi citizens are targeted for murder, mayhem and maiming.

Many of our top generals and experts in this field have testified that the American troop presence is the biggest, largest, most provocative catalyst to the violence in Iraq. The Iraqi people are very suspicious of this administration and the motives of this President. And they do not view foreign soldiers in their cities, in their towns, in their homes as something that they desire.

So if the Iraqi people no longer want us in their country, and if the military objective, which was supposed to be the toppling of Saddam Hussein has been achieved, then why do we still have hundreds of thousands of our troops there?

Why on Earth are we sending more troops to this unstable and volatile area when it is obvious that the solution to this problem is not a military one, but a political one?

Madam Speaker, if we want to get out of this hole, then we must first stop digging. It is well past time for this President to finally understand that he cannot solve the world's problems with brute force, the American military, and our boys' and girls' lives. We must begin a serious and political and diplomatic effort in this region to hold the Iraq Government responsible for protecting its own people and to solicit comments from Iraq's neighbors as well as our friends and allies around the world to help stabilize Iraq and to rebuild that devastated country.

The Iraqi people do not want to see more American troops coming into their homes and into their cities. They want their chosen, duly elected leaders to step up to the plate and to protect them as they were elected to do. And they want their foreign occupiers to leave their homeland.

Madam Speaker, this is not hard to comprehend. Would we not want the same thing if a foreign military came and occupied our cities, our States, our Nation, our homes?

This war is draining American resources and stretching our military to the point where we will be unable to protect ourselves against any real threat to our national security. We know that to date over 3,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq, and more than $500 billion has been appropriated for this unjust and this misguided war.

Yet dispute these costs, neither the American people nor this Congress has been given a reasonable explanation or reasonable grounds for keeping American troops in Iraq to do the job that Iraqi soldiers should be doing for themselves.

Madam Speaker, because of our grave missteps, our enormous miscalculation, the situation in Iraq has steadily declined. And there is no evidence that increasing the number of American soldiers at this point will do anything other than provide more targets to the Iraqi insurgents and make the situation in Iraq even more volatile.

Madam Speaker, after being wrong on so many counts time and time again, I believe the stakes in this war are too high for us to continue to put blind trust in this administration. The world in which we live deserves more

Madam Speaker, I am against this troop surge because the American people and the Iraqi people want truth surge. They want strategy, not more of the same.

It is the job and the responsibility of this Congress to reflect the will of the people who have put us here, and demand that the Administration bring an end to this ill-fated war, not escalate it.

Believe me, Madam Speaker, it brings me no pleasure to have this debate and publicly disagree with the President, but my solemn oath to my constituents, as well as my conscience and integrity prevent me from doing anything less.

It is time for us to end our occupation in Iraq. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 63.