---

Mr. Hunter: Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my colleague, my good friend who just spoke, Mr. Israel.

Let me just make a couple of points. With respect to up-armored Humvees, when we entered this administration, the Humvee is a successor to the Jeep, it is a tactical vehicle, we had 1,200 up-armored Humvees. That was in the year 2000. Today, we have got 15,000 up-armored 114s, plus thousands of Humvees that have the so-called MAC kits which are also protective armor kits.

We had virtually no body armor in the year 2000. I don't believe we had a single set that was available for any line units in any American division in the world. Today, we have over 400,000 of those.

I just want to make a point, if there are American moms and dads, and we have had a few who have thought that their sons and daughters were going to Iraq without body armor, I have said, Call me personally at the office, and I have not had a single phone call in 2 years. So they have plenty of body armor.

And, lastly, I just want to make one other point with respect to what America has, because there has been an implication I think throughout the debate that we are stretched too thin, that others may attack us, may take advantage of the fact that we have deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the year 2000, we have more than doubled the precision firepower of this country. That means the ability of this country, and Republicans and Democrats have supported the funding that has done this; but if any country in the world should think they are going to take advantage of an America that is, in their estimation, stretched too thin, the precision firepower, that means the ability to send a smart weapon on target to thread a goal post at many, many miles, has more than doubled since the year 2000. And so no country that feels that there is that implication in our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan should bet their life on it, because they will lose.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to Mr. Cole, the outstanding gentleman from Fort Sill.

Mr. Cole of Oklahoma: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the challenges we face as a Nation, and to urge the Members of this House to confront those challenges honestly and forthrightly.

As I do, I remind my colleagues that this House is not a debating society. It is not a place to merely score political points or rhetorical points. It is a place where we should confront the issues that face our country and then act accordingly. This responsibility rests not just with the Members individually, but with the majority especially. We come to this floor not just to speak, opine, and orate. We come here to set policy, to legislate and, most importantly, to act.

This resolution the majority, the Democrats, put before us today presents us with a choice; but after we make that choice, nothing will happen, nothing will change. We will have chosen to state our opinion, but we will refuse to act on that opinion. Some will see this as a tragedy; some, Madam Speaker, will see it as a farce.

This resolution is not serious. It is a political ploy rather than a principled position. It is sound and fury that signifies nothing. It is a cruel joke on those who sincerely want to leave Iraq before our mission is finished, and it is an affront to those of us who wish to succeed in Iraq. But while this politically motivated resolution achieves nothing, it does have real and lasting consequences. Passing this resolution will embolden our enemies, it will discourage our friends, and it will disappoint our troops. It will raise questions about our seriousness as a legislative body to anyone who actually pays attention to our proceedings, and it will lead our enemies to question our resolve and it will leave our men and women in uniform wondering why we are sending them on a mission in which we do not believe, but lack the political courage to cancel.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed that the majority party would bring a resolution to the floor which condemns an action directed by our Commander in Chief and his military advisers yet which neither forbids that action nor offers an alternative course.

If the majority party, the Democratic Party, was being honest with their supporters and with the American people, they would have a straight up-or-down vote on whether or not to fund the initiative ordered by the President. This is the way in which we should approach our constitutionally defined responsibility in regard to war and peace.

Madam Speaker, I have often voiced my respect for my Democratic colleagues on the floor, and as individuals I do respect and admire them. However, I neither respect nor admire the manner in which their leadership has chosen to frame the issue which they now place before the House. My friends on the other side of the aisle have abdicated the responsibilities of being in the majority.

They do not want to legislate. They do not want to act, they just want to state an opinion. But they are stating it in a fashion that will lead many to question our sincerity as Members of this House and to doubt the effectiveness of the institution which we all love, and they are now privileged to lead.

Madam Speaker, the majority in this body has the responsibility to do more than just criticize. So, I ask, what is their plan? We don't know. How will they achieve a stable Iraq? They won't say.

It is time for Democrats to step up and answer these questions. It is easy to second-guess the decisions of former Congresses and the President. It is easy to reconsider one's support and the support many in this Congress and in their majority have voiced in the past of placing additional troops in Iraq. But, what is easy isn't always right and certainly not in this case.

Let there be no mistake. Our soldiers are engaged in combat this very minute. Our military commanders have voiced support for the mission that they have been asked to complete. General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq, supports the surge of forces. Indeed he says he needs these additional troops to succeed. Moreover, the declassified National Intelligence Estimate makes clear the disaster that would result from failure in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, let us consider what will happen if the Democrats are successful in undermining the mission and the objectives of the surge. What would it mean? What effect would this have on our forces? What would be the implications for our Nation and the region?

Well, Madam Speaker, at a practical level, it would certainly mean that our enemies would know they have weakened the will and resolve of the American people. They would take this as a lesson and a guide for the future. At a tactical level, it would likely increase the level of insurgent activity aimed at destroying our forces. Additionally, it would also mean that, lacking reinforcement, our current forces would be stretched even further.

Strategically adopting this resolution would undermine the credibility of the United States. It will make the region more chaotic and dangerous than it is today. I remember many Members of the majority party calling for an increase in the size of our force in Iraq not so long ago. I remember numerous statements by Members from the other side of the aisle that said the alternatives to success were too horrible to contemplate. They were right, but now those concerns seem to be no longer operative.

I am under no illusions that we face an easy road ahead in Iraq. Quite frankly, it is the greatest challenge our Nation has faced in a generation. However, the alternative to showing resolve in Iraq is defeat in the central front in the war on terror. That will be disastrous for the Iraqis, threatening for our friends in the region, and dangerous for the security of our own country.

That is why this resolution is so disturbing. Democrats want to have it three ways. They want to criticize the President's plan, offer none of their own, and then refuse to let our side of the aisle offer a proposal for consideration by this body. A nonbinding resolution is no plan for the future. It is a plan for the next election.

In the next few days, I will continue to engage in this debate and outline what I believe to be the real challenges and choices that we face, and why we must support the surge in forces. I hope that in this debate my side persuades my colleagues to reject this resolution.

But if they are not persuaded, then I hope they will have the political courage to act, as opposed to just talk; that they will legislate as opposed to just debate. I hope they will discharge their duties as a majority by laying out and enacting their strategy, as opposed to merely criticizing the President and complicating a dangerous situation faced by our forces in the field

Mrs. Tauscher: Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining on both sides?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady from California has 47½ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 33 minutes remaining.

Mrs. Tauscher: Madam Speaker, at this time I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I was interested in my colleague, the last speaker's questions, the question about why do we have a nonbinding resolution and does it have any significance. I should say, no one should minimize the significance of this resolution. Passage by a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives of this resolution opposing the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq would be a major turning point in the war debate.

Despite the fact that it is nonbinding, passage would have enormous significance. This bipartisan resolution is serving as the basis for the first real debate on the President's flawed Iraq war policy since the war began nearly 4 years ago. Last November, the voters sent President Bush a loud and unmistakable message about Iraq, but the President didn't listen.

As his announcement of an escalation of the war showed, passage of this bipartisan resolution is a second chance for the President to hear a strong, clear message that cannot be ignored. Passage of this bipartisan resolution will send another clear message: No more blank checks for the President on Iraq.

In addition, passage of a nonbinding resolution opposing the President's escalation plan is only the first step in the Congress, demanding a changing of course in Iraq. When this resolution containing fewer than 100 words passes, we will take the country in a new direction in Iraq. A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional legislation, which will be coming to the House floor.

Furthermore, what is surprising, as I see my colleagues from the other side trot forward one after another, I have to remind them that in their 12 years in the majority, House Republicans passed hundreds, hundreds of nonbinding resolutions, including in very similar situations.

For example, on October 30, 1995, the House Republican leadership brought to the floor and passed H. Res. 247, a nonbinding resolution repudiating President Clinton's pledge to deploy up to 20,000 troops to Bosnia as part of a peacekeeping force. I will remind my colleagues, Kosovo is about to be declared independent because the United States and NATO countries interceded and stopped the genocide there. That is a perfect example of wrongheaded policy that Democrats were able to put forward.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Langevin: Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in appreciation of our troops' exceptional service and sacrifice, and to voice my opposition to President Bush's plan to send more forces into what amounts to a civil war.

As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and a new member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize that our next steps in Iraq present one of the greatest security decisions our Nation has faced in decades.

The Iraq Study Group called the situation grave and deteriorating and said it requires a new approach. I agree. We can all conclude that an unstable Iraq, torn by sectarian conflict, would lead to continued violence and civilian casualties, provide combat training opportunities to those who would do us harm, and pose increased challenges to the region.

Yet I disagree with President Bush's misguided belief that sending more Americans into combat will solve the problem.

Our military has served valiantly for nearly 4 years, particularly in some very challenging and nontraditional missions, in some cases for which they were never trained. However, we have done all that we could do militarily to help the Iraqi people, and their problems no longer require a U.S. military solution. The underlying causes of violence are primarily political and must be addressed in that framework. Sending more troops would simply be a continuation of the same failed strategy.

In October of 2002, I expressed my concerns that President Bush's approach to Iraq could have dangerous ramifications in the region and America's own efforts in the war on terrorism. For those reasons and many others, I voted against authorizing use of force against Iraq, a war that was mismanaged by civilian leadership from the start.

Now, to address our troops' lack of protective gear and up-armored Humvees, I supported legislation to provide additional funding for proper equipment, as well as other efforts to assure our forces would be safe and effective. Now, however, we can best support our troops by changing our mission in Iraq and adopting a new strategy that reflects the realities on the ground. The Iraqis must now take the lead in providing for their own security, and we must reduce our presence to let them do so.

The President's claim that by adding 21,500 additional combat troops we can force a greater stability in Iraq is an argument that ignores some basic truths. Not only have past surges of U.S. forces proved unnecessary in reducing sectarian violence among Iraqis, but the addition of more troops would further inflame anti-American sentiment and turn popular opinion even more against us in our efforts. We have no proof that another surge would lead to a different outcome than in the past, but we do know that it would have negative consequences.

Now, perhaps of greatest concern is the impact of the surge on our military readiness. The President's estimate of 21,500 more combat troops does not count the additional 15,000 to 28,000 support troops that would be needed, spreading our military even more dangerously thin.

Madam Speaker, we have asked much of our forces, included repeated deployments, and a surge will only exacerbate that problem. Operations in Iraq have also taken their toll on our equipment.

According to the Government Accountability Office, 40 percent of the Army's and Marine Corps' equipment is now located in the Central Command theater of operations. Our National Guard/Reserve units are underequipped to deal with emergencies, and we have depleted our preposition stocks, which we need to respond quickly to other contingencies.

Now, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in January, General Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, noted that an increase in forces in Iraq would increase our strategic risk and possibly lead to slower and less effective response to another potential threat.

Madam Speaker, sending more troops to Iraq is a dangerous gamble with our national security, and we need a new approach. A number of experts, including the Iraq Study Group, had made important recommendations, and they must not be ignored.

It is clear that the President's plan for escalation would harm our national security and ignores the will of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can promote a new strategy for Iraq and bring our troops home.

Mr. Hunter: Madam Speaker, let me just respond to my good friend from Rhode Island, he is a great friend of mine and a former colleague on the Armed Services Committee, the estimate that has been given, that has been bandied around, that we would need some 20,000 support troops to support the 21,500 troops that are involved in the President's plan, some of whom are already in theater, has been rebutted by DOD, which said it is not 1 for 1 support to line troops, it is about 1 in 10, which in the estimate that they gave us was about 2,000 to 2,300, not 20,000 support troops.

Using that number, even with the 21,500 troops that are involved in the Baghdad plan, adding them to the 138 that we have right now, still brings us to a number that is lower than the 160,000 that we had December a year ago. I know that number has not been absolutely resolved, but I would just tell my friend that I believe it is going to be much lower than the number that has been put out there.

To my good friend from California, who talked about the Kosovo vote and the resolution to disapprove it, my recollection is that vote was undertaken before troops were moved. In this case, the 82nd Airborne is not already over the line in Iraq, but they actually have a brigade deployed in this operation, and the Baghdad operation that is being undertaken right now has a combination of Iraqi troops and American troops in each of nine sectors.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he would like to take to Mr. Conaway from Texas, who is a gentleman that represents a great base at Fort Hood.

Mr. Conaway: Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me this time. Let me correct that record just a bit. I have got the area just west of Fort Hood. So I have got a lot of civilian contractors and retirees and active duty personnel who live in my district, but serve in Fort Hood.

Mr. Hunter: I will stipulate that the gentleman would like to represent Fort Hood.

Mr. Conaway: Absolutely. I certainly would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this time tonight.

I am opposed to this nonbinding resolution. This is a vehicle that the majority is using to bring us to this debate tonight. The resolution is pretty simple in its language. It simply says that Congress disapproves of the decision President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops, U.S. combat troops to Iraq. It says this twice, in the preamble and then once again in the resolved.

It also says once that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have bravely and honorably served in Iraq. We must assume, of course, that, because it is not stated, that Congress and the American people will also support and protect those additional troops that are headed into harm's way who will serve in Iraq, even though the resolution disapproves of the decision that sends those young men and women into harm's way.

The majority knows that this resolution will pass. They would not have brought it to the floor if their leadership had not be assured that they had the minimum 218 votes needed to pass this resolution. Since passage is assured, we have to ask, why this language? Why something so like this, that simply says what they are against, as opposed to something that is perhaps more meaningful, like what you are for.

It allows those who would vote in favor of this, and like I said I am quite confident it will pass, to set themselves up in that very enviable position to say I told you so if things do not go exactly as planned. And no plan in war has ever done that. So our colleagues who vote in favor of this resolution will be in that position to be able to say I told you so across a variety of circumstances.

I do not believe that either side of the aisle believes that it is the role of this or any other Congress to tell the President how not to deploy 20,000 troops. I believe there is another reason for this language. One explanation may be that it sets the stage for something that will really have an impact on the War in Iraq, the way that war is being fought, and I think that has to do with the power of the purse.

In spite of the language that says we will continue to support and protect our troops, I believe we will see in the not too distant future attempts by the majority to cut off funding for this war. I think we got a preview of this tactic last week when we passed the continuing resolution which cut $3.1 billion in spending for military quality of life projects and infrastructure that is needed to support the various BRAC decisions.

A lot has been made as to whether or not this debate will have an impact on the morale of our troops. Last week in a hearing with the Armed Services Committee, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told us, as well as Bob Gates, that this debate in and of itself will not directly hurt or harm the morale of the young men and women who are fighting this fight.

I think that is generous. But what Pace did tell us was that if this Congress begins to cut funding, cut financial support, begin to go back on the promises made to those young men and woman, that that will in fact have a deleterious impact on the troops' morale and their families who serve here. I think that the debate tonight and the next 4 days will have a direct impact on the families who support these young men and women, who allow them to do what they do on behalf of this country.

And that is certainly is regrettable, if that support is hurt and harmed, and that hurt and harm is then transmitted to our young men and women who are fighting this fight every single day.

I also do not believe it is the role of 535 independent contractors that make up the House and Senate to become five-star generals and make decisions on how to fight this fight or any other war. I do believe it is our job to look as far into the future as we can, and make decisions and then pass laws that lead this Nation.

I do not know of anyone who believes that a failure in Iraq is in our national interest. Both sides have been saying this. There are no good results for such a failure. General Petraeus has listed out a couple of the possibilities that he talks about. One is that sectarian groups would begin to stake out turf. This would generally involve ethnic cleansing. The humanitarian suffering that would go on while that was happening is totally unacceptable

He also mentions that international terrorist organizations might gain control of Iraq, and therefore use their bases in Iraq to further their interests.

The disruption to the oil markets and the impact that that will have not only on our economy but economies around the world would certainly occur if we have a failure in Iraq.

None of these guesses as to what would happen for failure in Iraq, that failure would almost automatically happen with an untimely withdrawal of our troops, none of them are positive, none of these scenarios make Iraq a safer place, none of them make the Middle East a safer place, and they certainly do not make America and the United States safer.

There are no guarantees, of course, that any plan will work. But telling the President what not to do is clearly not in the interest interests of moving this debate forward. My personal view of that future that I spoke about is that the effort in Iraq is a major part of the overall global war against Islamic Jihadists. Other Members have eloquently stated tonight that this war will last for decades.

I take very seriously the threats that the Islamic Jihadists have made and are making to kill Americans and to hurt American interests. I do not understand why they take these positions, but I certainly believe them when they tell us they are coming to hurt us.

This fight, this global war against Islamic Jihadists is really a fight for the heart of Islam. We must begin imploring moderate Muslims to stand against those few who seek to hijack the religion, and who are prosecuting this fight.

Let me preface my next remarks by saying that I am a Christian, and I believe that God is always in the business of changing men's hearts, and that the hearts of these Islamist Jihadists can be changed by the God I serve. But short of that, I believe we have only two choices, either we lock these people up forever or we kill them.

That is pretty harsh for a Christian to say, but those are our only options. I don't believe we can compromise with them and I don't believe they will compromise with us. I don't believe that they will alter their beliefs to peacefully coexist with us.

So we are in a fight that will last for years and for decades. There is no guarantee as to how this fight is being prosecuted and how we win this fight, I just know that we cannot lose it. And this resolution tonight does not move that process forward in a positive way.

We are in a long and hard struggle to protect freedom and liberty here and around the world. We are blessed by men and women who are willing to risk everything to defend you and me every minute of every day.

This resolution does not help in that struggle. And I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mrs. Tauscher: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Ms. Shea-Porter: Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate. Four long years and we are searching our souls. We have sent our finest and our bravest soldiers on a mission that made no sense from the beginning. Our Nation was attacked by evil people who trained in Afghanistan.

We have a right to go into Afghanistan to remove the terrorist training camps. As a matter of fact, we should be working even harder there to make sure our Afghanistan mission does not fail. We must not allow the Taliban and other terrorist groups to control Afghanistan again.

However, we are unable to give Afghanistan our full attention because our President has led us into a war with Iraq. Why? There are no Iraqis on the plane that day. The Iraqis had no weapons of mass destruction. And they never asked us to come to their country. They do ask us to leave, though. And yet we will not leave.

The President will not listen to the Iraqis. The President will not listen to the American people. The President will not listen to the world. But Congress will. We are ready to go in a new direction and say no to the President, and no to his plan to escalate this war.

I was a military spouse. I am very, very proud of my husband's service. I am also on the Armed Services Committee. I know our troops need our support and they have it. But troops also need to know that their leaders will make sure that their mission is in the best interests of the United States before they are asked to go fight and die for their country.

I watched a young soldier walk down a ramp on the way to Iraq. He was looking at all of us, and we were looking hard back at him. And I think most of us had the same thoughts in our hearts, that we could not look him in the eye and tell him that his mission was so essential to the security of the United States and the freedom of the world that he had to go and he had to die if necessary.

Why could we not tell him that? Because the mission had changed. Several times the President told us why we were there, and it was always a different reason. The mission had changed. And therefore the soldier looked confused and we certainly felt confused also, because we could not tell him why we were there.

I wanted to run up to him and tell him I support you, I support you by making sure that you never get sent to a war against unless we know why you are there.

What is this talk I have heard tonight about freedom and liberty? This talk of glory that I heard on the floor. This romanticized language, this talk about Davy Crockett. There is no Davy Crockett in Iraq. Our troops need clear-eyed leaders, not this romantic rabble that we have been hearing. This war has cost us. We have paid a terrible price.

Our military troops are strained. Yes, they are strained. Their families are strained. Our brave soldiers have died or they have been injured. The Iraqis have lost their lives. They have lost their society. They have lost their infrastructure. They are losing their middle class who are moving to other countries to keep their children safe.

Their people are fleeing from their own country. We are wary, they are wary, the world is now more dangerous. Iraqis were polled and the majority of them said they wanted the Americans to go home and let them work out their problems. For 4 years the administration and its supporters here have made no plan for them to do that.

Now they ask us on this side of the aisle what our plan is. This is a strange question. But it shows how confused this administration's supporters are, if they are looking to us and ask us what our plan is. They have been offered plans. They even commissioned a plan, and they do not follow any plans. The President follows his own way.

We have offered plans. They will not listen. I for one want the United States to succeed in this world. Therefore, I am going to listen to all of the generals who have pled with the President and pled with the President's supporters in this administration to do the right thing here.

But the President does not listen. Now, I am going to vote to tell the President that I am against his escalation.

Mr. Hunter: Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Burgess: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate him letting me go out of order. I am not a member of his committee. But when my committee has time on Thursday night, I am hoping to be able to attend the memorial service for our comrade, Charles Norwood, whom we lost today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against H. Con. Res. 63. I think it is a mistake. It is the first step of this new Congress, the first step this new Congress is going to make towards cutting off the funding for our troops.

You do not have to take my word for it. Yesterday's CQ Today, a magazine widely read up here in Washington, and I am quoting, "It is a foot in the door toward limiting military involvement in Iraq. The Democrats want to do this by the Congressional power of the checkbook."

Further in the article it says, "Democrats are well on their way toward planning more aggressive measures in an attempt to force redeployment beginning by blocking funding, and ending in the supplemental spending request.

And then finally, Democrats said, "The resolution would just be a first step in the process that could result in a reduction or reconditioning of funds slated for our troops in Iraq."

Well, we do not have to go too very far back in our past to see the consequences of that type of action. When I was in Iraq in August of 2005 General Casey told myself and a group of us who were there that there is no group in the world that can stand up to the American military. In fact, the only organized body in the world capable of defeating the American military was the American Congress.

I believe he was right. The CRS has done a report for this Congress, a report for Congress about restrictions of military operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia and Kosovo, funding and non funding approaches. I reference particularly, I urge my colleagues, this is easy to download from the Internet on the CRS, simply type in Cooper- Church amendment, and you will get this well-researched product.

It details the Mansfield amendment, the Cooper/Church amendment of 1970 and 1973, the Cranston amendment, the McGovern/Hatfield amendment. It also talks about the funding for Somalia. In fact, in this House, in 1999, when President Clinton was President, a bipartisan group in this House came together to defeat a motion to block funding for the troops in Kosovo. So congressional actions regarding funding do have a real world impact.

And I would submit that much of the chaos that ensued after we left Vietnam, and I would include the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in that chaos, I would include the militant jihadist takeover of our Embassy in Iran in that chaos, much of that ensued because of congressional action that was taken on the floor of this House in cutting off funding for our troops.

And I am not a big one on process. I haven't been here that long. I don't know that I understand process all that well. But why in the world would we not allow a vote or even a motion to recommit on, say, Sam Johnson's bill, H.R. 511. Sam Johnson's bill, a simple two-page bill that details all of the fine things done by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ends with this simple paragraph: Faithful support of Congress. Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members in the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way.

Wow, that is pretty simple. I don't understand. I frankly, do not understand why this House could not vote on this simple measure submitted by my fellow Texan, Sam Johnson, a legitimate war hero in his own right. I simply do not understand why we wouldn't have an opportunity to vote on that bill or offer it as a motion to recommit before we vote on the resolution.

And the resolution itself, it is a shame that we weren't offered a chance to amend the bill, to amend the resolution, to perhaps make it better. I urge people to go on line and read it for themselves. It is only two lines. It is not a very heavy lift to read this particular piece of legislation.

Line 1, Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect Members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq. That is sentence one. Remarkable for what it leaves out. What about a comma, and who will serve? Would it be so wrong to include those individuals who will serve in whatever time is left in the country of Iraq, to include them in as being worthy of our support in Congress?

Line 2 is so vague as to almost defy description. Line 2 reads: Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush, announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops.

Well, would 19,995 troops be okay? Would Congress then not cock an eyebrow to say we don't like that either? Well, what does that second statement actually, what point are we trying to make by that second statement, other than we don't support the Commander in Chief, we don't support the mission, and as a consequence, you do have to ask if we support the troops.

Now, we are all sent here in Congress, we are all elected by 600- to 700,000 people, back in our districts, back in our States, to make hard decisions. We are not sent here to read the polls, stick our fingers in the wind and then decide which direction to go. We are not sent here to shift tactics because we think we may become more popular back home if we do that. I fully recognize that by voting against this resolution, I put myself in jeopardy of reelection, and I am willing to do that because I believe a vote for this resolution puts my country's fate in significant jeopardy for decades to come.

Now, I was not here when this House voted in October of 2002 to give the President the power he needed to deploy the troops. But I have always voted for funding for the troops. And I appreciate so much the chairman standing up here and offering his telephone number to any family who is concerned whether or not their loved one will have access to body armor in Iraq.

I remember those first hearings when I came here in March of 2003, we were instructed on how quickly our men and women in the field could get into their chemical suits. This was an object of great concern to everyone in this body. In fact, most of us sit on top of a chair which has a gas mask underneath it, just in case we need to leave this body in a hurry because of the deployment of chemical weapons. We were all concerned about chemical weapons back in 2003.

Now, I have made five trips to Iraq, and I know that what is reported on our television news services here in the States is not always accurately reflective of what is happening on the ground back in Iraq. I referenced Dr. Norwood a moment ago. My last trip to Iraq was in July of 2006. Dr. Norwood, Chairman Deal and I, and Gene Green from our Health Subcommittee went over to see the status of health care for our troops. I was very impressed with what I saw that day.

But, Madam Speaker, I think everyone in this body has to answer two fundamental questions on this resolution before us: Is it in our broad national interest to win this fight? The second question: Can we prevail? Can we provide a modicum of security in the country of Iraq? Can we provide a modicum of sovereignty in the country of Iraq? For me, the answer to those two questions is yes. Yes and yes. And I recognize that people of goodwill can disagree about these issues. But if your answer is no, and no, then please stand up, show some courage.

This is a nonbinding resolution, for crying out loud. Even a Democratic Presidential candidate said it is equivalent to standing in the corner and stomping your feet.

We have heard a lot about moral obligations tonight. Well, I would submit that we have a moral obligation that if we can't answer both of those questions in the affirmative, bring the troops home now. Don't wait till April. Don't wait till September. If we haven't the resolve to see this thing through, or if we no longer feel that it is in our broad national interest to continue this fight, why in the world would you ask any man or woman to continue to serve in that country under those conditions?

It is our moral obligation to ensure that our troops know our intentions and they know that we are going to provide continued support for them, and that continued support, whether it is bullets for their gun, whether it is the M-16, whether it is the Humvee, or whether it is reinforcements, we are going to continue to provide the things that the generals on the ground say they need for their men and women to get the job done.

When the President invited me down to the White House right before his Oval Office speech, he asked me what the constituents in my district would say. And I said, Mr. President, it is pretty clear. My constituents would say to you, if they were standing here today, fight the war or bring the boys home.

The rules of engagement sometimes, frankly, I don't understand. If we capture someone in Sadr City and we get a call from the Prime Minister's Office and we have got to take him back and let him go, that doesn't make sense, good sense, if you are fighting a war.

Well, it looks as if a lot of those restrictions have been removed. In fact, on the Drudge Report on Fox News earlier this evening they broke the story that Moqtada al-Sadr is now living is Iran. That is a good thing. That reflects the change in tactics on the ground brought to you by our men and women who are fighting for our freedom abroad.

Madam Speaker, I suggest that we commit together to support the future, the future support of our troops in the country of Iraq, or simply get them out of harm's way now. Again, Moqtada al-Sadr has fled to Iran.

I think we can prevail. I think it is in our broad national interest. I think the price of defeat is simply too steep, not just for us today, but for generations in the future.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Burgess: Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Herseth): The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Burgess: Madam Speaker, would it be wrong to propose an amendment that would ask that we add support for troops that will be in harm's way in the future in line 1 of this bill?

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair would entertain such requests only from the majority manager of the concurrent resolution.

Mr. Burgess: Well, then I would call on the majority manager of the concurrent resolution to consider adding future support for our troops, or those troops who will be in harm's way in the months to come.

Mrs. Tauscher: Madam Speaker, I am happy today, right now, to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Matheson: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This afternoon I went to Walter Reed and I visited some injured soldiers. One of them was from my congressional district in the State of Utah; had a number of serious injuries. He has been in intensive care at Walter Reed for about 3 weeks now. His wife was there with him. There were pictures of his 2-year old daughter plastered up all over the wall. His daughter is back in Utah with a set of grandparents.

I wish everyone could have the experience of going and meeting the soldiers and the families. They inspire me, and they also tell me how serious this issue is about putting people in harm's way, because the lives of that family are changed forever based on these severe injuries that this soldier undertook.

With regard to the situation in Iraq, our military personnel have done everything we have asked. We can never thank our troops enough, and we owe them. We have an obligation to them to give them the best opportunity for success.

The problem is that we have never really stood here and talked about a strategy for success. A successful strategy has to be comprehensive. That is what has been needed from the outset of the conflict in Iraq, and it is still needed today as Iraq descends into civil war.

A strategy for success in Iraq requires more than a military strategy. We have the most powerful military in the world, without a doubt. If military might alone could succeed, we would be done by now.

The situation in Iraq has always required a more comprehensive effort. We need a plan for political and diplomatic and economic success.

Now, just a couple of months ago, Congress was actually handed just such a strategy in the report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The report was put together by some of the greatest statesmen, diplomats and military minds of our generation. This was a bipartisan group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton. These venerable men and women painstakingly considered all the available options. They talked to military strategists, generals, Iraqis and each and every type of individual who might hold the key to a way forward. They acknowledge that each recommendation of the Iraq Study Group carries its own risk factors. But in the end, this bipartisan group unanimously endorsed a plan to move forward. And in doing so, they rejected the overly simplistic discussion that seemed to dominate the 2006 election season when the primary options that were discussed were either stay the course or cut and run. In fact, the Iraq Study Group report provides reasoned arguments against both of these options.

As for staying the course, the Iraq Study Group states that, and I quote, "The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are the subjects of a repressive American occupation. As one U.S. official said to us, `Our leaving would make it worse. The current approach without modification will not make it better.' "

As for an immediate withdrawal, the Iraq Study Group states that if we left tomorrow we would simply leave an immense power vacuum in Iraq. The results would have devastating effects on the global economy, the region and the Iraqi people themselves. And specifically, the report says that "a premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions."

Now, the resolution we are debating right now addresses the proposal to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by just over 20,000. Let's remember that the Iraq Study Group specifically took a hard look at the surge option. In discussing the merits of a surge the Iraq Study Group report said that a surge "might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area."

Furthermore, many generals and other military strategists have roundly criticized the surge strategy.

Now, I have long believed that the lack of independent, accurate assessments of our progress has hampered our efforts to secure Iraq and assist in its reconstruction. I strongly believe that the U.S. cannot linger in making the important policy and strategic decisions recommended in the report.

That is why we need to follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report. U.S. forces should be redeployed from combat missions to support functions. Our troops should be supplementing the Iraqi Army. And at the same time, we have to move forward on the economic development front and the political front and the regional diplomacy front.

The resolution we are debating today is very simple. We support our troops and we oppose the surge strategy. I will vote for this resolution.

As I said before, our troops have done everything we have asked of them. Their performance is a source of great admiration and pride for everyone in America. At a minimum, we owe them a new approach and a thoughtful approach to the situation in Iraq and the pursuit of a comprehensive strategy for success.

Mrs. Tauscher: Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Weiner: Madam Speaker, first of all, I think that I speak for all of our colleagues and all of us here in paying tribute to the 137,000- some-odd American men and women who are fighting in Iraq, the 25,000 or so that are fighting in Afghanistan. We are here to do what we can to honor them. We are trying to express our patriotism. We are trying to do what we are obligated to do by standing up here.

The notion that it is our patriotic duty, our obligation to sit silent and to do whatever the President thinks is best and blindly walk in that direction, that is not the way to honor the troops that are there. I can imagine the challenges that they face every single day, and would the message going back to them be most appropriate that just as often as they wake up in the deserts of Iraq trying to figure out why people are shooting at them and what they can do to stop it, they should know that every single day we here in Congress are trying to think about ways to make their mission safer and make it more possible for them to accomplish their mission and to extract them as soon as possible. We pray that they are successful. Although I strongly oppose the President's initiative, that I am going to vote "yes" on this resolution, I pray that they are successful. I pray we don't lose another life. We want them to be successful. But it is not enough just to be silent and to be prayerful. We also have to act.

Some in this Chamber have objected to this resolution because what it seeks to do is to do two things: one is the thing that I have done already, which is to pay tribute to the troops, something we all share in doing; and two is begin on a path of oversight. It is not surprising at all to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle have such a difficult concept with this idea of doing oversight over something the President proposes. They have done no oversight over how the money has been spent over there, and so as a result, we found out in the first month of the Democratic Congress that a $12 billion pallet of currency was delivered to Iraq and promptly disappeared. We had hearings last week that showed that even Mr. Bremer and officials on the ground from the administration have no idea where $12 billion disappeared to. So it is not surprising that my Republic friends have a difficult time figuring out what it is we are doing here. We are doing oversight, and we are going to do more of it.

We are doing oversight over the equipment that the troops had. This weekend there were stories coming outside of Iraq that Iranian-built armor-piercing projectiles were being used in roadside bombs. It reminded us again that the troops had been sent there without sufficient hardware, without sufficient protective gear, without sufficient armor-plated vehicles to be able to do their job. We are going to do oversight on that as well.

And I have to say that as part of the oversight that we are doing today, we are doing oversight on how the troops are being used. And let us not kid ourselves. The troops have done a remarkable job. They have done just about every single thing we have asked. They brought down a dictator. They set up a trial. They allowed a government to be stood up. They built roads and bridges. They have done an extraordinary job, and we in this House support them in that work.

But now what is their mission? Their mission is essentially to stand in the middle of a shooting match of the worst order. It is not over a patch of land. It is not a shooting match over what a border is going to be. It is not a shooting match even over oil. It is a shooting match of the most ingrained type between Shia and Sunni that goes back hundreds of years. Are our troops going to solve that conflict with 20,000 troops or 40,000 troops? I don't believe so. And even worse, I believe it is an untenable mission to be giving them. They are essentially in a schoolyard where everyone wants to fight.

And I have to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, over and over and over again today I have heard this dynamic being described that if we were to leave or to support this resolution, we would let down our allies, we would embolden our enemies, and we would betray the Iraqi people. In fact, this policy does all of those things. Let us look at it.

What does this policy say to our allies? Well, it says to our allies in Afghanistan we are not going to devote the resources there necessary for you to do the job. This isn't an abstract notion. You can watch it happen every single day. So long as we have 140,000 troops or 130,000 troops in this shooting match largely in Baghdad, we are watching as Afghanistan slips further and further back into the hands of the Taliban.

We have heard, for example, from our so-called ally the Saudis, and what have they said? They have been most telling. They said recently, well, to you, the citizens of the United States, if you pull your troops out, we are going to be forced to put resources in to support our Sunni brethren. So the Saudis have said if the American troops leave, we are going to have to jump in on the side of our Sunni brethren in Baghdad. What does that say? What does that say? That says they will jump into a blood-letting, but they won't come in now to help us stabilize Baghdad. They have argued, essentially, that the only reason they are not involved is our troops are. Some ally. Some message we are sending to our ally Saudi Arabia. What they are saying is, You had better keep your boys dying because otherwise we are going to have to send ours in.

That is exactly what we want. We want them to send they resources in. We want them to take ownership of this.

And the same is true with Egypt and other allies in the region. They have said to us, You had better keep doing what you are doing, Mr. President. We are getting exactly the wrong message.

And I have also heard my colleagues speak frequently today about emboldening our enemies. Well, it seems like just about anything Democrats propose is emboldening our enemies.

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

But they are happy for another reason, and I say this particularly to my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are happy because I am truly concerned about the threat that Iran poses not only to the United States but to the world. Do you think we are in a position right now with our military stretched so thin that if we needed to act against Iran, we could? No. Our engagement in Baghdad, adding more and more and more troops, has stretched us thinner and thinner and thinner. And the most happy people in the world are the tyrants in Iran because they know they can get away with just about anything. And if you think I am wrong about that, take a look at the war back last year on the northern border of Israel. Hezbollah felt completely unencumbered, which is essentially, as we all know, an agent of Iran. They felt completely unencumbered again just to attack a democracy in the region because they knew that all of us were stretched entirely too thin to be able to respond. So this notion that we are going to send the wrong message to our enemies is completely wrong.

Do you know what would send the right message to our enemies, I say to my colleagues? You take some of those troops out of Baghdad, you put them on the Iranian border. That is how you send them a message. You get them out of the shooting match, but you keep them in the neighborhood. You keep them right on the border of Iran and you say, We don't need 140,000, but we are going to make sure you don't export any more problems. We are going to seal off the schoolyard.

And, finally, I have heard it said that this will be an abandonment of the Iraqi people. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there is no element here that I am more disappointed with, and I think I speak virtually for all of us. Our troops are in there trying to create stability in Iraq, and for some reason, overwhelming numbers of Iraqis say that they think it is okay to shoot at our troops. It is outrageous. It is outrageous. Our troops are in there trying as best they can to build this country, put it back together, and the Iraqi people over and over again are saying, You know what, it is kind of okay when I read stories about snipers shooting at our troops.

The Iraqi people have to have a moment where they confront the reality of the situation. Everyone agrees, I think, and whenever I say that, I hear someone come to the floor and think that everything is going just fine in Iraq, but just about everyone agrees that the Iraqi people themselves ultimately have to take responsibility for their own country.

Are we creating an environment that is more likely to happen or less likely to happen? Well, there is no sign that it is happening; so the de facto response to my own question is that it is not happening. But I would argue that every time we stand up and put additional troops in, we push the Iraqi people further from the point where they have to confront that they have to take control. Might it be messy? Yes. Might it even be bloody? Yes. But one thing is for sure: up to now the Iraqi people have simply said, We are not going to. We don't have to. We have got our boys from the United States of America, and now we have another 20, 30, 40,000 that are going to be rolling into town.

My colleagues, I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle complain, and I have to say, present company excluded, it sounded a little like whining most of the day. I have heard, well, we need more choices. I have heard we need more bills. I have heard we need more language. There are going to be plenty of opportunities to confront these issues, but today my colleagues have to confront the choice in front of them. Sometimes in this job you have to say "yea" or "nay." And this week what you have to say "yea" or "nay" on is a resolution that is exquisite in its simplicity. It says two things and two things only. It says we support the troops. We are going to keep them safe. We are going to keep them secure. We are going to do anything that they need to show our support. And, two, we disapprove of the way the President wants to increase the number of troops going there. That is it. You are going to get to vote on other things later on because we are not done. Many of us believe very strongly that we need major tactical changes, and I know Mr. Murtha has a plan. The Blue Dog Caucus has a plan for more transparency. There are going to be plenty of choices. You are going to get oversight.

I know it has been years, I say to my colleagues, since you have seen any around here, but you are going to get it. But today what we have is a simple proposition. It is the same proposition that is being discussed in coffee shops, in church socials, in corner stores all around this country, and that is: Do we support what the President is doing by increasing our engagement rather than reducing it? That is what this is about. And all of the foot stamping and all of the complaining and all of the whining, I want another bill, I want different language, I want to deal with something different, I want a hug, well, for the time being this is the choice that you are confronted with.

If you believe that this surge is the right policy, you have a simple vote. You can vote "no." If you believe that you don't want to support the troops, and there is no one like that, you can vote "no." But this resolution is the beginning of finally starting to do what the American people are thirsting for, and that is this Chamber is a place where we stand up and say whether we support these things or not.

I urge a "yes" vote.

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

I want to take a couple of minutes to answer a couple of things that my friend said.

First Mr. Weiner said, "We aren't done." Madam Speaker, that is one thing that I am worried about. He said that we want more choices, more bills, more language. Not this Member. I will settle for a "no" on this resolution. I haven't asked for more bills, more choices, or different language.

And the problem with this resolution, the gentleman said this is a very good resolution because it is very clear, very concise, and gives us clear choices. This resolution retroactively condemns an action that has already been taken. That is the movement of reinforcements into the theater. You already have the 82nd Airborne in the theater. That is part of the reinforcing force. They are already in there. You already have a brigade from the 82nd Airborne in one of the nine sectors right now, operating, boots on the ground as we talk. So you aren't prohibiting the President from sending reinforcements.

He said that American forces are being stretched thinner and thinner and thinner.

We have 2\1/2\ million Americans in uniform. We have roughly 138,000 before the surge. Now a little more than 140,000 counting the ones that are already in country. When they are in country and the support troops are there and less the troops who will be rotating home at that point, you will have at the high point, we are told by DOD, about 157,000 troops. That is less than we had a year ago in country, I would say to the gentleman. So that is not a huge surge.

He stated that we are going to be drawn thinner, and I quote, "thinner and thinner and thinner."

So you have about 160,000 troops, a little less than that, max. That is not 10 percent of the 2.5 million persons who are presently wearing the uniform of the United States.

Secondly I will say to my friend, I want to say to folks who listen to this debate, because this statement about us being drawn thin and therefore being susceptible to problems and being vulnerable is a message that has come up several times in this debate.

We have more than doubled the precision firepower of this country since the last administration, that is the Clinton administration. You have more than doubled the precision firepower. That means the ability, if people should give the United States a need to respond militarily, the ability to send precision systems that can explode right straight through goalposts at long distances and handle lots of stuff.

Now, the gentleman is very concerned about Iran. I share that concern. And I share the concern the gentleman has about the centrifuge activity and the proposed centrifuge activity that Iran has discussed and may at some point develop with the aid of the Russians and the Chinese.

I would just remind the gentleman that those precision systems, that doubling of the precision firepower that we now have, is probably the right medicine if we should have to keep the military option open and on the table with respect to Iran. So we will watch them as they try to walk down this road to developing a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Weiner: Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Hunter: I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Weiner: Madam Speaker, I honor the gentleman for his mastery of the numbers. Perhaps you can enlighten me, what is the number of Reserves that are in country now?

Mr. Hunter: We have been up as high as 40 percent National Guard and Reserve, and that is a deliberate policy of the United States. When we went to war in Vietnam, the Guard and Reserve for practical purposes stayed home. And we said from here on out, when we go to war, we go to war with what is known as a total force.

So you have a Reserve element that goes to war. If you were over in Iraq, as the gentlelady has been there a number of times, you will see Reservists flying C-130s, doing a lot of support missions, and you have National Guard units on the ground.

Mr. Weiner: If the gentleman will yield for a further question, are there any there doing second or third tours of duty?

Mr. Hunter: Certainly. I can tell the gentleman, my son has done two tours of duty. There are a number of people that have done that.

Mr. Weiner: If the gentleman will further yield, is it not your view that that has a dramatic toll only those families and communities who are not regular army who are there as Reservists and are being called back tour after tour? You don't think that is stretching those communities thin?

Mr. Hunter: I will just tell the gentleman, in the MOSs that our folks sign up for, especially the aerial supportive MOSs, that is always out there, that they are going to have to go, because where the armed services go, where the active folks go, let me just finish my answer to the gentleman. He asked me a question. I am going to ask answer it.

If you are in a supportive service that involves things likes aerial refueling, C-130 work, which is the workhorse of the U.S. military, you understand when you go in, you are going to be making probably multiple tours. If you join the U.S. Marines right now, the recruiter tells you as you sign up, you can be guaranteed that you will go to Iraq.

I would say to the gentleman another thing: Knowing those things, we are meeting all of our enlistment goals in the Guard and Reserve. So the active duty people who are undertaking multiple tours are coming back and reenlisting. And knowing that, knowing that you are exposed to multiple tours, we have more people signing up for the Guard, for the Reserve.

And interestingly, I will tell the gentleman, the place where we have had problems with recruiting in the last year from the information I have seen is the Naval Reserve, which doesn't do tours in Iraq. But the combat arms have multiple tours.

Mr. Weiner: If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman very much. I think what you have just described is a military stretched thin, my friend. I think when you have people in the Reserves doing three tours, that are being taken away from their communities, I think that is a military stretched thin.

Mr. Hunter: Reclaiming my time, I will just tell the gentleman this: There is a difference between people in specialties spending more time doing multiple tours, and I will say to him again, almost all Marines know that they are going to do multiple tours, either in country or on the so-called float, which is the deployment around the world, because they are the 9/11 force for this country. So that is something that people do.

That is a far cry from not having enough firepower to respond to an Iranian crisis. We still have tons of firepower to respond to an Iranian breakout or surprise, a technological surprise, with respect to development of nuclear systems.

Madam Speaker, if the gentlewoman from California has more speakers, I will enjoy listening to them, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. Tauscher: Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. McIntyre: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the resolution before us that disapproves of the President's recent announcement to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am committed to supporting our troops and making sure that they have the resources they need. I always have and I always will. There is no debate about supporting our troops. This resolution clearly and unequivocally states that both the Congress and the American people support our valiant men and women in uniform. Our troops have been and are continuing to do an excellent job, and they deserve our support.

Yet, overall, our military is being stretched thin, and now we face the prospect of not only sending over 20,000 more combat troops into Iraq, but also another 15,000 troops on top of that, at minimum, to support those troops, with additional military police, intelligence units and supply function personnel. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it might take even more troops than that. So reality is that we are now looking at a total of 35,000 or more troops actually involved in this potential surge.

We need to be moving toward a successful conclusion in Iraq; not with a timetable, but with definite benchmarks of accountability that are meant to ensure that the Iraqis are taking control of their own security and future. The Iraqi army, the national police and the local police in Iraq must take responsibility for their own country and communities, and only by lessening the American footprint in Iraq will we empower the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their own self- governance and ultimately their own destiny.

Is not just my opinion or the opinion of some here, it is exactly what General John Abizaid, our U.S. Commander said, when I visited Iraq and when he testified before Congress.

We cannot continue to increase troop levels in Iraq at the expense of allowing the Taliban to come back into power in Afghanistan. The Global War on Terrorism is exactly what the name says. It is a global war, not just an Iraqi war, and we cannot let our troop strength be so focused on what is becoming a civil war in Iraq that we lose focus on threats that face us elsewhere in the world.

Previous surges have not solved the problems in Iraq. Let us not be fooled into thinking that this one will.

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

Madam Speaker, I have got one speaker left here, Mr. Franks of Arizona, but let me just say one thing before he speaks. I appreciate the debate. I think we have had a good discussion this evening.

I wanted to say one thing about Charlie Norwood. He passed away. He was a Member of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I was a member of that brigade. I had a very average tour, a very easy tour in Vietnam. I did nothing special. But Charlie Norwood was a real hero who won the Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars in Vietnam.

I thought to commemorate Charlie, I have got my copy of General Douglas MacArthur's farewell speech that I quoted earlier, and let me just quote a paragraph about duty, honor and country that Douglas MacArthur thought so represented the fighting man in this country.

He said these of words, duty, honor and country, "They teach to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength."

I think that largely represented our great friend Charlie Norwood.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Franks of Arizona: Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I certainly add my own feelings toward the words that you just spoke on behalf of Charlie Norwood. None of us know when we have to step from this floor for the last time. This man, while he was here, maintained a sense of honor. He was always committed to doing those things that would bring better hope to future generations. He was honorable among us, and we can certainly salute that kind of brotherhood that he represented to all of us.

I certainly pass along my own condolences and also congratulations to his family, because in a sense Charlie Norwood's dreams were fulfilled in that he dreamed to be a statesman, and he certainly rose to that occasion in every way.

I suppose it is in a sense a little bit of a statement to all of us that the brief moments that we have here should be spent debating those things that would truly make a difference, not only for this generation, but for whatever generations remain to America.

Madam Speaker, tonight I think that is what I would like to talk about. There is an old Indian Iroquois quote that says that the secret to the universe is in the true naming of things, and as we debate tonight, it is easy for us to see each other as the opposition or as the enemy.

I think tonight, if all else should fail us, we must consider who the real enemy here is. This one is a little different than those that we faced in the past, because even though there are parallels, this is an ideology. This is not just a group of people that we face in Islamic jihadism. It is an ideology that I believe has the seeds of danger in it for the entire human family.

I think it becomes very, very important for us all to understand that one thing, because in a sense right now the battle that goes on across the world related to terrorism is a battle between those who are deeply committed with their lives to the destruction of the Western World on one side of the equation, and on the other side of the equation the opposition is largely asleep, and I think that nothing represents a greater danger to us than not only knowing what we face, but being completely oblivious to its potential.

I believe that the ideology of jihad has the ability and even the propensity to germinate and one day threaten the entire human family. And even though America is engaged in some type of fight against terrorism and jihadism in nearly 70 countries across the world, whether we realize it or not, in the eyes of the leaders of jihad, Iraq is the frontline of that conflict, and it becomes profoundly important that we recognize it from their perspective, because in any ideology, one must understand that to grow, it must somehow take root and resonate in the hearts of the potential recruits.

One of the things that causes this ideology to grow is a sense of victory on the battlefield, and leader after leader in the jihadist movement have said that Iraq is critical to the survival of their ultimate goal.

I know that we have faced dangerous ideologies before. There are a lot of people who have parents and family members that faced the Nazis down in World War II, and yet just a cursory glance at history helps us understand that the parallel here is real.

There was a time when the Nazis were just a bunch of lunatics riding bicycles across France, and nobody paid much attention to them. They spewed a hate and a sense of superiority over their fellow human beings and even a sense of being willing to subordinate the innocent life of others for their own ideology. We did not pay much attention to them until it began to grow and the fires of this ideology began to spread across Europe.

In the final analysis, the Western world and people of freedom did not wake up until this thing had become a monster, and when we finally did engage it, the ensuing war was so difficult and so horrible that at the end of the day, 50 million people had died.

I will just say this, Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill warned us in a way that I think is pretty profound. He said, If you will not fight, then you can easily win without bloodshed. If you will not fight, then your victory will be sure and not too costly. You may come to the moment when you will have to fight and all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse moment. You may have to fight when there is no hope for victory because it is still better to perish than to live as slaves.

I submit in the ideology that we face tonight that is the equation that is before us.

Mrs. Tauscher: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to rise to close this debate from our side and say how impressed I have been by the debate that I have heard today. It has been about 11 hours. We are going to have tomorrow and debate on Friday and Thursday, and this is the first real serious debate we have had about the President's policies in Iraq since the vote in October of 2002.

This week the House is considering a bipartisan resolution introduced by Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, Tom Lantos of California, and Walter Jones of North Carolina, which supports our troops and opposes the President's plan to add 21,500 more combat troops in Iraq.

People have talked quite a lot tonight about the size and the scope of the resolution, but it is elegant and it is certainly spare in the fact that it is about 100 words, but it is significant because of what it says.

The resolution is very straightforward. It says:

"Resolved by the House of Representatives that:

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

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

Those supporting this bipartisan resolution strongly support our troops and our veterans. Let us be clear on this one fundamental principle. We are honoring the service of our troops by asking the difficult questions about this war. In conducting this debate, we must be ever mindful of the sacrifices our military personnel and their families are making during this war and the toll it is taking on them and their families and our veterans. Each Member must determine for themselves, in a manner worthy of our troop's sacrifice, whether the President's plan will succeed in making Iraq more stable.

I, for one, do not believe it will, and I strongly believe and hope that my colleagues will support this resolution and the debate that is coming forth in the next 2 days

Mr. Rahall: Madam Speaker, scripture tells us, "David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds and with every leader." Throughout the war in Iraq, the President has failed to adequately consult with the American people and their Congress or other countries in the region whose best interests are also served by a stable Iraq. He has long recognized that staying the course in Iraq is not working, yet he stubbornly stays the course.

The Congress has a duty to make sure once sent into harm's way for good cause, our troops are equipped and supplied with everything necessary to accomplish a given mission. The Congress has an equal duty to change or end a given mission, when circumstances, realities and rationales demand it.

We in Congress want to work with him to bring our troops home from a more stable Iraq. We should not only ensure that the people are given a full accounting of what the President is expecting of our troops in the coming months, and how much it will cost our Treasury, but we must also demand accounting of what the war in Iraq has cost the U.S., and our men and women in uniform, over the last four years.

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

Last November 7th, the American people sent a clear message to Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq.

Now, after nearly four years of bloodshed, death and destruction, Congress is likely to go on the record as opposing the plan for escalating the war. No longer will Congress stand by while the President wages a war that defies logic, common sense and human decency. This week, we shall take a stand. This week, we tell the administration: "Enough is enough. Stop ignoring the American people. Stop ignoring your generals and retired generals, including Colin Powell. Stop ignoring the foreign policy experts. Stop wasting American lives and resources on this disastrous, unnecessary conflict."

This debate represents an important turning point in the public dialogue about Iraq, and so I welcome it. But it is not enough. The escalation must be stopped, but we cannot let the momentum against the war subside after we deal with the escalation. Our priority must remain ending the fighting and dying in Iraq.

We must end the senseless deaths of service members like Marine Tarryl Hill of Southfield, Michigan, who died only last Wednesday when his vehicle drove over a bomb in Fallujah. Tarryl Hill was just 19 years old. He had joined the military to help finance his education to become a chemical engineer, but instead he became the 120th serviceman from Michigan to die in Iraq. I don't want to see one more promising life like Tarryl's extinguished on the altar of this administration's arrogance.

The loss of Tarryl's life brings to mind the bereavement of another patriot from Michigan, Lila Lipscomb of Flint, whose 26 year old son Michael died in Iraq in April 2003 when his helicopter was shot down. A member of a military family, Ms. Lipscomb initially believed President Bush when he told the nation that the war was necessary for our national security. But her son's letters from the front lines and his tragic death showed her that he never should have gone to Iraq.

I need not spend much time explaining my opposition to the troop surge, which is simply even more "more of the same." This policy takes us in precisely the opposite direction recommended by the generals and the experts. It would simply expose GI's to more intense door-to-door fighting, in the vain hope that, in the meanwhile, the Iraqis will miraculously reconcile.

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

The ultimate, unequivocal authority of the Congress is the power of the purse. We must use it. Supporters of the president's failed Iraq policy have argued that using Congress' spending power to end the war means that we don't "support the troops." It is beyond absurd to suggest that those of us who favor ending funding for the war would simply abandon the troops in the field without the equipment and supplies they need. Every piece of legislation proposing cutting funds for combat operations would require the spending necessary to bring the troops home safely.

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

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

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

Mrs. Tauscher: Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 157, further proceedings on the concurrent resolution will be postponed