---

Mr. Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from Michigan, let me make just a couple of comments.

I think, as we all know, the Iraq Study Group did allow for a surge in troops on a temporary basis to allow us to achieve our objectives.

Also, as a previous speaker, I was negligent in not acknowledging the comments of my colleague from Maryland when he recognized the contributions that were being made by our intelligence folks in Iraq and around the world.

There are some who believe and are confused by what they may believe or perceive to be the callous omission of any reference to the contributions being made by our intelligence folks in Iraq today. It is a significant shortcoming of this resolution, and I am thoroughly confused as to why they would be omitted in this resolution, and their contributions. They are working side by side each and every day with our Armed Forces, and this resolution forgets to even recognize that contribution.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize my colleague from Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee, who thoroughly recognizes and has met with these people in Iraq and Afghanistan and understands their contributions. He is as confused as I am as to why they do not want to recognize their contributions. I yield 7 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Rogers of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty important debate, and I have to tell you I am a little confused by my friends' resolution. It is a very complex problem.

When you look at the problem in Iraq today, you have really two distinct problems. One is the ethnosectarian violence that is self- sustaining now in Baghdad. It was a precursor to al Qaeda activity to actually create conflict between the Sunnis and the Shias, and unfortunately, it has raised to a level that it is self-sustaining.

And you have an al Qaeda-Sunni insurgency happening west of Baghdad that certainly warrants our attention, and the troops there have called for reinforcements. They said, give us reinforcements, we need them badly. Al Qaeda is settling in to make safe haven here.

And part of the plan or the surge in fact says that we are going to reinforce those soldiers who are fighting al Qaeda, and they have asked to be reinforced.

The simplicity of the resolution concerns me greatly. I am not in favor of sending American troops, the other 16,000, into the streets of Baghdad to intervene in the sectarian violence. I am not.

I am in favor of supporting the soldiers who have asked and should receive reinforcements fighting al Qaeda in the west.

This resolution really makes no difference in that fight. It makes no difference in the complexities and how we win and get our soldiers home. This resolution does not bring one soldier home. This resolution does not make one soldier safer. This resolution does not bring to justice one terrorist. This resolution offers not one alternative.

I think we made some devastating mistakes in Iraq: The extent of our de-Baathification, and what that has meant for us winning the peace, the dismissal wholesale of military units and what that has meant to our ability to sustain peace, the shuttering of nearly 300 state-owned enterprises and what that has done for unemployment and not allowing us to sustain the peace, our failure to focus our national power on solving some of these basic problems.

We, in fact, and this is up to us, have allowed politics to creep onto the field of battle, and that has created some very real problems for us and our soldiers. We have seen, because of that politics that has crept into the battlefield in Iraq and what that has meant, it has created some inefficiencies. I, the other day, have counted up 12 different groups or agencies or Departments that have some ability to provide reconstruction money in Iraq. Twelve. That is a problem.

Some conflicting policies. Our soldiers will tell you that they feel that they are handcuffed. They at least have one hand cuffed behind their back because of the politics that have crept in that changed the way they are allowed to engage the enemy as they see him and protect themselves. Politics crept onto the battlefield.

The turf battles between the State Department and DOD, I wish they didn't exist. We all know they do. We took a very large, bureaucratic, civilian organization and set it down in the middle of Baghdad and wondered why it has some inefficiencies. But these are things that we can change. We can do that.

And my mother told me that if you are going to tell me what I am doing wrong, you better be prepared to tell me how to do it right.

The resolution before us today says nothing of an alternative. We have soldiers who are getting up every day engaging themselves in the fight for liberty and defense and going after al Qaeda targets in the west and trying to find al Qaeda elements locating and spurring on to self-sustaining ethno sectarian violence. It does nothing to tell them that we, A, support them and, B, will give them all the tools and make the changes that we know we can to make it possible for them to come home to their families soon.

This afternoon I am going to do that. I am introducing a resolution, it is fairly comprehensive, that will allow us to focus our national power without sending 20,000 troops to Iraq. It will help target the unemployment that we know is fueling terrorism in Iraq today. Clear rules of engagement for our troops, calling for the repatriation of the one to two million Iraqis who are middle class Iraqis, their doctors and lawyers and engineers and their teachers who fled Iraq in this turmoil to engage our allies to get them back and invest them in the future of Iraq.

What disturbs me most, Mr. Speaker, about this resolution, is its clear purpose is to divide those of us in this Chamber.

As I said earlier, I don't support the surge in Iraq that targets sectarian violence in Baghdad. I think that must have an Iraqi face for that to be successful, and I think we can provide logistics and command and control and we can provide combat air support and special operation support to make them successful as they move through Iraq. I think we can do that.

But this resolution does nothing to bring Members together to solve this problem. If you win this vote today, and this passes, we will have solved not one problem for one soldier who gets up this morning hoping and praying that he can accomplish his mission and come home to his family, not one. It truly seeks to find the differences of those of us in this Chamber on how we move forward in Iraq. There is nothing constructive in that, nothing constructive in that.

There is a young soldier that I met, I visited him down in Brooks Army Medical Center. He asked that his leg be amputated so that he could have full range of motion so he could pass the physical training test for the United States Army and go back to Iraq. And he was going through all that very painful process of getting it fitted and going through the physical training and trying to rehabilitate himself.

And as I got ready to leave, I said, is there anything that I can do for you as a Member of Congress? And he turned and said yes, sir, there is. Just don't give up on us.

Now, if this soldier can believe in this mission, and he can get up every day and fight through the sweat and the pain and the anguish of a lost limb so that he can get back in the business, if he can roll up his pant leg every day and fit that prosthesis, isn't there a way, and shouldn't we do better and roll up our sleeves to work together to find a solution? We got in this together, we must get out of it together.

We need to stop the division that this resolution brings to this House and start working together. Our soldiers deserve better. America deserves better. The future of this country and safety and security deserve better.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, would you please tell us how much time is left?

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of California): The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has 41 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 4 hours, 13½minutes.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. Ramstad: Mr. Speaker, the President has said for more than 4 years that he would follow the advice of his commanders on the ground with respect to troop levels in Iraq. That is why I am both surprised and disappointed the President did not follow the advice given as recently as 2 months ago by the Army and Marine Corps Chiefs of Staff, as well as General John Abizaid, General George Casey, and General Colin Powell. All of these highly respected commanders expressed their opposition to increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

As General Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East said, an increase in U.S. troops would be counterproductive because it will perpetuate the dependency of Iraqi forces, create more targets and stretch our military too thin.

Until recently the top ground commander in Iraq, General George Casey, has said that sending more American troops into Baghdad and Anbar province would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington. As General Colin Powell, one of the most respected military leaders of our generation put it, a surge was already tried in Baghdad last fall and it failed. Now it will only further delay Iraqis taking control of their own security.

"It will only further delay Iraqis taking control of their own security." That is from General Colin Powell, who also noted that he had not heard any generals on the ground in Iraq ask for more troops.

Mr. Speaker, the original mission of U.S. troops in Iraq was to liberate the country and turn it over to the Iraqi people. We need to get back to that original mission. Our brave troops have done an absolutely heroic job of liberating the people of Iraq. Now our troops should get back to the original mission of training Iraqi security forces so they can secure their own country and turn it over to the Iraqi people. General Casey has long argued that the principal emphasis of American policy should be training Iraqi security forces and handing over responsibility to the Iraqis.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq that we passed in the fall of 2002 was never intended to authorize the use of American troops to police a civil war. It was never intended to provide justification for sending 21,500 more American troops into the middle of a civil war. As former Navy Secretary in Virginia, Senator John Warner, put it: "Whom do they shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?" With 325,000 Iraqi security forces already trained, Mr. Speaker, that is according to our Defense Department, it is time for Iraqi troops to step up to the frontlines in Baghdad, Anbar province, and Fallujah. It is time to accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces and the turnover of security to the Iraqis so our troops can come home with their mission completed. It is time for enforceable benchmarks to measure the progress of Iraqi security forces. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a surge in diplomacy, not a surge in troops to mend a broken country. It is time for a stepped-up regional peace effort in the Middle East to settle this conflict.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should listen to our commanders on the ground. We should follow the advice of the Army and Marine Corps Chiefs of Staff. We should follow the advice of General Abizaid, General Casey, and General Powell when they spoke up in December. It is time for Congress to step up and express our strong support of our brave troops, our continued support of the original mission, and our opposition to the increase of U.S. troops to police a civil war in Iraq.

I urge a "yes" vote on the resolution.

Mr. Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to Mr. Hensarling from Texas.

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

Mr. Hensarling: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a sad day for our institution, the House of Representatives, and I think it is a sad day because I sense this debate has very little to do with coming together as a Nation to face the greatest threat that we have faced since the Cold War. But instead I sense and I fear it has much to do with politics as usual.

I have heard speaker after speaker come to the floor to decry faulty intelligence, to decry how our Nation became involved in Iraq in the first place. I have heard speakers decry how the war had been conducted. But, Mr. Speaker, regardless of how we got into Iraq, regardless of whose war it might have been once, today it is an American war, and we must accept that fact.

As the people's elected Representatives, certainly we should look at this new strategy. We need to take an open and honest look at it. And certainly we are all disappointed that the previous strategy has not yielded the desired result. But, Mr. Speaker, very, very much hangs in the balance.

I myself do not know if the new strategy will work. I think it can work. I hope it will work. And I know it is at least a strategy that has been recommended by the Iraqi Study Group and our new battlefield commander, General Petraeus. So until such a time as somebody brings to me a more compelling strategy or until such a time that somebody convinces me that somehow the security of my country and the security of my family is somehow made better off by our immediate withdrawal and the subsequent implosion of Iraq, I feel we must support the new strategy. Defeat is not an option.

So what are the options, Mr. Speaker? Clearly many, if not most, of the Democrats call for withdrawal from Iraq, as do several of my very respected Republican colleagues. And I respect their views when they are heartfelt. But, Mr. Speaker, since Democrats now control both Houses of Congress, why are we not voting on a withdrawal resolution? And that is one of the reasons this is such a sad day.

I mean, think about it, Mr. Speaker. How do you look a soldier in the eye and say, You know, I don't believe you can succeed in Iraq. I don't believe in your mission. I don't believe you can win this war. And I have the power to bring you home, but I refuse to do it. I refuse to do it. Where is the courage in that resolution? Where is the conviction in that resolution? If you truly believe in your heart of hearts that our soldiers are needlessly risking their lives, don't you have a moral obligation to bring them home? So with lives hanging in the balance, with our national security hanging in the balance, we have a nonbinding politics-as-usual resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is not really all that easy to figure out exactly what it is that the Democrats support. But if they don't put forth their own strategy and yet they want to vote against the new strategy, that says one and only one thing. It says stay the course. It says status quo. If you don't have an alternative and you want to vote against this new strategy, then you are voting to stay the course. The stakes are too high to stay the course.

Now, we all know that fighting this war is very costly. And like many Members of this institution, I have met with the mothers of fallen soldiers. Their burden and sacrifice is solemn and profound. But I never, never, never want to meet with the mothers whose children may perish in the next 9/11 if we accept defeat in Iraq. Iraq must be seen in the larger context of this war with jihadism, with radical Islam. Whether we like it or not, the battle lines are drawn in Iraq. And don't take my word for it. Take the jihadists' word for it. Osama bin Laden has said, "The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

Mr. Speaker, we must soberly reflect on the challenge that we face. Listen to al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's number two in command: "Al Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children." Listen to Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guard's intelligence adviser to the Iranian President: "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization." Listen to Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini: "Even if this means using biological, chemical, and bacterial weapons, we will conquer the world."

This is the enemy we face, Mr. Speaker, and we face him foremost in Iraq.

The consequences of failure in Iraq are immense, the beginning of a Sunni-Shiite genocidal clash as American troop convoys flee the country. The battle for Baghdad will undoubtedly spill over to the entire country. Shiites will most likely win. They will draw in Jordan and Saudi Arabia to the defense of Sunni Iraqis. Iran will rise to the defense of Shia Iraqis. An entire regional war could easily ensue, and what is left of Iraq would become a safe haven for the recruitment, training and financing of radical Islam.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House take great pride in saying that this is the people's House. An AP poll on January 11, 2007, says 70 percent of the American people are opposed to the surge.

With that, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Keller of Florida: Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is the central issue of our time. We are spending $2 billion a week and we are losing 100 American lives a month. Under these conditions, I feel I owe my constituents my best judgment.

Interjecting more young American troops into the cross-hairs of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach. If the President sends these troops anyway, I will support their funding 100 percent so they have the bullets and equipment they need to defend themselves.

I approach this decision with a great deal of angst and humility. I am not trying to micromanage this war. I am just a Member of Congress, not a four-star general. But I have listened to what our country's most well-respected four-star generals have to say about this matter, and Generals Abizaid, McCaffrey and Colin Powell have all said that sending more troops into Baghdad now is not the answer.

Some people will say, if you are not for surging more American troops into Baghdad now, what are you for? What is your plan?

I am for a different kind of surge. I am for a surge of Iraqi troops to take out al-Sadr and his militia, especially since the Iraqi security forces outnumber the Sadr militia by a ratio of 5 to 1. That is 325,000 versus 60,000. I am for a surge of political process by the Iraqi Government to finally reach a deal on sharing oil revenue. I am for a surge of action in implementing the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which were adopted in a bipartisan, unanimous fashion. I am for a surge of gratitude by the Iraqi people, 61 percent of whom think it is okay to kill American troops and 79 percent have a mostly negative view of the United States.

Some people argue that we should support President Bush's decision. I like and respect President Bush. I want him to be successful. Three years ago I could have voted for this surge. But the situation on the ground in Iraq today is very different than it was 3 years ago.

Three years ago, Iraq was not in a civil war. Now it is. Three years ago, Iraq did not have 325,000 of its own security forces to defend itself. Now it does. Three years ago, we didn't know whether surging more American troops into Baghdad would give us a long-lasting impact. Now we know the answer, because we tried the same thing last summer. The benefits were temporary. The body bags were permanent.

We are now told we should trust the Maliki government. I have been down that road before. I personally went to Baghdad and met with the Maliki government officials last summer. I was told by December of 2006 they would have enough security forces that they would need to defend themselves and we would then be in a position to start bringing our troops home. Now they say, give us another year.

We were told when America sent 15,000 of its own troops to surge in Baghdad last summer that the Iraqi troops would be right there beside them. Well, Iraqi troops didn't show up. The benefits of the surge were only temporary.

Mr. Speaker, I voted to authorize the use of force in 2002 because I did not want Saddam Hussein to give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda. Now Saddam is dead and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

We have remained in Iraq for 4 years because we want a unified and secure Iraq, so it doesn't become a haven for terrorists. Unfortunately, it seems the Americans want a unified and secure Iraq more than the Iraqis do.

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist. You decide you are going to mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you, and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots at you. Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn forever? Do you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn? Or do you say to that neighbor, you better step it up and mow your own lawn, or there are going to be serious consequences for you.

Mr. Speaker, sending more young American troops now into the middle of Iraqi civil war violence is not the answer. I will support the troops 100 percent. But we are not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an American military solution. And that is my best judgment.

May God bless our troops, our President and our country.

Mr. Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, I yield 6½minutes to my colleague, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said here on the floor by more than one speaker, or suggested at least, that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror. I disagree. I could not disagree more with that statement. But if you agree with that statement, and if you are casting your vote because you think that is a rationale upon which you can justify your vote, I hope you are sure.

I would say I would hope you are sure because I am in my 23rd year, and I know how this place works. It is a wonderful system, because we almost always have a chance to come back and correct our mistakes. A vote on tax policy? I happen to favor lower taxes. But if we make a tax vote that is a bad vote, we can come back next year and fix it. Or if we spend too much money on transportation this year, we can come back next year and reduce it.

This resolution takes us down a different road. This starts us down a road where, at some point, we won't be able to come back next year and just fix it.

You don't have to believe me. But listen to what our enemies say. I have here the text of a letter that was written on July 9, 2005, from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the author, the second in command in al Qaeda, to al-Zarqawi, the person who at that time was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. "Our intended goal in this age is to establish a caliphate in the manner of the prophet."

Now, I don't claim to be an expert in Islam, but I am told that at one time under this establishment of a caliphate, the caliphate stretched from Spain through the Middle East and Northern Africa to Central Asia and to India. That is a vast stretch. If that is the goal, then we ought to be aware of it, because it becomes a very serious matter.

The first stage of this process is to expel the Americans from Iraq, according to al-Zawahiri.

The second stage, establish an Islamic authority or an emirate, to develop it and support it until it achieves a level of a caliphate over as much territory as you can spread power in Iraq.

The third stage, he says, is to extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage, it may coincide with what came before, he says, the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

So clearly, the al Qaeda leadership believes that Iraq is part of the global situation that we refer to as the global war on terror, and if that is right, and I think at least for me I have to assume that that is their intention, Iraq is certainly part of the global war on terror from a Western perspective. And so what the President has suggested is to take advantage of the assets that we have developed, while training Iraqi soldiers to provide for their own security, and send three brigades into the Sunni Triangle, mostly in Baghdad, to be supported by the 21,500 Americans who he has proposed to send. I heard yesterday that the Iraqi brigades are, in fact, showing up in Baghdad at a 75 percent level, which is better than anyone expected, at least better than I expected. Maybe others expected better.

So I think if we are going to take on this effort to develop a caliphate, as one of the previous speakers said before it gets here, then maybe we ought to do what the commander of the national VFW suggests.

The commander of the national VFW put out a press release, and I have the text of it here. "The national commander of the Nation's largest organization of combat veterans is very concerned that the ongoing debate in Congress about the planned troop buildup will be perceived by those in uniform as a sign that America's lawmakers have given up on them and their mission in Iraq.

"My generation," he said, "learned the hard way that when military decisions are second-guessed by opinion polls or overruled by politicians, it's the common soldier and their families who pay the price.

"There is no question," he said, "that mistakes have been made in the prosecution of the war in Iraq," but "there is no playbook to fight an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy that wears no uniform and acts without conscience, yet our forces have adapted and are performing brilliantly," and I agree with him.

"We fully respect congressional oversight and the first amendment rights of all Americans to debate issues of national importance, but the VFW is very concerned with the tone and timing of it," he said. "We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed."

Mr. Speaker, I think the commander of the national VFW is absolutely right, and I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5¼ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. English of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the current debate on the floor on Iraq policy, I would like to offer the following observations.

First, I respect the President's constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and I appreciate President Bush's offer to entertain suggestions from Congress regarding Iraq policy.

I understand that success in Iraq depends on bipartisan support at home.

I applaud U.S. troops who are serving in Iraq with professionalism and bravery. They deserve the support of all Americans.

It is becoming self-evident that multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the military. Current deployments and those to come will have lasting impacts on recruiting, retention and readiness of the all-volunteer military.

Unfortunately, sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunni and Shia Muslims is increasing, and the failure of Iraqis to reach political settlements and support a unified government greatly contributes to the increased violence.

I believe it is time for Iraq's government and security forces to step forward and bear primary responsibility for internal security.

As the gentleman from North Carolina noted, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, told Congress last November that sending in more U.S. troops would not contribute to success in Iraq because it would prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility.

It is clear that Iraqi public sentiment opposes the continued U.S. troop presence.

In November, the Iraq Study Group called for new diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces that will allow the United States to "begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly."

Unfortunately, the Iraqi Government has made little progress toward assuming more responsibility for security, disbanding militias, reconciling sectarian differences and improving essential services.

Therefore, I have reluctantly concluded that I have to disagree with the President's plan to send in an additional 21,000-plus combat troops. While I applaud the President's reassessment of U.S.-Iraq policy, I joined with several of my colleagues in January in informing the White House that I did not support an expansion of American troop strength on the ground, and nothing that I have learned since has caused me to reconsider my position.

Nevertheless, Congress should not take any action that would endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funding for troops in the field.

Most Americans fundamentally understand the long-term security interests of the United States would be best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in the war against extremists.

Overall U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic strategy should not be regarded as an open-ended commitment but should be conditioned upon the Iraqi Government's meeting benchmarks, including the deployment of additional Iraqi troops in Baghdad, equitable distribution of resources without regard to sect or ethnicity, the use of oil revenues to benefit all Iraqi citizens equitably, and granting military commanders authority to make decisions without political interference.

Mr. Speaker, with very minor edits, the remarks you have just heard from me summarize the resolution on Iraq offered by Senator Warner in the other body. It is one of the alternative resolutions we should be debating here today. Unfortunately, the majority leadership does not want to allow a full and fair debate on Iraq.

When the Democrat leadership in the other body tried to force a vote on the resolution without an opportunity to offer meaningful amendments, the minority was able to insist on their right to a real debate rather than this phony pretense. Unfortunately, we do not have that ability in this Chamber.

So I will vote in favor of the resolution before us as offered, as narrow and as inadequate as it is, but I cannot help but express my frustration that the leadership of the House has squandered an opportunity to allow a full and fair debate with real amendments, not just to Republicans, but to all Members of the House, including their own Members whose voices are stifled by this decision to put political calculations ahead of the national interests and a robust debate.

I am not sure what the leadership of the majority party is afraid of. If they have the votes to reject alternatives, then they lose nothing by allowing them to be offered. If they do not, they will quickly learn, as we did, that if you need to use procedural games to avoid a tough vote, you have already lost on the underlying issue.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for allowing me to be a part of this debate.

Mr. Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mrs. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the time, as we come to the floor to debate this nonbinding, no confidence resolution that is going to serve to discourage our troops and embolden our enemies.

I have noted that this obviously is the best that the Democrats have to offer when it comes to national security and to their thoughts on how we deal with the situation in Iraq, and that is a disappointment to me.

I think that the question that we have to ask is, whose side are you on? Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of winning? Are you on the side of freedom? Or are you on the side of allowing the terrorists to get an upper hand?

And as I begin my remarks, I do want to thank the troops that live in my district, those of the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, members of the National Guard who have served with distinction, Reservists who have been deployed more than once. I want to thank their families, and I want to thank the veterans that served in an advisory capacity to me as we look at these issues and as we make decisions about how best to approach preserving freedom, preserving liberty, and preserving the sovereignty of this great Nation as we know it. I thank them. I am grateful for their sacrifice. I am grateful for their service to this Nation, and I want it to be noted on this day. They have a commitment and a perspective and a love of freedom that few Americans will ever know. I wish that we all did.

I am grateful also that they can articulate so fluently their mission and what they are called on to do every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the 30 countries around the globe where Americans fight to preserve freedom. They articulate this in e-mails and blogs, and even in notes and letters to their Member of Congress.

I also, Mr. Speaker, want to recognize the Kurdish community that calls Nashville, Tennessee home, and recognize their commitment and their appreciation to our U.S. troops. One of the points that many of them make to me regularly and also one of the points that our men and women in uniform make regularly is to remind us of why we are in this fight, why we are in this fight and providing the historical perspective that is so important. This didn't begin on September 11. It did indeed begin long, long, long ago.

Indeed, the radical Islamists have fought Judaism and Christianity not for decades but for centuries. This is something that we all know. The Islamic radicals did get a toe-hold in Iran in the late 1970s with the approach at that point by President Carter, then President Carter, and those around him. And now those radicals tell us, they tell us that Iraq is indeed the central front in the global war on terror. We know that they want to change the Middle East and then they want to change the world. And, Mr. Speaker, that is not the type change that we want. I want my children and grandchildren to live in freedom. I want them to know an America that is free and strong and independent.

Our soldiers are fighting. They are fighting every day. They are fighting the insurgents in the field, they are fighting the battle of ideas; and the battle of ideas is a very, very powerful fight in Iraq at this point in time.

Now, too many in this Chamber want to add another fight to our military men and women, to their agenda every day. They want them to have to fight the battle of public opinion here in the United States. I see that as a disservice to the men and women in uniform. This legislative body does have a role in oversight of the war, but I do believe, I personally believe it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we try to micromanage from the comforts of Washington. I do believe that we should be listening to our troops and our commanders in the field.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina has 25¾ minutes.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, this resolution 63 is first to thank the troops for their service, and we all support them. The second part of the resolution is to oppose the surge.

I quote a great military general, Colin Powell: "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing the communitarian violence, this civil war, would work." He supports our position. He opposes the surge. That is Colin Powell.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Paul: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the resolution and in opposition to the escalation in Iraq. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his very determined and principled effort to end this ill-advised and dangerous war, and I am very pleased that he brought together a group of Members today who are representing the traditional conservative position on war and peace and I deeply appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, this grand debate is welcomed, but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran, which is supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle. This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it appears to oppose the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq.

As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation which finances it. I hope all my colleagues who vote against this surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts, when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don't support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It is nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with the invasion in Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly, getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are recently estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is this: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and preemption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of nonintervention was their position for most of the 20th century, and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the left. Seven years ago, the right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time, the right was outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It is important to recall that the left in 2003 offered little opposition to the preemptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by defunding it, or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase the "war on terrorism" in all honesty has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't have a war against a tactic. It is deliberately vague and nondefinable in order to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere and under any circumstances. Don't forget, the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us, including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquests have driven most wars throughout all of history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own Revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades, our policies have been driven by neoconservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military-industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing U.N. resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now, Iraq will be left in a mess; implying the implausible, that if we stay, it won't be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed, and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We have had enough of both.

Resorting to a medical analogy: A wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insisting on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient. In this case, the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity, here at home, and peace abroad.

There is no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early Presidents was sound then, and it is sound today.

We shouldn't wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and the financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and eventually force us to stop that which we should have never started.

We all know in time the war will be defunded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?

Mr. Hoekstra: At this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Ms. Pryce of Ohio: I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I especially thank you for your leadership on the floor through this very important debate, a hard debate for us here in the House of Representatives and a hard debate for this country.

But, Mr. Speaker, a new plan is being implemented, a new plan with political, economic and military components. Reinforcements are on their way even as we speak. The Iraqis do need to do their part, we know that. President Maliki tells us that they will. And if we reinforce now, they will take it over. They will stand up because they must, and then we will come home.

Mr. Speaker, not everyone believes that this is a good plan. It is sophisticated, it is comprehensive, but not everyone agrees that it is the right plan, and I understand that.

This war certainly hasn't achieved its intended results. The President said "stay the course," and some said no. The President now says, "change the course," and the same folks say no. That's fair; we have room in this great Nation to disagree. But if that is the case, that you don't want to stay the course or change the course, then use the tools and the powers available to you to stop the course.

The tools are at your disposal, the power of the purse to defund the effort. You could repeal the authorization that most of us voted for this in 2002. You could require troop withdrawal. You have that power and you have that right. But, Mr. Speaker, with the world watching, with Islamic fundamentalists, jihadists, just waiting, and with our troops working tirelessly to protect and defend us, don't pass this pointless resolution.

If it meant anything, it would be a different argument, but it won't bring one soldier home sooner and it won't change the course of this war. It has no teeth, no muscle; but most of all, it has no positive value whatsoever for us as a Nation at war. Some people say it sends a message to our Commander in Chief, and I believe that that is true. But that message pales compared to the message it sends to our enemies; our enemies, who pledge that their jihad will last until their religion prevails in the world; not until we are out of Iraq, until their religion prevails in the world; our enemies, who believe it is their religious duty to bring hostility to the West and to America. They are tuned in today, Mr. Speaker, you better believe it, and no doubt they are cheering.

But what this message says to our enemies and to the President and to everybody else in the world is nothing compared to what it says to our troops. This resolution says, Your cause is lost. This impatient Congress says, Thanks, but we have had our fill. This resolution says to our troops that your cause is no longer worthy and your friends have died in vain. And today we learn that this is only the first step in the slow-bleed strategy.

We can't say in the first paragraph that we support them and in the next paragraph that we can't reinforce them. We can't say that first we honor our troops and their service, and in the next breath say that their cause really isn't worth it after all.

Mr. Speaker, our military leaders have a plan. They don't have guarantees, there are no guarantees in war. General David Petraeus asked for these troops. I met him when I was in Iraq. He is one of the country's most qualified, brilliant military leaders. He says this is what is needed.

This plan gives our troops the help they need and gives the Iraqi Government a last chance to stand up and take over. This resolution rejects the only plan on the table. If we reject this plan, then what should we do? We will be at the status quo. What should we do to keep this country free from terror for another 5 years? What should we do to show solidarity? Nothing? What we should do, Mr. Speaker, is defeat this resolution. Don't demoralize our troops.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5½minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Dick Armey, our former majority leader, said in an interview with a major newspaper chain last week that he deeply regretted voting for the war in Iraq. Mr. Army said, "Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the adventure vocally and aggressively." Chris Matthews, on MSNBC on election night, said, "The decision to go to war in Iraq was not a conservative decision historically." And he added that it "asked Republicans to behave like a different people than they intrinsically are."

William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote in 2004 that if he had known in 2002 what he knew then, he would have opposed the war. And in 2005 he wrote that to continue there beyond another year would indicate "not steadfastness of purpose but, rather, misapplication of pride."

What about this surge? The conservative columnist George Will wrote in opposition to it and said it would take a miracle for it to succeed.

Very few people, Mr. Speaker, pushed harder for us to go to Iraq than the columnist, Charles Krauthammer. A few weeks ago he wrote that the Maliki government we have installed there cares only about making sure the Shiites dominate the Sunnis.

"We should not be surging troops in defense of such a government," Krauthammer wrote. "Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war, he can well have it without us."

But listen to what the enlisted men say: Specialist Don Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colorado, now in his second tour in Iraq, told the Associated Press: "What could more guys do? We cannot pick sides. It is like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."

Sergeant Josh Keim of Canton, Ohio, also on his second tour said, "Nothing is going to help. It is a religious war and we are caught in the middle of it."

PFC Zack Clauser, 19, of York, Pennsylvania, told the McClatchy News Service: "This isn't our war. We're just in the middle."

Sergeant Clarence Dawalt, 22, of Tulsa, Oklahoma said, "They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change."

And Sergeant First Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tennessee, said: "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years" and he said that after our raids melt insurgents away, "2 or 3 months later when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."

Saddam Hussein was an evil man, Mr. Speaker, but he had a total military budget only a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of ours, most of which he spent protecting himself and his family and building castles. He was no threat to us at all. As the conservative columnist Charley Reese has written several times, Iraq did not threaten us with war. They did not attack us and were not even capable of attacking us. But even before the war started, Fortune Magazine had an article saying that an American occupation of Iraq would be "prolonged and expensive" and would make U.S. soldiers "sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists."

Now we have had more than 3,000 Americans killed, many thousands more wounded horribly and have spent $400 billion and the Pentagon wants $170 billion more. And as one previous speaker said with all the added medical and veterans' costs, the ultimate cost of this war could reach $2 trillion. There is nothing fiscally conservative about this war. Most of what we have spent has been purely foreign aid in nature, rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, giving free medical care, training police, giving jobs to several hundred thousand Iraqis and on and on and on. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to run another country as we have in reality been doing in Iraq. With a national debt of almost $9 trillion, we can't afford it. To me, our misadventure in Iraq is both unconstitutional and unaffordable. Some have said it was a mistake to start this war but that now that we are there we have to, quote, finish the job and we cannot cut and run. Well, if you find out you're going the wrong way down the interstate, you do not keep going, you get off at the next exit.

There is no way, Mr. Speaker, we can keep all of our promises to our own people on Social Security, veterans' benefits, and many other things in the years ahead if we keep trying to run the whole world. As another columnist, Georgie Anne Geyer, wrote more than 3 years ago, Americans, quote, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.

We should help other countries during humanitarian crises and have trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchanges. But conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents to interventionist foreign policies that create so much resentment for us around the world. We need to return to the more humble foreign policy President Bush advocated when he campaigned in 2000.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to tell all these defense contractors that the time for this Iraqi gravy train with their obscene profits is over. It is certainly no criticism of our troops to say that this was a very unnecessary war. It has always been more about money and power and prestige than any real threat to us or to our people. And this war went against every traditional conservative position I have ever known.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home.

Mr. Thornberry: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Sessions: I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday night the Rules Committee met and after hours of testimony from members of both parties, the Democrat members of the committee voted along party lines to shut out every opportunity for amendments to be a part of this debate of this resolution today that we will be debating for the next 2 days.

Our colleague from Texas, Congressman Sam Johnson, brought an amendment that would have clarified that Congress and the American people support our troops and that funding for our Armed Forces serving bravely in harm's way should not be cut off or restricted in any way.

Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, also brought to the Rules Committee a very comprehensive amendment that would have made clear that Congress supports the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, with its emphasis on providing American commanders serving in Iraq with the strategy and tactical means that they need for success and accelerating cooperation with Iraqi leaders to meet specific goals, as the strategy for moving forward to success in Iraq.

A number of other Members also spent a lot of their evening sitting in the Rules Committee waiting to share their ideas about how to improve this resolution which thus would help America in our message to not only the President but also the world. However, the 13 members of the Rules Committee are the only ones who had the benefit of hearing and debating these good ideas because none of them were given the opportunity to be considered and voted on by the House. Instead, rather than allowing this body to consider good ideas, today we are continuing debate on the floor with a completely closed process to debate a nonbinding resolution with no teeth and serious logistical flaws.

In two short paragraphs, without explicitly stating that funds will not be cut off for our troops that serve in harm's way, the resolution asserts that Congress and the American people will continue to support the members of the Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq. This nonspecific language is something that every single Member of this House already supports. It also states that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to deploy 20,000 reinforcements to Iraq to bolster the mission and provide additional support to the troops already there serving on the ground. This resolution gives no direction on how we should proceed in Iraq. Instead, it settles for some generic language about supporting the troops without guaranteeing that Congress will continue to fund their efforts and stand behind them as they remain in harm's way. And it simply amounts to a vote for the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate about the serious challenges that America faces in not only this fight in Iraq but also against Islamic terrorism. We all understand the cost of failure in Iraq is too great to bear. It would embolden radical Islamic terrorists and give them a base from which to train from and to attack America for generations. But with this resolution, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provide the troops with nothing: no guarantees that we will continue to fund their heroic efforts; no guarantees that Congress will heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group, which notes on page 73 of their report that it would "support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission." Nor does this resolution provide the American people with a clear picture of our direction in Iraq. It simply says "no." It says "no" to the only strategy for success that has been placed forward. President Bush said, "If you disagree with me, then come outthink me." This resolution in its simple form does not do that.

Mr. Speaker, I think Congress can do better than this nonbinding resolution for the status quo of Iraq. I know that a number of my Republican colleagues tried to improve this legislation but were denied that opportunity. But I know that our troops serving in harm's way and the American people deserve better than this simplistic resolution that provides no new ideas, outlines no strategy for victory, and makes no guarantees that we will continue to stand behind our troops with funding. I am greatly disappointed in this resolution and the Democrat majority's efforts to prevent this body from considering meaningful amendments.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

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

Mr. LaTourette: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my friend and classmate, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for yielding me the time, and also for his leadership on this issue, and had the President followed his very respectful letter of January 10, we would not be having this debate on this resolution drafted by the Democratic leadership.

Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I desperately want us to succeed in Iraq, and I was heartened by the Iraq Study Group report, and I was heartened when the President of the United States said we were going to take a fresh approach in Iraq. I fear, however, that this is not a fresh approach, that this is more of the same. I also fear that our course of "more of the same" could lead to the deaths of more Americans.

I know that the President believes in his heart that the surge will succeed. I like and respect the President of the United States, but we tried last year a surge of about 12,000 troops in Operation Together Forward. The result has been an escalation of sectarian violence and attacks on our troops that has been unprecedented and unrelenting.

If I thought that the presence of 21,500 additional American troops in Iraq would quell sectarian violence and stop the killing and aggression towards Americans in Iraq, I would support it. If I thought that the presence of 21,500 new American troops would cause the Maliki government to get their house in order and their country in order and make the Iraqis step up and do their duty to protect their country, I would support it.

Instead, we find ourselves with an Iraqi security force that has more time in training than the young people that we are sending from our country to defend theirs, yet they cannot get the job done. It is time to ratchet up diplomacy, make the Iraqis accountable for their own security, and kick off the training wheels that we have tethered them to.

Even the Pentagon has warned that an escalation of troops in Baghdad could fuel the jihadists, cause an uptick in attacks and embolden al Qaeda even more. What shakes me to the core, however, is that we plan to send these additional troops into harm's way without adequate equipment and vehicles. General Speakes, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Force Development, recently laid out a bleak scenario, a surge without enough armor kits and without enough up-armored trucks.

Others within the military add there won't be enough up-armored Humvees, which even as fortified as they are offer no match for the destruction and the power of the IEDs that are used against our troops. One senior Army official speculated that the only way, the only way, there will be enough Humvees for this surge is if five brigades of up- armored Humvees fall out of the sky.

This prognostication takes me back to what I thought was one of the most insensitive remarks uttered by a public official during the course of this war, the former Secretary of Defense in 2004, who indicated you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that 26 months later we are going into a surge with what we have got instead of what we need. It is not fair to the men and women already in Iraq, nor those on the way, and the costs are too high, both in American lives and also the toll on the American spirit. Make no mistake, like all Americans I support our troops and am eternally grateful for their courage and their sacrifice, and I hope and I pray that we succeed in Iraq.

Some of the troops that will be part of the surge are already in Iraq. I wish our President had chosen a different path, but he did not. I wish my Democratic colleagues had chosen a different approach and allowed my party to offer alternative language, but they did not. It is what it is, but that does not change my resolve that this surge is not in the best interests of this Nation.

May God bless our country, our troops in the field, and the President of the United States.

Mr. Thornberry: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5¼ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Shadegg: I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to discuss a part of this debate that relates to the Intelligence Committee, and I think it is important that I thank them for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I have argued on this floor that this discussion and debate ought to be about more than just Iraq, indeed, that it is about the worldwide jihadist movement to attack us. I have argued and quoted many jihadist leaders who have said their goal isn't just to win in Iraq, but to take that fight to Westerners and, in turn, "unbelievers" throughout the world.

But I am not alone in that view. This is the language of the National Intelligence Estimate written last April, and it warns America in very simple terms. It sets the case forward in two clear sentences, which I hope all of my colleagues have read and thought through.

The first sentence is, "We assess that . . . perceived jihadist success [in Iraq] there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." What does that tell you? If they are successful, if the jihadists who hate us in Iraq are successful there, they will carry that struggle on elsewhere. Ask yourself, where is elsewhere? I would suggest to you elsewhere is Great Britain. I would suggest to you elsewhere is Japan. I would suggest to you elsewhere is the United States of America and the streets of your hometown.

I have challenged my colleagues on the other side of this debate to name for me a single jihadi or Islamist leader, name one, name me just one who has said if we withdraw from Iraq, if we pull our troops back, they will stop. Name me one who has said that if we leave Iraq they will walk away and not carry their fight to the rest of the world.

But I am not alone in saying this issue is bigger. Let me tell you what the National Intelligence Estimate, written by our Nation's best and brightest intelligence experts in every intelligence agency we have, said next. They said, "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." That is the national intelligence community giving us a simple message. If we prevail in Iraq, the world will be safer. If we are defeated in Iraq, the world will be more dangerous.

Now, I would argue that there ought to be some attention given to the words of the troops in the field, and I want to devote the rest of my remarks to a column written by First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth last October.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to insert this column by First Lieutenant Hegseth in the Record.

Mr. Shadegg: Pete Hegseth served in both Baghdad and Samarra for a year. He was an infantry platoon leader in Iraq. He fought both on the streets of Baghdad and Samarra, and here is what First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth said about the surge. He never heard the term "surge," but he described the struggle he faced. He said, and I quote, "America is fighting with a hand tied behind its back." "We simply do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we need them now." That was last October.

Discussing his situation in Samarra, Lieutenant Hegseth went on. There in Samarra, he goes on to say, and I quote, "We had just enough troops to control Samarra and secure ourselves, but not enough to bring lasting stability or security."

He goes on and says, "Two things are to blame for our predicament. The first reason is that we did not have enough troops in Samarra," and I quote "the second, because of a lack of troops, American military leaders," those on the ground, those engaged in this fight, "are forced to make a choice between mission objectives and self- preservation." He goes on to complain that all too often that choice that they are forced into is protection of our troops, not mission objectives.

Let me tell you how he concluded, because I think it is pertinent to this debate, where what we seek to do is to disapprove the surge of 20,000 troops.

I believe that the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Pete Hegseth asks, and I quote, "Why then do we have just enough troops in Iraq not to lose?"

To conclude, he says "Americans understand a defeat in Iraq would have horrible consequences for America and its allies for decades to come. America has the capacity to win." He wrote, "Why then are we pursuing a bare minimum approach?"

I urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous and ill-advised resolution.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is, first of all, to thank our men and women in uniform. They are absolutely magnificent. They are the real heroes of America, not the football players, not the basketball players, and not the baseball players. It is our men and women in uniform, and that is what H. Con. Res. 63 says. We appreciate you. We will be with you today, tomorrow, and in the future.

The second part is that we are opposed to the surge. Let me read very quickly, before I introduce the next speaker, General Barry McCaffrey before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18, 2007, and I quote General Barry McCaffrey, former commander of the Southern Command. He said, "There the current administration is going to try to muscle this thing out in the next 24 months with an urban counterinsurgency plan that I personally believe, with all due respect, is a fool's errand."

That is a military professional. A military professional.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Upton: Mr. Speaker, I know that Iraq has been on all of our minds for a long, long time. Many of us here have visited Iraq on multiple occasions. Many of us have also visited Bethesda Naval Hospital as well as Walter Reed and tried to comfort our brave and caring servicemen and women.

Yes, many of us have grieved with the families that have lost a loved one at a gravesite back in our districts. Mr. Speaker, we had a breakthrough this week in North Korea. It was a diplomatic success. And our country led the effort to engage other countries in the region: Russia, South Korea, Japan and China. The Six Party Talks helped see a negotiated settlement that made sense and the world today is a better and safer place. Diplomacy won again.

Now, one of our big problems in Iraq is that we have not pursued the diplomatic angle like we should have. We have not seen a diplomatic surge like we ought to. Let's talk about this resolution. The first finding, of course, is that the Congress and the public will continue to support and protect those serving in Iraq. That tells me that we are not going to cut off the aid for the brave folks that are there.

It is almost a daily routine for me when I see a man or woman in uniform at the airport, the cafeteria, at home, anywhere, Bethesda, Walter Reed Hospital, I take a moment and thank them for their sacrifice and their service.

Our troops need all of the equipment to make sure that their safety can be as secure as it can be. This week I e-mailed a number of our troops that I have met that are overseas. I talked about this resolution, including the policy of the surge. And many of them responded at length. I want to share part of their stories and responses without using their names.

One of my Army captains said this. "Bringing in more Americans will force us into more confrontational roles. This is not the way to win. More American soldiers on the ground will not win the war, it will only delay the enemy's reaction. If the people do not believe that their government can protect them, they will look for one that they believe will."

Mr. Speaker, these folks are on the ground. They know what is going on. The generals on the ground, too, said that more U.S. troops would be counterproductive and in fact only increase or deepen the threats on our U.S. troops.

Let's face it, this is a civil war. It is real anarchy. And in fact the Iraqis do not want us there. Nearly 80 percent of them in Baghdad say that the American troops provoke more violence than they prevent. And these same polls show that Iraqis overwhelmingly want U.S. troops gone within a year.

In fact, we know that a majority on both sides, Shia and Sunni, believe that it is okay to kill our troops. So much for being a liberator. In other words, we are viewed as part of the problem, not the solution.

Mr. Speaker, all of us, all of us support our troops. But there are many of us that believe that this surge strategy will fail and will only prolong the day that the Iraqis will finally pick up the baton and lead their own government.

The Baker-Hamilton unanimous bipartisan report labeled the situation as grave and deteriorating. It called for regional cooperation and a new direction. Mr. Speaker, I am one that believes that the vote authorizing the war was based on evidence that was flat-out wrong.

Let's not continue to ignore the real situation and the mistakes of the past. It is time, it is time for the Iraqis, not the United States, to lead after 4 years. We need to send a message to our troops that, yes, we support them, and, for this administration, a signal for them to pursue a diplomatic surge involving the region.

For these reasons, I too support the resolution.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Chairman Lantos for allowing me to be part of this resolution, H. Con. Res. 63.

Also I want to thank the 10 Republicans who came to the floor to join me today to support this resolution. In closing, I want to again say this resolution is simple and to the point. The most important point is to say, Thank you, men and women in uniform; you are great, you are magnificent, we are behind you 100 percent.

The second part deals with the surge. Two very quick stories. Six months ago Gene Taylor and I went to Walter Reed. We went into a room that we were carried into and saw a mother with tears in her eyes, a father, and we shook their hands.

Then the Army colonel took us to the bed to speak to the Army sergeant who had been wounded in Iraq. We thanked him. We told him he was a hero. And he was just great. His fiancee was sitting at the end, at the foot of the bed. We met her. Then he said, I don't know if my opinion matters to you gentlemen. And we assured him it did matter. It mattered greatly.

He said, well, let me share this with you. I have been to Iraq three times. He said, I don't care if you are there 5 years or 10 years, you cannot change the people. If you look at the history, he is probably right. But then after he said that you cannot change the people, Mr. Speaker, he pulled the sheets down from his waist and we saw that above his knees his two legs were gone. In his third tour in Iraq he lost his legs.

I close by sharing this in this debate. I quoted five generals that have said in the last 6 months this surge will not work, it is not the right policy answer. I don't think anyone can say it any better than retired Army General Jay Garner, the first U.S. official in charge of postwar Baghdad. January 7, 2007. This is his quote. "I don't know that the Iraqi Government has ever demonstrated an ability to lead the country, and we should not be surprised. You will never find in my lifetime one man that all of the Iraqis would coalesce around. Iraqis are too divided among sectarian, ethnic and tribal loyalties" he said, "and their loyalties are regional, not national."

Mr. Speaker, as I close, and this is my close, let's pass this resolution. Let's work with the President to find an end point to the strategy, and let's not put our men and women in the middle of a civil war to make them referees.

God bless America, and God bless our men and women in uniform. Please, God, continue to bless this country.

Mr. Thornberry: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5½minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Pearce: Mr. Speaker, it is a very dark time for the Nation. The President is at an unpopularly low rating, unprecedented in our history. We are involved in an unpopular war. Elected officials on both sides are calling for us to get out of the war. I am not talking about this war, I am talking about the civil war, when President Lincoln had the courage and the vision to hold onto that concept that we must let liberty triumph. And because of his courage, we have a Nation that has set the course for liberty for the entire world.

Exactly what are we involved in here? This is far broader than a war in Iraq. This is a war with radical Islam. It is not the first time we have engaged with radical Islam. The first time that comes to my attention was 1786.

Thomas Jefferson goes to find out about the Barbary Coast. He comes back and he reads the letter about why the Barbary pirates were fighting everyone in that region. He buys his own book of the Koran to understand, but that letter that he had and brought back says that it was founded, he is talking about Islam, it was founded on the laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found. That same principle is holding today. We read it on all the Web pages of the radical Islamists.

Now, we can wish that it weren't true. We can wish that the attacks on the Cole did not happen. We can wish that 9/11 did not happen. But they did. And now we are involved in a very difficult, unpopular war with the President, again, at historic low ratings.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to this dangerously misguided resolution which will only embolden our enemies and demoralize our troops.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle claim to support our troops, and I do not discount that. I do not question their sincerity. I question their judgment.

I will tell you that the political gymnastics that are required to come this soon after they campaigned against stay the course, to present a resolution that supports our troops who are in Iraq, and yet says that we will not change the tactic, we will not increase, if we are not going to get out, if they have turned down those resolutions which would bring us home, and if they do not want to declare to defund the war, if they do not want the surge, then we are involved in a resolution today that is nonbinding, but says stay the course.

Do tell. Stay the course is what they had to campaign so hard against in the last elections.

I served in Vietnam when elected officials were on the floor of this House having these same conversations, and I will tell you it is extraordinarily distressing from the point of someone serving in harm's way to have the elected officials playing games.

My friends, if you don't want to support the effort in Iraq, you have the majority, call the troops home. It is within your capability. Have the courage of your convictions. Stand for what you believe. Do not put this resolution in front of us that simply encourages our enemies and distresses our troops.

There are those who claim that General Abizaid has said we can't win the war. President Lincoln was faced with the same thing, generals who listened too much to the public. He had to fire General McClellan and replace him with General Grant.

Many recall those words of President Lincoln saying, if you will not use the troops, sir, can I borrow them?

We have replaced the general who was in charge of Iraq with a new general. I am sorry, but he is a troop. He is a commander. He is the commander, he is the supreme troop in Iraq, and he says, I could use more troops. Please, don't leave me dangling.

And yet, this Congress, with this leadership, is going to say, we support the troops but we are not going to support the troops. The mental gymnastics, the political gymnastics are to appease the very shrillest of their proponents, the very shrillest of their supporters. But everyone knows they will not be content with this nonbinding resolution. Those supporters will be like the tiger at the door, eating their own if it does not escalate from here.

Have the courage to bring the troops home, my friends, if you are not going to let the generals run the war. Let the military run the war.

The greatest mistake we made in this House in Vietnam was trying to manage it with people who are elected rather than military leaders, and it was an abysmal failure.