Mr. Udall of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also acknowledge Mr. Marshall and the powerful sentiments he just shared with all of us. Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. It is our first extended and substantive debate on the war in Iraq since Congress gave the President the authority to invade more than 4 years ago.

But if we do nothing more than debate the President's escalation plan, we will not keep faith with the American people who rightly expect this new Congress to bring our costly involvement in Iraq to a close. And while the resolution before us is largely symbolic and nonbinding, it can be, I think it should be, the opening part of a longer, thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests not only Iraq but the entire Middle East.

So this resolution is a start. And I will vote for it because I agree with the message it sends. The resolution expresses disapproval of the President's sending more troops to Iraq, an action that is contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group, critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The President's escalation is most likely too small to be effective, and adopting new counterinsurgency tactics comes 2 years too late. The resolution, in my opinion, represents the correct response to these facts. It expresses support for our brave men and women in uniform, but disagreement with the policy of military escalation.

Mr. Speaker, as we speak here today, the death toll in Iraq rises, and the war continues to drain our national Treasury, stretch our Armed Forces, and weaken our capacity to effectively counter Islamic terrorism. Congress needs to send the message that things must change.

I opposed the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and I have never once regretted that vote. But today we must focus on the future. We cannot move the clock back, but we need to avoid making a bad situation worse. We should not be scaling up our military mission in Iraq, we should be scaling back. We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter, not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I know about the pressure on our active duty and National Guard and Reserve soldiers. They lack enough equipment and training. They are experiencing multiple or extended deployments and limited time at home between deployments. But to be successful our men and women must be properly trained, equipped, and ready to deploy worldwide quickly.

Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increases the risk to our troops and to their mission. In short, this administration's policies have brought us to the point where we not only cannot sustain an escalation in Iraq, but also we are not fully prepared for other contingencies.

But that is not the only reason I oppose the escalation. I do not think the President's rationale for it makes sense, no matter our readiness levels. The just-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees that the term "civil war" accurately describes what is happening in Iraq, and suggests that the conflict may in fact be worse than a civil war.

Putting more Americans at risk is not a recipe for victory. And as a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.

So what should be the way forward? For one, I believe a reduction of military forces in Iraq and a phased redeployment of our Armed Forces to border regions like Anbar and the Kurdish areas of Iraq would be effective. That can give us flexibility to act militarily in Iraq if necessary, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi Government to move toward political reconciliation.

I do not think an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense, but neither does an open- ended commitment for American blood and treasure. And as bad as the situation is in Iraq, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region. Not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been badly compromised by the Bush administration's failures.

We should adopt the main policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, including stronger efforts of diplomacy in the region. It is not in the interests of any nation to have Iraq descend into further civil war and chaos. As challenging as diplomacy is in the Middle East, I believe the sacrifice of our soldiers demand that we engage in serious regional talks, including those with our adversaries Syria and Iran.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the stakes in Iraq are very high. The outcome in this region will have consequences for future generations that will long outlive those of us who are in Congress today.

Great leaders acknowledge mistakes, learn and chart a new course. For the sake of future generations and to keep faith with the generations that built America, let us be a Nation of great leaders.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first significant debate we have had on the war in Iraq since Congress passed the President's request for an authorization to invade Iraq more than four years ago. And even though our debate today is on a largely symbolic question--a non-binding resolution disapproving the President's announced plan for moving additional troops to Iraq--I believe it ought to serve as the beginning of a deeper and more thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests in the Middle East, and Iraq.

If all we do is debate the wisdom of a surge, we will not keep faith with the American people, who rightly expect this new Congress to bring our costly involvement in the Iraq war to a close.

Nevertheless, I will support this resolution disapproving the president's call for additional troops in Iraq because it runs contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group (the Baker-Hamilton Commission), critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on the best strategic approach in Iraq. The President's plan calls for an infusion of additional soldiers--probably too few to have the desired outcome--and utilizing counterinsurgency tactics that are two years too late and that I believe will be ineffective in the context of the civil war that has emerged in Iraq.

We are also expecting General David Petraeus and our troops to operate under a complicated joint command structure with Iraqi forces and political leaders that is unprecedented in our military history and undermines the "unity of command" rule in warfare. And all this comes at a time when the death toll in Iraq is rising and the war continues to drain our national treasury, stretches our armed forces, and decreases--rather than enhances--our ability to wage an effective war against Islamic terrorism. Even as we debate a "surge" in Iraq, we should not forget Afghanistan. We will win there if we redouble our efforts now.

I opposed the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq and I have never once regretted that vote. Today, we cannot move the clock back, but we can surely avoid making a bad situation worse. We should not be scaling up our military mission in Iraq--we should be scaling back. We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter--not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.

I say this as a Member of the Armed Services Committee who understands the pressures on our active duty and National Guard and reserve soldiers, including a lack of equipment and training, multiple or extended deployments, and limited time at home between deployments. To be successful, U.S. forces must be trained, equipped, and ready to quickly deploy worldwide. Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increase the risk to our troops and to their mission. By all measurements, we are not in a position to sustain an escalation of troops.

But I don't believe the President's rationale for the "surge" makes sense, no matter our readiness levels. The just-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees that the term "civil war" accurately describes aspects of the Iraq conflict and goes further in suggesting that the conflict may in fact, be more complicated and worse than a civil war. Putting more American troops at risk in this kind of setting is not a recipe for victory; it is only a prescription for quagmire. As a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.

So what should be the way forward? How should Congress respond?

I believe a policy aimed at escalating diplomatic and political efforts is preferable to one that continues to rely on our soldiers to carry the heavy burden of nation-building--a mission that soldiers are ill-equipped for without strong international support, particularly in the midst of civil war and sectarian violence. That is why I favor a reduction of military forces in Iraq, and a phased redeployment of our armed forces to border regions in places like Anbar province and the Kurdish areas of Iraq, which should give us some flexibility to respond militarily should circumstances require it, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi government to move toward political reconciliation and stability.

I do not believe an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense, but neither does an open-ended commitment of American blood and treasure.

As bad as the situation is in Iraq, however, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region--not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush Administration's failures there. The President's decision to take the Nation to war has made our country less safe. We need to change course and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists.

To do this, I believe Congress should pass a resolution that embodies the main policy elements of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, including a call for stronger efforts at diplomacy in the region and internationally. It is not in the interests of any nation to have Iraq descend into further civil war and chaos. As challenging as diplomacy is in the Middle East, I believe the sacrifice of our soldiers demands that we engage in serious regional talks, including talks with our adversaries, Syria and Iran.

Finally, I believe we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq. The President misguidedly took us into war on the eve of a bitter national election. We must try hard not to compound this error by turning a debate on Iraq into a partisan game of one-upmanship where legitimate disagreement with the Administration's plan for escalation is called a betrayal of our troops or where resistance to immediate withdrawal is called war-mongering.

For my part, I intend to speak out loudly and often for a responsible withdrawal strategy in Iraq, but I will also offer proposals that are aimed at finding common ground. I will be introducing legislation that looks beyond the "surge" and toward the necessary and inevitable contingency planning that will be needed if we are to avoid deeper and more catastrophic scenarios in Iraq and the region.

Mr. Speaker, the stakes in Iraq are very high. The outcome in this region will have consequences for future generations that will long outlive those of us who are in Congress today. Great leaders acknowledge mistakes, learn, and chart a new course. For the sake of future generations and to keep faith with the generations that built America, let us be a Nation of great leaders.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

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

First, let me begin by saying that I have observed several speakers here during this debate who I am sure in good faith made the representations that they did, that the short-term redeployment or surge was not a recommendation of the Iraq Study Group.

This is a copy of the report of the Iraq Study Group. On page 73 there is a discussion of increasing troop levels in Iraq. And the Iraq Study Group did in fact suggest that a substantial increase of 100,000 or 200,000 troops would likely be not a good idea.

However, they say this, and I quote. "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."

And so I would say to my friends that is in fact the case. And so I hope that that puts that matter to rest. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, I suspect, has been drawn up as a well-meaning resolution. There have been some suggestions here today that it is political in nature. I do not know if that is true. But I would hope that it is a good, well- meaning resolution.

I have been here now for well over 20 years, I am in my 23rd year. I have learned a lot about the House. This is a great system. We do great work here. And we usually do it right. Sometimes we make mistakes.

On many issues we make corrections to those mistakes. When we pass tax bills, months later or a year later we will make some technical corrections to the tax bill, because we did not do it quite right. In many other cases, if we spend too much money in an appropriations bill this year, we can come back and reduce it in a future year.

But I would suggest to my friends who support this resolution that it is a start down a road; it is a start down a road that at some point could have disastrous effects. So we want to make sure, I am sure you want to make sure, that you get this right. I would like to walk you through some reasons why I think that this takes us in the wrong direction.

In fact, there is a bunch of evidence to point to the fact that the enemy is watching what we are doing, that they have learned from our past mistakes, and that they are in fact hoping that this resolution passes, for some fairly obvious reasons. Let me go through four case studies that we have made about similar situations.

First, a situation in Lebanon. Lebanon was a wonderful country. It was a democracy. It had a Parliament. Had Christians and Muslims living together sharing power. In the middle 1970s, things began to change. The big change was that fundamentalist Islam came to town and Hezbollah came to town.

And in 1975, a war erupted, which has been called a civil war. There was the emergence of multi-sided militia groups, sectarian violence and civilian massacres. Sounds familiar.

In 1982, the U.N. sent in a multi-national force to try to quell the violence. And on October 23, 1983 the Marine barracks was bombed by Hezbollah with the support of Iran. The best description of it I have heard or read comes from a description by some Navy SEALs who were sleeping in their bunker on the beach, not in the barracks. And the magnitude of the explosion, to hear them describe it, was something to behold. And it shocked America. And in 1984 we withdrew our Marines. The remainder of the peacekeeping force was gone by April of 1984. There was no serious U.S. retaliation for the Beirut bombing. The civil war continued until 1990. Hezbollah emerged from a loose coalition of Shia groups and, with Iranian assistance, quickly grew into a strong fighting force in Lebanon. That is case number one.

Case Number two. We have got troops today in Afghanistan. If things had happened somewhat differently a couple of decades earlier, they might not be there at all. But in the mid-1980s the Afghan resistance builds momentum with Muslim fighters to recruit a jihad against the Soviets. And we all have read about that resistance movement. It was fierce, and we actually helped them. And in 1989 the Soviets had had enough, just like we had had enough in Lebanon, and the Soviets withdrew.

From 1989 to 1992, the Afghan civil war continued until the government of Afghanistan fell. In 1993 and 1994, the Taliban came along, and they gained power. In 1996, Osama bin Laden moves back to Afghanistan and forges an alliance between al Qaeda and the Taliban. Since then, we know the history very well of Afghanistan. A void was there to be filled, and the fundamentalist Islamists filled it.

Now, I would like to turn to the third case study, the case study involving Somalia. In 1980, the Somalia Government becomes increasingly totalitarian and resistance movements emerge across the country, which leads to a civil war in 1991. Being great big-hearted Americans, in 1992 and 1993, we decided to save the starving Somalis, and we initiated Operation Restore Hope. In May 1993, the U.N. assumed the mission from the U.S. as an international mission. In October of 1993 the battle for Mogadishu took place. Eighteen Americans were killed. The U.S. stops operations against Aidid, and in March, 1995, both U.S. and U.N. forces withdraw. It was later confirmed that al Qaeda supported Aidid's militia. There is evidence that the U.S. withdrawal inspired bin Laden's first bombing of the World Trade Center. The Islamist fundamentalists filled the void once again.

Let me move to my fourth case study, the Israeli withdrawal, again, from Lebanon. Preceding the Israeli invasion in 1982 the PLO was conducting attacks on Israel from south Lebanon. In 1982, Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon in response to an assassination attempt by Abu Nidal against Israel's ambassador to the U.K. After attacking PLO, Syrian and Muslim Lebanese forces, Israel occupied southern Lebanon.

If you want to read a great account of this, read the book entitled "Because They Hate." It is a book written by a Christian woman by the name of Brigitte Gabriel, who is now living in the U.S., and she tells the story of living in a bunker, living in a bunker until the war was over, not a nice thing to do.

In 1982 to 1984, the multi-national peacekeeping force came to Lebanon. The PLO withdrawal in 1982 is replaced by a strengthening of Hezbollah. In 1985, Israel moves to the security zone in southern Lebanon. And in 2000, Israel withdraws.

I only need to point to the events of last summer in Lebanon to say, once again, the fundamentalist Islamists, Hezbollah, filled the void.

We are embarked today on a discussion of another potential road to withdrawal. And I don't represent that this resolution does that, but it puts us in that direction. Evidence of our failure to respond to terrorism has emboldened al Qaeda for years. This withdrawal would be another one, if it goes that far.

In 1993, the World Trade Center bombing took place. We didn't respond. In 1996, the Khobar Tower bombings took place and we didn't respond. In 1998, the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania occurred and we didn't respond. In 2000, the attack on the USS Cole occurred and we didn't respond. The result, New York City, 9/11.

People ask me why I am so concerned about this. People ask me why, Saxton, you have been on the floor too much.

Let me show you the next chart. This is why I am concerned. This is my family.

When I first ran for Congress in 1984 the steering committee asked me why I wanted to be a Member of Congress. I said, because I have had a good life. I said, because this is a great country, and because I want my family to have the same opportunities I have had.

This is my son Marty and his wife and their little gal, my granddaughter Allie. This is my daughter, Jen, this is Kate, and this is Jacqueline.

I will admit the artist got a little carried away because they made a montage out of this picture and they put my grandchildren on here two or three times each. But I will tell you what, if we go down this road to the point where we can't correct a mistake, I wonder what the future is going to be for my family and for your family.

And so this resolution today is an important one. It may be only 97 words or whatever it is, and it may have only two statements in it, but we are headed down a road, and it is a dangerous one, in my opinion.

Mr. Udall of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Boren: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our men and women in uniform, and in support of this resolution.

Nearly 230,000 Americans are currently deployed to the Middle East fighting the war on terrorism. Three thousand of those are from my home State of Oklahoma. These men and women are fighting for their country, not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans.

I was not in Congress nearly 4 years ago when the war in Iraq began, but in the 2 years since I have served here I have not once encountered a colleague who does not support our troops. We have our disagreements over strategy, spending and even the war itself, but when it comes to support for the selfless Americans serving in uniform, we are unanimous.

For anyone, and I repeat, anyone to suggest anything to the contrary just distracts from this serious, serious debate.

As many of my colleagues have already noted, our troops are not the problem. They have done an outstanding job executing the mission that they have been given. The problem is with the administration's strategy. We owe it to the men and women of our Armed Forces to pursue a policy that offers them the best possible chance at success, not a plan that repeats past mistakes.

The President's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 American combat troops to Iraq is not the first time that we have had a surge of troops in this conflict. In April of 2004, January and October of 2005, and again in October of last year, we saw temporary escalations that provided no long-term reductions in violence. I am concerned that this latest plan is a renewed effort for more of the same that does little to encourage the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. As one general told the Iraq Study Group, "All the troops in the world will not provide security if the Iraqi Government does not make political progress." Rather than laying out a plan that establishes solid benchmarks for Iraqi security and the corresponding redeployment of U.S. troops, the President is pursuing a strategy that history shows does not work.

Former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, Commander of the U.S. Central Command General John Abizaid, Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway, and many other current and former military leaders have said more troops is not the answer. Our Nation's military is already stretched thin. This open-ended plan to increase American troop levels in Iraq would exacerbate the overextension of our Armed Forces and cripple our ability to respond to other crises around the world. Because we don't know what the future holds, we have to be ready for anything.

U.S. and coalition forces successfully removed Saddam Hussein from power, and the world is a better place for it. But we now find ourselves locked in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The Iraq of today is vastly different from the Iraq we entered nearly 4 years ago, yet our strategy remains the same. We need to succeed in Iraq, but we need to redefine what success really is.

For over a year now I have joined our great chairman, Chairman Skelton, in his call for solid benchmarks in Iraq. We need a mechanism to measure our progress toward an Iraq that is responsible for its own security. It is in our interest, it is in Iraq's interest, and it is in the interest of the region to ensure that Iraqi personnel are trained and ready to take control sooner rather than later. Realistically, some of the more than 140,000 troops we already have in Iraq to secure the Iranian border would do more to further our goals in Iraq than sending more Americans into Baghdad. And that is a plan, my friends.

At the end of the day, military command decisions rest with the Commander in Chief. This resolution and this debate are not about micromanaging the war or forcing a withdrawal of troops. Public opinion polls should not dictate war strategies. The facts should. And the facts are that surges haven't worked in the past and experts agree it won't work this time.

The President knows we are all in this together. That is why I was very disappointed to see the administration move forward with such a dramatic escalation despite strong bipartisan opposition in Congress. Without a clear mission or effective benchmarks, it is too big of a gamble to take with so many American lives.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mrs. Gillibrand: Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Skelton for yielding. It has been an honor to serve on his committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for this resolution. Last November the voters in upstate New York spoke loudly and clearly in demanding a change in direction in Iraq, and I will cast my vote in favor of this resolution to fulfill my duty to represent their will.

As a freshman Member of this new Congress, I can think of no higher responsibility than to debate the merits of the President's plan to escalate American involvement in this war in Iraq. And I am pleased to see that every Member of Congress has been given 5 minutes to voice their view and to speak on this measure.

Today's debate is not about what is best for Democrats or best for Republicans. It is about what is best for our troops, for our national security, and for all Americans, as it should be. I believe the sentiments will be reflected in the bipartisan support this resolution will ultimately receive.

As I have traveled throughout my district doing town hall meetings and "Congress on Your Corner" to invite comments from my constituents and listen to their issues, I hear a consistent message. People say to me, we need a new direction in Iraq. We need a plan for success. We need to make sure we bring stability to the region; and when will our troops come home? All of these issues I couldn't agree with more strongly. Unfortunately, the President's plan is not a change in direction. It is, rather, more of the same.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the unique opportunity to question both Secretary Gates and General Pace and to listen to their testimony on this proposed escalation. At no point has anyone from the administration been able to articulate to me clearly that this is a strategy that will effectively undermine terrorism, promote lasting stability, and be successful in redeploying our troops. What is so clear to so many of our military advisers, former and current military generals, and a majority of this body and the American public at large does not seem to be shared by this administration, that the answers in sustaining peace in Iraq lie in the political, diplomatic, and economic solutions, not in the military ones.

In our hearings I have worked hard to bring to light whether the President has a plan for Iraqi oil revenues and reconstruction contracts to create progress in the economic and political arenas. Both Secretary Gates and General Pace testified that the President's current plan has no chance of success unless there is significant progress in both of these arenas. I call upon the administration to produce a real plan to ensure each of the sectarian groups receives a stake in the oil revenues and a plan for oversight and accountability to reduce fraud and corruption and to disrupt the black market for oil.

Right now only a small portion of the Iraqi oil revenues has been used for reconstruction; yet billions of American dollars have been spent. We need accountability and real answers to ensure the Iraqis leverage the oil revenue effectively to bring all of the parties to the table.

And where is the accountability with the war spending? We need a Truman-style committee to investigate these billions of dollars of no- bid contracts being awarded in Iraq, and we should bring the war funding process completely under the regular appropriation structures.

We have also not seen a plan to transfer the reconstruction contracts to the Iraqis. The Iraqi 20-year-olds should be the ones that are rebuilding the bridges and the roads and the schools and the hospitals, not fighting each other and not attacking our troops.

And where has the progress been made on the political stability? Where is the plan to develop a special envoy and to engage others in the region to bring forth peace and stability?

In my view, the testimony provided in the several hearings that the Armed Services Committee has had have revealed an insufficient commitment to these very targets that both General Pace and Secretary Gates have testified are required for success. Yet the President continues to push forward and send in more troops.

Our men and our women in the military have served admirably and have done everything we have asked them to do. They have fought bravely under daunting circumstances, often at times without the proper equipment that they need. They have made sacrifice after sacrifice in leaving their families and loved ones behind to do the job that we have asked them to do. And how do we repay this sacrifice and patriotism? By continuing to extend their tours indefinitely, cutting their veterans benefits when they return home. The dedication and sacrifice of the men and the women in the Armed Forces deserves responsible leadership. They have given us everything they have, and in turn we must give them a new direction for success.

There are those out there that will use this debate as a partisan wedge. That type of rhetoric undermines the core values of our democracy. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson who declared that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

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

Mr. Everett: Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member, a combat veteran from Vietnam and a great American.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to my ranking member and chairman, and to the service of all men and women who are serving in the Armed Forces and those who have prior service, many who serve in this distinguished body. And thank goodness. I say thank goodness, because I find that in this body we have too few people who have ever worn a uniform, but we have an awful lot of opinions about how to wear a uniform.

We have heard from many of these Members on both sides of the aisle. Some served in Vietnam, some in the first gulf war, and some in the war that we are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They cite their firsthand experience in serving our country as justification for why they believe we cannot afford to lose the war or why we should not support the Commander in Chief's reinforcement proposal or, in some cases, why we should bring the troops home immediately and cut off funding.

Mr. Speaker, I respect every Member in this Chamber who has served our country with honor and distinction. Each of them brings a different perspective to the debate. However, today I would like to bring another perspective to the debate, and it is that of Army pilot Keith Yoakum from Coffee Springs, Alabama, in my district. Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum was killed February 2 in Iraq when the Apache helicopter he was flying was forced to land during combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

While his death is a tragedy, his family is taking comfort in the fact that Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum was doing what he loved, defending the country that he loved. This Army aviator was proud of what he was doing in Iraq, and told his father that there was no other place he would rather be until the war was over.

Much of his pride came from his ability to protect our guys on the ground using his Apache helicopter who were executing the dangerous missions of ridding the neighborhoods of those who wanted to kill his fellow troops as well as innocent Iraqis. However, equally as important was Keith Yoakum's belief that he was making a difference in this fight to make this world a better place for his daughters to live.

Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum is not alone in his belief. The hundreds of soldiers that I have visited with share his view of this war. Whether it was during a solemn sendoff of our brave men and women or an emotional welcome home ceremony, the soldiers I talk to believe in this mission and that we must prevail in this war.

They recognize the dire consequences if we don't succeed in Iraq. If we withdraw prematurely, the terrorists will have an unchecked sanctuary from which they can launch attacks to kill more innocent Americans, similar to what existed in Afghanistan prior to our toppling the Taliban regime in Operation Enduring Freedom. To abandon our fight against the terrorists is to have failed to learn the lessons of 9/11 and to revert to a policy that allowed two decades of escalating violence. That policy resulted in the death of thousands of Americans, as was so well documented by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we defeat this enemy, whose sole desire is to kill Americans anywhere, in any way they can. Today the theater is Iraq. But if we retreat from this war, as those on the other side of the aisle have advocated, then we will fight them in the cities and in the towns. Either way, this war will be fought.

Mr. Speaker, I have a guest essay from my hometown newspaper, the Dothan Eagle, from a war veteran by the name of Wayne Wood, and I would like this complete essay entered into the Record after I speak. But first I want to quote a couple of things from it. This is, as I said, from a former combat veteran, Wayne Wood.

"As I watch the current debate over the war in Iraq, I remember sitting in the day room at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, with my buddies and watching the collapse of South Vietnam and Saigon in 1975. I was thinking of, and I know my buddies were thinking of, all the guys we knew who'd gone over to fight for the Vietnamese who didn't come back. We cursed the ARVN soldiers as cowards because they would not stand and fight for their country. We were angry that the sacrifice of these good--no, great--Americans was in vain.

"It was only years later that I learned, to my dismay, that it wasn't the ARVN who betrayed my fellow soldiers' blood, it was their very own elected representatives in Congress who voted to cut funding for the defense of the Republic of South Vietnam.

"We are being told the Iraqi situation is unwinnable. We were told that we had lost the war in Vietnam.

"After Tet in 1968, Walter Cronkite, `the most trusted man in America,' went on the air and said so. Americans said, `If Walter says we've lost, it must be so.'

"Now, our media, and others, some in this body, "tell us the same thing. We are being told of how hopeless the situation is in Iraq. What about the American people? What are the American people supposed to think?

"But the picture I got from former students who have served in Iraq tells another story. They are frustrated that the good things that are happening in Iraq aren't being shown, that the people only see the bad. There's a genuine fear that they won't be allowed to finish the job. Their sacrifice would be in vain.

"From a distance, the situation as shown looks grim. But as a soldier who has seen war up close, I know war is a grim business. I remember the words of Marine General Julian Smith, speaking of the Battle of Tarawa in World War II: `We were losing, until we won.' "

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wood has a number of other examples here, and that is the reason I will include the letter for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, and I urge my colleagues on the other side, if we are not going to cut funding from this war, then bring up Congressman Sam Johnson's amendment that says we will neither cut nor restrict funding for this war. I ask my colleagues to stand with Chief Warrant Officer Yoakum and the thousands of other soldiers who believe in their mission and want to see it through to completion, and vote against this resolution. It can only do harm to our troops and bring aid and comfort to the terrorists.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments, I must admit that it seems that our friends from across the aisle have forgotten what the subject of this debate remains. I was under the impression that we were here to debate a resolution opposing the President's so-called surge plan. Yet I keep hearing commentary that appears to be designed to distract the American public from the real reason that we are gathered for a conversation on our future involvement in Iraq.

Let it be known, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes time to vote, Hank Johnson will be voting in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 63.

Now, "help is on the way." Those were the watchwords of a former Presidential campaign 7 years ago. Yet here we are, neck deep into the second term of the Bush-Cheney administration. And when one considers the current state of our military's readiness, our proud military's readiness, one has to wonder, where has the help gone? Where is the help?

If this was the help that was promised us 7 years ago, at the current state of our readiness, I would be reluctant to see what not helping our fine military men and women would mean.

I must point out that I, along with each of my colleagues in this distinguished body, do support our troops. But the issue at hand is whether, unlike campaign promises of the past, we intend to back our rhetoric with action.

We are now engaged in a debate about committing more troops to what can only be described as an ill-conceived, poorly planned, and misguided attempt to bring some sort of stability to a region that has suffered terribly since the President first decided to go it alone and make his stamp upon history, for better or worse.

Although I must admit, it has even become difficult to remember the exact reason the President used to justify his decision to take us to war in Iraq; but allow me to briefly summarize for you the reasons that the President has given the American public in his attempt to justify his decision to go to war.

Number 1, weapons of mass destruction. There were none. Number 2, the nuclear threat. There was none. Number 3, links to al Qaeda. There were none. And yet now, when we debate the wisdom of sending more than 20,000 young men and women into battle in this so-called surge, we are expected to trust an administration which has been so consistently wrong. It is difficult to remember that we are in Iraq fighting for a war whose justification has not yet been justified at all.

So at this point, when we look at the state of the readiness of our military, it has been called into question. Recruiting, the Army has failed to achieve its recruitment goals by 17.8 percent in 2006, and moreover, recruitment quality has suffered. The percentage of Army recruits with high school diplomas has declined. The above-average middle category test scores of our recruits have declined, and the number of recruits scoring in the lowest acceptable middle category has increased. Our retention rates are soft.

We have got over 3,000 killed in Iraq, 20,000-plus wounded; meanwhile we are having problems with our equipment shortfalls, which are glaring in the combat theater, and also for our nondeployed personnel who are in the process of training to be deployed to Iraq and who cannot be properly trained without adequate equipment.

Then we have got the issue of multiple deployments, people having been deployed three and even four times to the theater, but yet this President proposes to send an additional 22,000 troops, plus support personnel, into this civil war in Iraq, where we are simply sitting ducks and falling victim to ever more sophisticated improvised explosive devices, i.e., roadside bombs.

This killing is continuing at exorbitant rates, and so this is what we are here to talk about with this resolution. It is important for the American public to know that we support our military. We definitely want to see them do the job that they must do. However, this troop surge is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Courtney: Mr. Speaker, today we are here, exactly 100 days after a historic watershed election in this country, in which the American people spoke loudly and clearly that they wanted a new Congress to rise to its constitutional duty and hold this administration accountable for its war policy in Iraq. The day I was sworn in as a new Member of Congress, I accepted this responsibility, and I rise today in opposition to the President's escalation of the war and in support of H. Con. Res. 63.

Make no mistake about the significance of what is happening this week. America's new Congress will go on record for the first time in opposition to the Bush administration's 4-year legacy of mistakes and misjudgments in Iraq. This will be in sharp contrast to 8 months ago when the prior Congress did exactly the opposite. That Congress lined up in lockstep with a war resolution written by and for the White House.

That resolution completely brushed over the misleading and manipulated intelligence that got us into this conflict, the strain of this war on our brave men and women in uniform, and the drain on our Nation's military readiness that is undercutting critical efforts in Afghanistan and our overall defense infrastructure. Instead of doing their constitutional duty, the 109th Congress instead just rubber- stamped the administration's rhetoric and failing policy.

Opponents of today's resolution are claiming that it will damage our troop's morale. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I believe the opposite is true.

Let us be very clear about where the 20,000 new troops will come from. President Bush cannot simply dial 911 and 20,000 fresh new troops appear. This escalation can only happen by extending the deployments of soldiers already in Iraq, beyond their promised commitments, or accelerating the arrival of preexisting rotations. Upon close examination, it is clear that the impact of this surge lands squarely on the backs of our men and women in uniform who have already borne an unfair burden.

As we debate this resolution, there are nearly 1,900 men and women from my State of Connecticut, including 962 from Connecticut's National Guard, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have all honored our Nation with their service and sacrifice, and they have done all that has been asked of them and more, and their families have shown awe- inspiring strength in their absence.

Earlier this month, I was forwarded an e-mail from a constituent serving in Iraq which demonstrates the consequences of these unsustainable policies. In it he described how the morale in his unit fell when they found out that their tour was being unexpectedly extended another 4 months. He wrote:

"These guys have seen so much of the fighting here. To see the looks on these soldiers' faces was heartbreaking. A lot of these guys had plans made already with their loved ones, like weddings, trips, or family that traveled from far away to see them get off that plane. There are children that were all excited, holding signs they made, waiting to see their fathers again only to have that shattered. How much more can soldiers like this take? These guys deserve the right to go home. They earned it."

Letters like these demonstrate the real impact on our troops from the President's policy. And they are reinforced by the testimony I have heard at Armed Services. Over and over again, we have heard about the deterioration of our military readiness caused by overdeployment of our troops. Consider that today, as a result of the strain of the war, we currently have no active duty or Reserve brigades considered combat- ready in the Continental U.S., leaving our Nation dangerously unprepared and vulnerable if needed to respond to other global threats or domestic emergencies.

Despite the huge costs to our troops and our national defense, the President has opted to aggravate the holes in our defense with a plan to escalate the number of troops in Iraq. And for what?

Yesterday, I read the new classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. What I found in this report was the same as the unclassified version that has been reported in the press; that we have a deteriorating security situation in Iraq whose fundamental causes were identified as political, not military. This finding completely dovetails with the findings of the Iraq Study Group who came to the exact same conclusion.

Instead of absorbing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report and the National Intelligence Estimate and surging diplomacy and political solutions, the President instead has opted to escalate the war by sending 21,500 more troops into the middle of a violent sectarian conflict.

Where are the plans to equitably divide oil revenue or revisit the Iraqi Constitution which was left incomplete 2 years ago, or the push to create a real power-sharing arrangement between the Shia and the Sunni? Nowhere do we see any effort to get to the root causes of the violence. Instead, the Bush plan is more of the same, asking our brave troops to do the impossible, settling a sectarian conflict that goes back centuries in time.

President Bush has made his choice. Now it is Congress' turn as a coequal branch of government to make ours.

I firmly believe that the passage of this resolution will go down in history as the first stirrings of life from a Congress that has been in an Iraq stranglehold for 4 long years. It is an honor to be part of this history on behalf of one of the districts that had the courage to vote for change last November 100 days ago, and I will support resolution 63.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a member of the Armed Services Committee (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Sestak: Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, I retired from the U.S. Navy after 31 years in our military, serving our Nation during the challenges of peace and in the fury of war, including commanding an aircraft carrier battle group of 30 ships and 15,000 sailors in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Having worn the cloth of this Nation for so long, I know that our military is a national treasure that cannot be hoarded like miser's gold if it is to be a force for peace and progress, but nor can it be used recklessly. And now, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I am conscious that war is a shared responsibility in our Constitution between the President and Congress, as are the respective responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches to ensure U.S. security, and to provide for our common defense.

My experience leads me to be concerned for U.S. security because of Iraq, a tragic misadventure that does not permit us to best address more important security challenges throughout the world. My experience also says don't double down on a bad military bet by using more troops as the President has proposed, when an increase has not worked before; have confidence in our diplomatic ability to lead regional negotiations for stability, even with Syria and Iran; and, set a date certain for redeploying out of Iraq, this year, to serve as the necessary leverage to have the Iraqis accept the reality of the personal consequence of not assuming responsibility for their nation.

What concerns me about Iraq is the continuing use of our national treasure in what is an inconclusive, open-ended involvement within a country where the long-term benefits do not match what we need to reap, and where the tradeoffs in benefits of not focusing elsewhere is harming our future prosperity, interests, and values.

We need to apply our resources elsewhere in the world, where terrorists come from, including Osama bin Laden, who is still on the loose, or where emerging nations such as in the Western Pacific have growing political and economic interests, and therefore influence, that may challenge ours.

An alternative strategy is just what is needed, because remaining in Iraq means less security and a greater strategic security risk for America. It negatively impacts the readiness of our Armed Forces and hinders our ability to adequately focus on other security priorities here at home and throughout the world, including the global war on terror and regional challenges from Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran to the Western Pacific and Middle East regions.

The fact is we have fostered a culture of dependence in Iraq, and it is time for Iraqi leaders to be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war we are refereeing and bring about stability. We cannot do this work for them. Nor is that wonderful phrase I heard often when deployed to that region throughout the years, Anshala, Bugra: God willing, tomorrow, good enough any longer.

So, yes, I will vote for this resolution, because sending more troops to Iraq and remaining there indefinitely will only increase the dependence of the Iraqis on America, both politically and militarily, at a time when they should be shouldering increased responsibility for their country, while impacting our degraded military and strategic security readiness further.

But I also believe we need to go a step further and pursue an alternative strategy, which is why last week I introduced binding legislation setting the end of 2007 for our redeployment from Iraq. The rationale for doing so is clear: Redeployment from Iraq will enhance our security by allowing us to properly address other potential challenges around the world, and by allowing us to resolve the concerns about the readiness of our Armed Forces here at home.

Rather than leading to a spiral of violence, redeploying from Iraq will serve as the necessary catalyst for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their country, with regional nations then interested in ensuring stability when the United States is outside that country, but remaining with strength in the region. The needed reconciliation will only come about when the Iraqi political leaders are forced to take the difficult political steps needed to cease the violence in their country, such as building coalitions among competing sects, ensuring minority rights, balancing power between provincial and central governments, and sharing oil revenues among all regions in Iraq. And regional nations', particularly Syria's and Iran's, incentives change toward stability when the United States is no longer in the midst of the civil war, and these nations will have to bear the consequences of further strife, with refugee flows to their countries, and the possibility that these relatively allied nations could then be joined into a proxy battle to their detriment, as one is primarily Sunni and the other Shia.

Only by a strategy of setting a date certain, a deliberate timetable for redeployment, are we able to create a catalyst for the political leaders in Iraq to acknowledge and accept that they must undertake the difficult political steps necessary to cease the sectarian violence, as they understand that they otherwise would bear the consequences of not assuming the responsibility for their country.

Iraq is not the central front in terrorism. Rather, it is a result of our leadership forgetting the age-old axiom that "successful generals win, then they go to war." In short, we did not accurately plan before we went into Iraq, and we should redeploy.

The only way is to use our redeployment as the catalyst for Iraqis and other regional nations to accept their responsibilities for a relative peace. U.S. interests in the world do not include pouring endless amounts of our national treasure of lives and money into elusive, endless goals when there is an alternative strategy, and when we have so much else to achieve in this world.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) 5 minutes.

Mr. Bishop of Utah: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding me this time.

I suppose I speak to you here and declare it first a nonconflict of interest. I was not here on this floor when the original resolution to approve the use of force was made; therefore, I took as my role and responsibility when I came in here to make sure that we did everything in our power to make sure that our policy objectives were indeed followed through and successful.

You know, in the other Chamber, in the original House floor there is a beautiful sculpture sitting up there which is a clock made out of a chariot. The clock is actually the wheel, then there is a chariot. And in that chariot is the muse of history with this tablet in hand writing down what we do on the people's floor, the subject and our actions in history.

Perhaps it is good that that still stays out those doors and down the hallways and is not here today, because when the muse of history records what we are doing today and yesterday and tomorrow, and maybe Friday, that history is going to be written with an element of contempt.

There are some people who have opposed this war from the very beginning; they still oppose it now; and I give them credit to their commitment to consistency, although I don't necessarily agree with their decision. Some of those have also criticized this resolution as also being too weak of a resolution, for indeed the resolution today is a nonbinding resolution. By definition, it means it does nothing. It changes nothing, but allows us all to make statements for media consumption and allows some of those who made the original vote to use force the ability to shirk the responsibility of that particular action.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity of going back to Baltimore and watching a play, "Wicked." And in the play, the main character, the male lead, Fiero, is in love with Elphaba. And she tries to distance herself from him by saying, "Yeah, but you're thoughtless and shallow." And Fiero says, "I know, but I am a deep shallow."

This resolution is a deep shallow. It may have words aimed at the White House and the White House action, but regardless of those words, when history is written the finger of accusation will not point to the executive branch, who has been consistent, it is going to point back here to Congress, to our actions.

Our Constitution gives Congress the responsibility of the declaration of war. Instead, we passed a resolution approving force. With a war declaration, there is a commitment to action and to ultimate goals. A resolution of force implies something less, and it allows Members of Congress who did that to say, yes, I agreed with force but I didn't expect it to be used this way. Or, I wasn't really that serious. Or I didn't expect it to be anything more than a little war taking place. It is a process that allows you to be deeply shallow.

This resolution may clear the conscience of some people, it may put political distance between others, but it does noting for soldiers, it does nothing towards a U.S. victory, to benefit this country, or to improve the body politic. Our words, our actions, our votes will be looked on in history with contempt, for they are indeed in this issue deeply shallow.

In conclusion, I would like to describe the good that will come from this resolution for our Armed Forces.

Yes, that about sums it up.

Mr. Speaker, with disdain of the process of this flawed message that is so limited in its scope it does nothing to help those Members on either side of the aisle explain their nuances of their belief or this situation.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Hayes: I thank the gentleman from California, my friend, Ranking Member Duncan Hunter.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to vigorously oppose and to speak against the resolution at hand; a resolution that is being watched by friend and foe alike; a resolution that I feel will serve to embolden those who promote and use violence in Iraq, and across the world for that matter; a resolution that sends a message to our troops at home and deployed that we are not supporting the mission that we are conducting.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know of a single Member in this Chamber who is satisfied with the existing situation in Iraq. In fact, with the escalating violence and an increase in terrorist activity, we shouldn't be satisfied with the situation in Afghanistan either. But Iraq has become intensely political, and that is unfortunate. Make no mistake about it, this is the beginning of defunding our military and our national security.

Mr. Speaker, in this age when the Internet and global newscast are an integral part of warfare and propaganda, it is naive to think that the resolution is not being watched and its outcome won't be used to further embolden the resolve of those who use indiscriminate violence to advance their radical agenda.

When you recruit homicide bombers, they need to feel that their ultimate sacrifice is meaningful, and I fear this resolution will be used as an additional recruiting tool to show that our resolve is wavering in the face of their acts.

In some instances, Members have made no secret of their desire to defund the military. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't that long ago that our Nation faced another global war for freedom, it was a different type of war, but a war that was won because we held firm. There were a lot of people who said we couldn't win; they said that pragmatism dictated we would compromise our values and our beliefs. President Ronald Reagan told our Nation that we needed to hold firm because ultimately our values and beliefs would prevail in cold war then, and "hot war" now.

President Reagan said, "The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated." This quote was in context of the cold war, but it is applicable today in our present hot war against terrorists. This resolution shows a lack of will to win. This resolution hurts our troops and it helps our enemies.

Mr. Speaker, similar to debates from years ago during the cold war, I have heard speakers on the other side say, all we need is a strategy based on diplomacy. Mr. Speaker, I am all for peace and for diplomacy and for cooperation and for working things out, but al Qaeda is not, suicide bombers are not, terrorist executioners are not. That is reality, and our foreign policy has to be based on reality.

Terrorists thrive on poverty, despair, violence and fear. And the bottom line is they cannot afford for freedom and justice to succeed. Conversely, we cannot afford to allow freedom and justice to fail. That is reality, and one-sided diplomacy is not a strategy. Where is the other side's strategy for victory? There is none in this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns with the situation in Iraq. No one wants to see the Iraqis stabilize the security of their nation more than I do. The reality is we have troops over there in harm's way. Troops from the 82nd Airborne, stationed at Fort Bragg in my district, are part of this surge deployment.

Mr. Speaker, they are watching. I have received their e-mails letting me know in no uncertain terms that they are paying attention to what we are doing today. One soldier wrote to me using this quote from the ancient Athenians, which he thought was appropriate to this debate. This soldier said, "I will not disgrace the soldier's arms nor abandon the comrade who stands at my side, but whether alone or with many, I will fight to defend things sacred and profane. I will hand down my country not lessened, but larger and better than I have received it."

As my colleague from South Carolina quoted a soldier in his district yesterday, he said, "This is my war." That is a soldier's attitude and should be our attitude. It is our war against brutal, ruthless terrorists.

I will not support a resolution that tells our soldiers that the United States Congress is not supporting what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that everyone pray for our troops, for their safety and for their victory. May God continue to bless America and the magnificent men and women in uniform who protect her.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend for years and my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is the vice chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Dicks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness.

The resolution that is being considered in the House of Representatives today expresses a very clear message to the American people that it is time to change the direction of our policy in Iraq.

The meetings and communications that I have had with people from the Sixth Congressional District from the State of Washington have made it clear that the people I represent want to hear from Congress. My resolve in this is strengthened by the loss and grief I have heard from families in my district whose loved ones have been lost or injured in this conflict.

I also deplore the mistakes by this administration: failing to deploy enough troops to stabilize Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi Army, failing to provide jobs and economic restoration. Those are but a few.

It has been 4 years since U.S. and Coalition Forces invaded Iraq based on what was faulty intelligence. The premise for our military action against the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq was that he had weapons of mass destruction, and even the President has now acknowledged that this determination resulted from an incorrect interpretation of intelligence information.

With more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel killed and thousands more wounded, people across the Nation, including many Members of Congress, are questioning our continued involvement very seriously and very legitimately, especially since the President has now ignored the advice we know he received from many senior military advisors and has decided to increase the number of military troops deployed to Iraq. It is time for this Congress to speak clearly and forcefully in opposition to this escalation and in support of changing course in Iraq.

In this resolution we are clear that our determination that American forces have accomplished everything they have been asked to do in Iraq courageously and with the professionalism the Nation expects of the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world. These troops have not let us down, to be sure; but in many ways they have been let down by a policy that ignores the reality of their situation, and by a Commander in Chief whose only response to what is unmistakably a civil war in Iraq is to place more American troops in harm's way while sectarian violence plays out in the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

Day after day, U.S. service people are being killed and injured by bullets and bombs traded by Shiite and Sunni zealots for reasons that predated our involvement and which will likely endure long beyond the time we finally leave Iraq.

For the past 4 years, I regret that the Republican leadership of Congress has abdicated much of its oversight responsibility for the Iraq war and its funding. To date, the Bush administration has not adequately explained to Congress or the American people the reasons for our continued military involvement in Iraq. In announcing his intention to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq, last month the President said it is time for the Iraqi Government to act, to take charge of their security and to begin to govern themselves.

What we in Congress are saying now is that we believe the Maliki government in Iraq will be more apt to accomplish that goal if we do not send more American troops into Baghdad and if we signal to Iraqis that we are planning for a phased withdrawal from their country. That is what we must do to change the policy that keeps our forces acting as the local police officers on the streets of Baghdad, and to give the Iraqi people greater incentive for taking charge so that our troops can begin to come home. This was a view of the bipartisan Iraqi Study Group, which pointed to a compromise recommendation calling for gradual drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq.

It is instructive to recall the views expressed by many of the generals on the ground, including General Abizaid, General Casey, General Petraeus, that this conflict cannot be won militarily; it will require a political solution. That political solution requires the involvement of other regional governments, including Syria and Iran.

All Americans, certainly every Member here in the House of Representatives, wants the Iraqi Government to succeed and to become the stable democracy we had hoped to achieve at the outset of our involvement. None of us want Iraq to fall into chaos and to become a haven for terrorists, including al Qaeda. But the current U.S. policy and the proposed escalation of a number of American troops offers little promise, I am convinced, of accomplishing those goals.

Even the recently completed National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which the President presumably relies upon, concludes that the war, as it is currently being prosecuted, will not or cannot bring about these results. My colleague, Mr. Murtha, has also suggested that it will be up to the Iraqi people themselves who will expel what remains of al Qaeda in the country, and I believe there is merit in his argument.

This is an important debate, Mr. Speaker, and one that is perhaps long overdue. We as a new Congress, led by a new Democratic leadership team, must communicate that we are placing a firmer hand on the tiller of this ship of state and that we are demanding greater accountability for both the policy and funding of the Iraq war. This new direction starts with a brief and declarative statement, that "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq," but it must be followed by that harder task of guiding our military policy through aggressive oversight and more careful direction of our political and military leadership by all of the relevant committees here in Congress.

That is our task ahead, Mr. Speaker, and as a member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee, I am prepared to do my part.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, but first I would like to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) for purposes of a unanimous-consent request.

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

Mr. Mcnulty: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 63.

I strongly support H. Con. Res. 63, opposing the President's proposal to send 21,500 additional American troops into the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

More than 5 years after the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country, the mastermind behind it--Osama bin Laden--is still alive, free, and planning another attack on our country. And the President rarely even mentions his name.

Instead, he pursues a failed policy in Iraq. The number of American soldiers killed in Iraq now exceeds the number of lives taken on September 11, 2001, and this war has now lasted longer than our involvement in World War II.

The President's response is to send more troops. This surge is nothing more than an escalation of the failed policy that has been tried several times already. I couldn't disagree more with the President.

The Bush policy in Iraq will, in my opinion, go down in history as one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare. Why? Because the terrorist who attacked us is still at large and the situation in Iraq gets worse by the day. Simply put, we went after the wrong guy!

So what should we do now in Iraq? A target date for redeployment of our troops should be set, and their withdrawal from Iraq should begin now. Then the Iraqis who say they support their new government will have the incentive to step forward and volunteer for military service-- something they will not do as long as we offer to take all the enemy fire.

As others have said, "The Iraqis need to demonstrate that they want this new government more than we do."

It's decision time for the Iraqi people.

The President has submitted a supplemental budget request for almost $100 billion to further fund the war in Iraq. If Congress does not amend this proposal to include an exit strategy, I will--as I did on the last Iraq war supplemental on March 16th, 2006--vote "no."

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Rangel): The gentleman may inquire.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I understand at 4:30 we are going to break for some time for the Norwood resolution, which is absolutely appropriate. I just wanted to see if you could give us a split on the time, how much time we have left, we both have Members who are squeezed to get their remarks in, make sure we get an even split on time to half past the hour.

I would like to work with my friend from Missouri to make sure we do that.

Mr. Skelton: Yes.

I have one remaining speaker, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from California has 2 hours and 35 minutes. The gentleman from Missouri has 2 hours and 31 minutes.

Mr. Hunter: We needed to know how much time we had before the 4:30 break, Mr. Speaker, because we have folks, but if we just have one speaker there, that is fine.

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

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the Appropriations Committee.

(Mr. Price of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the escalation of troop levels, to call for an end to the American occupation of Iraq, and to support the resolution before the House.

The two clauses of this resolution go hand in hand. There should be no doubt about the support from this Congress and indeed from the American people for those who risk their lives to defend this Nation. As a Nation, we have learned to sincerely honor the warrior, even when we disagree with the war.

I have personally been moved by my own interactions with our troops. I have been honored to meet with them here at home, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, and in numerous other places where they are serving honorably. And I have mourned with their families when their service has led to the ultimate sacrifice. No one who spends time with the members of our Armed Forces can fail to be impressed by the dedication and valor with which they carry out their duty.

In addition to guaranteeing that they have the resources, equipment and compensation they need, supporting our troops also means ensuring that the missions we ask them to perform are viable and well-designed in terms of our national objectives. The President's surge plan does not meet these criteria, and Congress should oppose it.

The question before us today is whether an escalation of as many as 48,000 American troops is the best way to turn things around in Iraq. However, this question is part of a much larger debate that this country and this Chamber must conduct, a debate about the future of the U.S. military mission.

There cannot be a simply military solution to the challenges that we, and the Iraqi people, face in Iraq. The size of our military presence will not make the difference, because any solution to Iraq's problems will still be political, not military.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq confirms this conclusion. The unclassified report noted that even the term "civil war" is not grave enough to convey the complexity of the security challenges in Iraq. More to the point, the NIE noted that there were three "identifiable elements that could help to reverse negative trends": broader Sunni acceptance of the federalist political structure, Shia and Kurdish concessions to Sunnis, and "a bottom-up approach to help mend frayed relationships between tribal and religious groups." Note that none of these elements can be achieved by military force.

The outgoing commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq, Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, recently stated, "We need to get out of thinking that this is solely a military conflict. All of our Nation's strengths--diplomatic, economic, political--must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process." Other military leaders have echoed this sentiment.

My colleague from North Carolina, Brad Miller, and I have proposed such an approach in our bill, H.R. 645.

Our bill would dramatically strengthen U.S. political and diplomatic efforts. It would send special envoys to the region to encourage Iraq's neighbors to play a more productive role in resolving the conflict and to facilitate a national reconciliation process in Iraq. It would also authorize a program to get would-be insurgents off the streets and into the workforce. And it would provide ongoing support for the development of democratic institutions, particularly at the local level.

While enhancing our political and diplomatic efforts, our bill would de-escalate our military commitment. It would terminate the authorization for the war at the end of this year, and require President Bush to develop an exit strategy for bringing our troops home by that date.

We can no longer ask our troops in Iraq to do the impossible. In fact, their presence is fueling the insurgency and is a magnet for international terrorism. It is time for the American occupation of Iraq to end, and for Iraqi leaders to assume responsibility for their country's future, for better or for worse.

Some have argued that our troops must remain in Iraq to prevent intolerable outcomes. But the outcomes that we have most feared--a civil war, a training ground for terrorists, an ascendant Iran--have already become reality, despite the continuing presence of our troops. While a military presence may delay even worse outcomes, it cannot prevent them. If we are to avoid a regional war or an exponential increase in Iraq's carnage, our best hope is the increased political and diplomatic effort that I have proposed.

Mr. Speaker, how we leave Iraq does matter. A well-planned withdrawal can enhance our ability to protect our troops and prepare Iraqis to assume control. We must not make the same mistake ending the war that we did in beginning it, pursuing a strategy without adequate planning. But we should not hide behind this imperative. We can't allow an exit strategy to prevent or postpone an exit.

I urge my colleagues to consider H.R. 645, which I believe offers the best way to pursue American national security interests in Iraq.

Let me close on a note of caution. The resolution we are debating here today is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The President should hear our message, which expresses the conviction of the majority of the American people that the time to end our occupation of Iraq has come. However, if he doesn't take steps to bring our troops home, the President should be under no illusion that this nonbinding resolution exhausts Congress's role. Rather, it is a first step in holding him accountable and reversing a failed policy that has made our Nation less safe, and has cost us so dearly in blood and treasure.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Miller of Florida: I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of victory in Iraq and in support of our troops. But I also rise to oppose this Democratic defeatist resolution and I hope to provide some historical perspective to help the American people understand what the Democrats plan to do this year.

Make no mistake about it, this resolution is about polls. National polling before November's elections showed a majority of Americans were opposed to cutting off funds for the war but were generally unhappy with events on the ground. Now, this polling data led the Democratic message machine to create a "we support the troops, don't support the war but won't cut off funding" position. Much like Majority Leader Hoyer's empty promises to allow a Republican alternative to this defeatist resolution, the Democrats are now following polls and slowly, piece by piece, bit by bit, revising their stance on defunding the war.

Due to their majority status, this resolution will pass, and soon after the passage, I suspect that Congressman Murtha and others will move to defund the war the same way the Democratic-controlled Congress defunded the Vietnam War over a several-year period. They will do so in a piecemeal fashion with various amendments to appropriation bills, always avoiding the term "defunding" at all costs.

Before we have even concluded this debate, our Speaker has already said a vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation, which will be coming to the House floor. I ask our Speaker, what is your additional Iraq legislation?

The only difference between what the Democrats will soon attempt to do and what they did in the late 1960s and early 1970s is that they will continue to say publicly that they support the troops, instead of speaking, as Senator Kerry did, in front of a congressional committee of the atrocities of the so-called baby killers. The poisonous atmosphere of those times resulted in the military prohibiting all military personnel in the metropolitan Washington area from wearing their uniforms in public out of safety concerns.

Now, two of the most crippling amendments of the Vietnam War were passed in 1969 and 1973. In 1969, Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky cosponsored an amendment prohibiting the use of ground troops in Laos and Thailand. In August of 1973, the Congress passed the Fulbright-Aiken amendment, which cut off all funding for U.S. military forces in or over or from the shore of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.

President Nixon's approval ratings in 1973 were dismally low, and he was close to resigning as a result of the Watergate scandal, and his weakened position emboldened the Democrats to take extreme actions. I would say that some of their actions may have bordered on treasonous, but they have never been judicially challenged.

Our current President has an approval rating nearly as low now as they did then. Democrats are feeling emboldened to challenge our Commander in Chief during a time of war specifically for political gain.

It has also been said that this nonbinding resolution will not affect troop morale. If so, why not amend this nonbinding resolution to send a copy to every man and woman fighting in Iraq, along with a record of each vote. That is right, we don't get a chance to have any amendments.

What is important here are the President's words and his actions. He has ordered more combat forces to Iraq. He has extended the tours of some forces already in country. Let us be perfectly clear, 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq are secure. These additional forces will help restore overall order and provide a stable environment for the political process from within which to work. Now, I cannot assure all of my constituents that the recent developments in Iraq will result in a quick or certain victory in Iraq. But I can assure my constituents and my colleagues that Democrats cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no military solution to the war in Iraq.

I must also point out several other recent Democratic statements that I take issue with, like the one from over this weekend, where a Senator with Presidential ambitions said that more than 3,000 lives were wasted. Of course, he clarified his remarks, because he forgot about the secret Democratic memo that this isn't the 1970s any more, and trashing the military is no longer acceptable.

It reminds me of a former Presidential candidate who said that those who joined our Army were only stupid people. Of course, after the polls came in, he clarified his remarks because he saw they were not being taken very well.

Back to the polls, only 15 percent of the public expressed initial support for the first President Bush to invade Iraq in 1991. Many in my own Republican Party vehemently opposed FDR in World War II. During the Civil War, there was a congressional committee that met officially and unofficially on a regular basis to critique President Lincoln's performance in nearly every battle the Union waged. Does history now reflect these?

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the rest of my comments be inserted in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of victory in Iraq and in support of our troops.

I rise to oppose this Democratic defeatist resolution and I hope to provide some historical perspective to help the American people understand what the Democrats plan to do this year.

Make no mistake about it--this resolution is about polls. National polling before November's elections showed a majority of Americans were opposed to cutting off funds for the war, but were generally unhappy with events on the ground.

This polling data led the Democratic message machine to create a "we support the troops, don't support the war, but won't cut off funding" position. Much like Majority Leader Hoyer's empty promises to allow a Republican alternative to this defeatist resolution, the Democrats are now following polls and slowly, piece by piece, bit by bit, revising their stance on defunding the war.

Due to their majority status, this resolution will pass and soon after the passage, I suspect Congressman Murtha and others will move to defund the war in the same way the Democratic controlled congress defunded the Vietnam war over a several year period. They will do so in a piecemeal fashion with various amendments to appropriations bills and avoid the term "defunding" at all costs. Before we have even concluded this debate, our Speaker has already said, "A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation, which will be coming to the House floor." I say to Speaker Pelosi what is your additional Iraq legislation?

This immoral approach will slowly squeeze off funding and support and become a self fulfilling prophecy for the Democratic party--a party fixated on the 2008 election and "intoxicated" by their new majority status.

The only difference between what the Democrats will soon attempt to do and what they did in the late 60's and early 70's is they will continue to say publicly they support the troops, as Senator Kerry did in front of a congressional committee, of the atrocities of the so- called "baby-killers." The poisonous atmosphere of those times resulted in the military prohibiting all military personnel in the Metropolitan Washington area from wearing their uniforms in public, out of safety concerns.

Two of the most crippling amendments of the Vietnam war were passed in 1969 and 1973. In 1969, Senator John Sherman Cooper (R-KY) cosponsored an amendment prohibiting the use of ground troops in Laos and Thailand. In August 1973 the Congress passed the Fulbright-Aiken amendment which cut off all funding for U.S. military forces in, or over, or from the shore of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.

President Nixon's approval ratings in 1973 were dismally low and he was close to resigning as a result of the Watergate scandal. His weakened position emboldened Democrats to take extreme actions. Some of their actions may have bordered on treasonous, but have never been judicially challenged. Our current President has an approval rating nearly as low; and now, as they did then, Democrats are feeling emboldened to challenge our Commander-in-Chief during a time of war, for political gain.

Last week the Democratic-controlled United States Senate attempted to debate various non-binding resolutions about the Iraq war. I must admit I found it interesting to hear Majority Leader Reid say that voting on a non-binding resolution would show the American people where they stood on the war. Senator Reid and the Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate have made it very clear where they stand on the war--they are opposed to winning the war, claim they were tricked into supporting it and will do anything in their power to cut off all funding to the war.

I encourage Democrats to put forth a bill that eliminates all funding for the Iraq war along with an accompanying statement of non-support for the deployed troops. This would show their true colors and allow the Democrats to be intellectually honest.

It has been said this non-binding resolution will not affect troop morale. If so, why not amend this nonbinding resolution to send every man and woman fighting in Iraq a copy of it, along with the recorded vote.

Oh--that's right, no amendments.

This would also stand in stark contrast to their most recent act of hypocrisy--voting to confirm General David Patraeus, wishing him luck and then moving to undercut his efforts soon after he left the Capitol to begin his journey to Iraq.

More importantly, we need to achieve real progress in Iraq. We have come to a critical juncture and must make sure the price that has been paid--the blood of our young men and women--results in victory. To ensure a real and enduring victory, our Commander-in-Chief is moving forward with a new plan. Some in Congress and the media are debating whether it is a new strategy, a new set of tactics or no change at all. This political posturing is unimportant to the Specialist or Corporal walking point in Baghdad or Al-Anbar province.

What is important are the President's words and his actions. He has ordered more combat forces to Iraq and has extended the tours of some forces already in the country. Their mission is to restore order to the 4 provinces in Iraq that remain volatile. Let us be perfectly clear, 14 of the 18 provinces are secure. These additional forces will help restore overall order and provide a stable environment for the political process within to work.

Today we have received reports from various sources that the radical cleric Al-Sadr may have fled to Iran as a result of the American and Iraqi forces cracking down on his militias and top aides. Iraqi forces are showing up to their appointed duty locations in excess of 70 percent of the time. The Iraqi government is taking the politically difficult step of forcing some Baghdad residents to vacate homes they unlawfully moved into during the war. There is also talk of stricter curfews and closing the borders with Syria and Iran for 30 days--all of this talk coming from the Iraqis.

I cannot assure my constituents these recent developments will result in a quick or certain victory in Iraq. I can assure my constituents and my colleagues that Democrats cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no military solution to Iraq. I also must point out several other recent Democratic statements that I take issue with.

One Senator with Presidential ambitions claimed that the more than 3,000 lives lost in the war had been wasted--he then immediately clarified his remarks because he had forgotten the secret Democrat memo stating that this isn't the 70's and trashing the military is no longer acceptable. This reminds me of a former presidential candidate's comments alleging that only stupid people end up in the Army and in Iraq. Of course, another "clarification" was issued soon after these comments since 2-3 days of polling indicated that the remarks were not well received.

Back to polls--only 15 percent of the public expressed initial support for the first President Bush to invade Iraq in 1991. Many in my own Republican party vehemently opposed FDR in World War II and during the Civil War there was a congressional committee that met officially, and unofficially, on a regular basis to critique President Lincoln's performance in nearly every battle the Union waged.

Does history now reflect that these three conflicts were wrong for America to engage in? I think not. Resolute leaders bucked short term public opinion for the good of the country in the long term. That is why we elect Presidents and that is what we should demand of them.

To date, mistakes have been made and the President has acknowledged them. We must, however, win this war. I believe immediate withdrawal will destabilize the region and cause us to return there in the future, as we have had to do in many regions throughout our history. We cannot fight a war based on polls and emotions. We must take actions that will preserve and enhance our national security now and beyond the next election, the next news cycle or the next opinion poll.

Mr. Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to assume the Democratic time.

I would just comment to the gentleman from Florida that if he would join with us in voting for this resolution, then we will avoid the crises of the Constitution that he talks about and, instead, we will shock this President into giving us a new direction in Iraq.

Point of Inquiry

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, a point of inquiry.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from California is recognized.

Mr. Hunter: This is not an unfriendly request. I just want to note one of our Members has a relative's funeral he wants to go to. He has just a few minutes. I know my friend Mr. Oberstar is waiting to speak. Is there any chance you could yield to Mr. LoBiondo so he could get his 4 minutes in before the deadline?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will inquire.

Mr. Sherman: Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. Oberstar: I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from California is recognized.

Mr. Hunter: I want to thank my friend, Mr. Oberstar, very much for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. LoBiondo: Mr. Oberstar, thank you very much. The circumstances are difficult.

Mr. Speaker, it is more than 5 years that we are into the global war on terror. Since the horrific attacks to our country on September 11, we are fighting a faceless enemy, an unbelievably ruthless enemy, an enemy who is undeterred in their hatreds for our freedoms and our way of life.

We must remain strong in our resolve to defeat the enemy, and it is no accident that our Nation has not been attacked since September 11. It is not because the enemy and its supporters have not wanted to bring destruction to America, it is because we as Americans have remained committed to the defense of our homeland.

It is because we have remained vigilant in working with our international partners to prevent terrorists from being successful, and it is mostly because of our brave men and women in uniform, who have taken the fight to the enemy. Likewise, our commitment to the troops on the battlefield, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, or wherever the global war on terror may take our brave young men and women, must run deep. Our commitment must include that our soldiers have all the necessary equipment and armor that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the well, to the podium today very troubled. For 3 days, the majority will have us debating the very critical issue of the war in Iraq, but this debate is really without real substance.

This debate is without an alternative strategy that many of us acknowledge we desperately need to be discussing. This debate will not bring about one positive change for our men and women in harm's way, and will rather likely result in the wrong message to many of our soldiers, our partners and, avoidably, the enemy.

I believe this debate is dividing the Congress. I believe this debate is dividing the American people and sending the wrong message to our soldiers in the field, who may question our unwavering support on their behalf. I continue to be awe struck and proud of the valor of our servicemen and -women of Iraq. However, this debate sends a mixed message to them, their families, and the families of those who were lost in the global war on terror. We could have, and we should have had a debate that sends a strong message to support our troops in their commitment, but the majority has chosen against us.

While I do not support the President's latest strategy, I believe the American military should not serve as a referee in the sectarian conflict that has lasted for centuries. It is the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to take a stronger role to set benchmarks and not let the American military and our forces be caught in the middle. This resolution is silent in its requirements to the elected Iraqi Government and to the Iraqi people, and holding their own destiny in their hands.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have listened to the generals and military experts, administration officials, tell us that Iraqi forces are ready for greater responsibilities in securing Iraq. However, after being to Iraq five times myself, and talking with a number of soldiers in the field, the reality on the ground is that Iraqi forces are not being used to the extent that they should at this point. I think that needs to change.

I would like to also say that it is with great regret that I will not be here at the conclusion of the debate this week. Unfortunately, my father-in-law passed away after a battle with cancer, and I will be heading out to the funeral with my wife and the family.

I wanted to be on record before leaving as to what this critical motion means. This debate cannot and should not be the end of what we are talking about, and for the reasons stated before all future debates must be substantive on policies. It is clear to me the majority has a strategy that many have talked about that reflects far beyond just the surge in Iraq and what it may mean, but has implications for funding.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it perfectly clear. I support the troops, but on the basis of the message that this is sending to our partners, to the troops, to their families on this nonsubstantive resolution, I cannot support it.

I will close by saying that I received a call from a father, who has two children that are in Iraq. One felt so strongly that he sent a letter to our local newspaper, Specialist Matthew J. Smith of Hopewell Township, and I have just a few excerpts from his letter. "I personally feel as if I am here for a great purpose and goal that our Commander in Chief has ordered us to achieve. I have never felt it would be an easy task, nor should those at home living their comfortable lives. Have we forgotten that this great country of ours was not handed to us on a silver platter? I am asking everyone, please don't allow those of us who have died to die in vain. When we have completed the mission and have been successful in defending freedom, we will come home."

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding this time to Mr. LoBiondo. As this Member gets time in the coming debate, we owe you one.

The Speaker pro tempore: The House of Representatives extends its deepest sympathy to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very patient and the very distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Oberstar: Mr. Speaker, this is the moment that a majority of Americans who voted last November have been waiting for, a time when Congress does something about Iraq. And that something that the people asked of us is to get us out of Iraq.

The resolution before us will not of itself get U.S. forces out of Iraq, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, if it is not the end, it is at least the beginning of the end.

Our President is having trouble understanding the message from the American people. It is a simple message that I hear every time I go back home to Minnesota. Time to bring our troops home with honor. The people are telling me our mission in Iraq is accomplished. The President already declared victory. The goals of the U.S. invasion have been met.

Iraq's army was defeated, Saddam Hussein removed from power and brought to judgment. The Iraqi people held elections to establish a new government. Mission accomplished. Time to bring the troops home with honor.

No weapons of mass destruction were found, despite extensive searches. The Iraqis have a government, they have an army, a police force. There is no further purpose of American policy to be served by a continued military presence in Iraq.

What remains in Iraq is religious warfare between Sunni and Shia, with our troops caught in the crossfire. This is not the job our troops signed up for. This is not the war President Bush sold to Congress. People are telling the President, it is time to bring the troops home and to do it with honor.

President Bush has said he is concerned this resolution is prejudging the outcome of our involvement in Iraq. I would say the outcome is not in doubt. We have spent and are continuing to spend $9 billion a month in Iraq; 3,122 of our servicemen and -women have been killed; 23,550- plus have been wounded; tens of thousands more Iraqis killed and wounded. The violence is escalating, our troops are the targets.

I do not think this resolution prejudges anything. The facts speak for themselves. And the people are saying bring the troops home with honor. I did not support this war at its outset. We had Saddam Hussein contained. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq. We had a job to do in Afghanistan. I supported going into Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden. But I saw no clear rationale for sending troops into combat in Iraq.

The resolution does offer a statement of support for the troops. Their service is an extraordinary gift. They volunteer to leave their homes and families and risk their lives every day, at the order of the President. All they ask is that we never ask them to go to conflict unless that conflict is absolutely necessary and in the national interest.

Lieutenant General William Odom, in a recent article in The Washington Post said, about the question that we have to continue to fight in order to support the troops, has anyone asked the troops? During their first tours, many may have favored staying the course. But now in their second, third, fourth tours, he writes, many are changing their minds.

We see no evidence of that in the news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. The strangest aspect of the rationale, General Odom writes, for continuing the war is the implication that our troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the President's course.

That political and moral responsibility belongs to the President, not to the troops. Didn't Harry Truman make it clear that the buck stops in the Oval Office? The President keeps dodging it. Where does it stop, General Odom asks, with Congress? And that is why we are here today to say it is up to us to make a definitive statement with this resolution, a statement that it is time to end the U.S. involvement in Iraq, to bring the troops home with honor. And then if the President does not heed, then we must take more vigorous steps, steps that I voted for in coming to end the U.S. involvement in Vietnam over 32 years ago.

If that is what it takes, then we have to say that the buck stops with us in the Congress to stop the U.S. engagement in Iraq.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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