---

The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 157, proceedings will now resume on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

The Speaker pro tempore: When proceedings were postponed earlier today, 4 hours and 46 minutes of debate remained on the concurrent resolution.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) has 2 hours and 21 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) has 2 hours and 25 minutes remaining.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

Mr. Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a long war on radical Islam, a war the President has analogized to the Cold War. Two roads in that war lead to disaster. The first disastrous road would be to abandon the battle, appease, disarm, blame America, and speak to Syria and Iran about what concessions we are going to give them.

The second disastrous course is to stay the course in our utter fixation on Iraq as the only battlefield in the global war on radical Islam. Those who propose that we stay the course, an erroneous course, I might add, give four different reasons:

First, they say that if we do not stay in Iraq and prevail, then terrorists will have a place to gather and plot against us. Mr. Speaker, terrorists can plot against us in the deserts of Somalia. Terrorists are plotting against us in the mountains of North Waziristan, in the mountains of Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, terrorists can plot against us in an apartment building in Hamburg. Even if we prevail in Iraq, terrorists will always be able to find a conference room.

The second reason we are given is that if we do not prevail in Iraq, the terrorists there will follow us home. Well, keep in mind on 9/11, the vast majority of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a country with an apparently stable and obstensibly friendly government. So even if Iraq were stable and friendly, individual Iraqi terrorists might well come to the United States and carry out actions against us. Third, we are told that we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to stay there, to stay the course. We have liberated the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, a man who killed millions in his war against Iran and against the Kurds. Now we have given the Iraqi people an opportunity to come together. We have bled sufficiently for Iraq.

Finally, we are told that we owe it to those Americans who died in battle to stay in Iraq until Iraq is a model democracy.

I would argue that instead we owe it to those who died to have an intelligent foreign policy that safeguards America. That starts with learning the lessons of the Cold War. Remember the 1960s and the 1970s, when we were told that if we didn't support every escalation in Vietnam, then the Communists would follow us home or, in the parlance of that day, there would be Communists on the beaches of southern California.

Well, we won the Cold War because we pulled out of Vietnam. The short-term outcome in Vietnam was not what we would have liked, but even if we had stayed in Vietnam another decade, it would have been no different. We won the global war on communism because we waged it globally, and we did not become fixated forever on Vietnam.

The time has arrived to pull back from daily battles on the streets of Baghdad. It is time for Iraq to no longer be viewed as the sole or exclusive battlefield in the war on terrorism. It is time instead for us to focus on the one part of the global war on terrorism that could lead to hundreds of thousands of American deaths, and that is Iran's nuclear program. We need to mobilize all of our diplomatic leverage to reshape our policies towards Russia, Europe and China, toward the single goal of putting together a coalition that will put the pressure on Iran necessary to force that country to abandon its nuclear program. We owe this to those who have died in Iraq, and we owe it to the American people.

Finally, we are told that this resolution is nonbinding, meaningless, that the President will ignore it, that the only way we have of affecting policy is to cut off funds, which is constitutionally problematic, since it involves tying in the hands of the Commander in Chief while we have troops in the field. But the very people who say this resolution is meaningless have it in their power to make it meaningful, have it in their power to avoid such constitutionally problematic approaches.

Because if the Republicans will vote for this resolution, they will make it meaningful, they will make it decisive, the President will not ignore it, we will jolt the President into abandoning his stay the course, escalate the course approach.

Those who vote against this resolution may keep it from being meaningful. But if even a third of the Republican caucus votes for this resolution, then the President will no longer stay the course, he will be jolted, he will work with Congress cooperatively towards a foreign policy that makes sense for our country.

I look forward to having enough votes for this resolution so that it is, indeed, meaningful.

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

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York is recognized as the designee of the minority leader under the rule for the purpose of yielding time.

The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. King of New York: I thank the Speaker for his recognition and for his usual courtesy.

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

I rise today in opposition to the resolution. I have listened as carefully as I can for the past day and a half of debate, and it becomes clearer and clearer to me that those who were supporting this resolution, for whatever reason, are unwilling to accept the consequences of the words of this resolution, unwilling to accept the consequences of what could happen by the adoption of this resolution.

Yes, the resolution is meaningless. Yes, the resolution has no legal impact, but it does send a terrible message. It sends a terrible message to the world that the United States is losing a sense of resolution, if you will. It also sends a very cruel message, I believe, to the troops in the field, because while the resolution goes out of the way to say it supports the troops, at the very same time it is necessarily undermining the newly appointed commander of those troops. We hear from speaker after speaker who was speaking in support of the resolution that this is more of the same staying the course, this is a policy that cannot work.

But yet the newly designated commander, General Petraeus, who was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate, is one of the architects of this policy. General Petraeus has stated that this policy can work, that he believes it will work.

Those of us who have been to Iraq and seen the outstanding work that General Petraeus has done, the 101st Airborne, we realize how committed he is. To me it sends such a mixed message to, on the one hand, have him unanimously confirmed as the new commander in the field, and yet at the same time to be attacking his credibility or his competency.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say he is the best man for the job, we have faith in him, and yet say the policy is wrong and it cannot work, and he says it will work and he is the architect of that policy. Think of the message we are sending to the troops. Think of the message we are sending to our allies in our region. Probably most importantly, think of the message we are sending to the enemy of the region.

I just heard the previous gentleman say that those of us who oppose the resolution want to stay the course. I would say that those who are supporting the resolution are the ones who want to stay the course. This is a significant new policy. General Petraeus has said it is a new policy, and it is a new policy.

The gentleman also said that we don't really have to worry about Iraq becoming a haven for terrorists because terrorists can attack us anywhere. He basically said you can do it from an apartment in Hamburg.

I would suggest that if the proponents of the resolution cannot appreciate the distinction between a hotel room in Hamburg and a sovereign state such as Iraq being occupied by terrorists, then they don't realize the impact that Afghanistan had, the fact that the Taliban allowed al Qaeda to have a sanctuary in Afghanistan, how it gave them a strong base of operations to carry out and plot the attacks of September 11.

Now, truly there are terrorists everywhere, Islamist terrorists throughout the world. They are certainly throughout the Middle East, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, they are here in the United States, we know that, in Canada. But the fact is you try to take as many sanctuaries away from them if possible.

Iraq, if we did leave Iraq, and that, I believe, has to be the necessary outcome, the only logical conclusion of where this resolution will ultimately lead us, then we have a situation where we are talking about confronting Iran. Well, the Shiites in Iran will certainly have enormous influence in Iraq. Al Qaeda will have a sanctuary among the Sunnis in Iraq, and then we will have the situation in the north between the Kurds and the Turks. So the fact is no one more than those of us who oppose the resolution realize this is not the only battlefield, but it is a main battlefield.

Certainly al Qaeda believes it is important. That is why we have al Qaeda in Iraq. That is why al Qaeda has been carrying out attacks, that is why al Qaeda was there. That is why we are engaging in Anbar province. By the way, of the 21,000 additional troops, at least 4,000 will be directly confronting al Qaeda in Anbar province.

These are all the issues I feel have not been in any way adequately or sufficiently addressed by the supporters of the resolution. Again, at a time when we have General Petraeus embarking on what I believe is a key turning point in the war, it is really irresponsible to even be considering voting for this resolution.

Now, another point, I know many speakers on my side want to be heard during the time that I will be controlling, but we, I think, have to address the issue of should Congress be getting involved in making strategic battlefield decisions.

I have researched this. I have not found one instance during the history of our country where the United States Congress has injected itself into battlefield decisions.

I was just thinking suppose we did this during World War II, and we had this situation with a small island in the Pacific, Iwo Jima, where almost 7,000 people were killed in less than 6 weeks, almost 26,000 casualties. If we had 24-hour cable news, if we had a sense of disunity in the country, we would be bringing a resolution in the second or third week of the battle saying we already lost 2, 3, 4,000 troops, this one island, how can we have 10 to 15,000 casualties just in the first 2, 3 weeks.

But the fact is we have allowed the President, as Commander in Chief, and that is his constitutional responsibility. We voted for the war in the House. We voted for the war in the Senate. Once we do that, the Commander in Chief, I believe, strongly believe, has the constitutional authority and the right to be deciding exactly the tactical and strategic decisions.

If the Members of Congress want to cut off funding for the war, the fact is some of them may, then the fact is they should say that, not be coming in through the backdoor.

So I would urge my colleagues to realize the consequences of their action. You know, I spoke on the House floor yesterday, and after I was finished the speaker who followed me said I wish that the opponents of the resolution would just stick to the resolution itself.

I am more than willing to debate the resolution. I believe I have. The fact is I can see why they don't want to look at the consequences beyond the narrow language of that resolution, because it will have horrific consequences for the United States. Actions have consequences, words have consequences, and the words of this resolution will have terrible consequences for the United States, terrible consequences for all of us who oppose Islamic terrorism, and terrible consequences for our allies in the region and with whom we need support in the future.

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

Mr. Sherman: Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of a process that shows our troops that America is a functioning democracy, and that we are engaged in discussing a resolution that reflects the views of the vast majority of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, a distinguished Member of the Congress and of the Appropriations Committee, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. Kilpatrick asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. Kilpatrick: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I stand here today in support of House Resolution 63, a long time coming, but as it is always said, it is right on time. I stand here to speak for the millions of Americans today who have had enough, who have had enough of this war, its unjust nature, its over $500 billion that has been spent there in Iraq and Afghanistan and not spent in our own country.

I stand here today in support of H. Con. Res. 63 because this war has lasted longer than World War II. My 87-year-old father fought in the Navy at Pearl Harbor during World War II. One of my political mentors, a great man, Mayor Coleman Alexander Young, a former Tuskeegee Airman, fought during World War II. It is time to bring our troops home. It is time for us to change the course.

As we celebrate this Black History Month, the theme of the Congressional Black Caucus during these times are change course, do something different, act, speak, donate, join, confront the crisis, the crisis of the war which is why we are here today, and then continue the legacy that has brought this country to greatness.

Many of my Congressional Black Caucus members have served in the military. John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Ed Towns, Bobby Scott, William Jefferson, Sanford Bishop, all able men who have fought and served in our military over the years.

We come to you, tonight, this evening, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, proud Americans. We love our country. We serve our people. And we want to remain the strongest Nation in the world.

Who speaks for the American people in this time of crisis? They spoke to us last November when they said enough is enough. The first military man who died in wars for our country's independence was Crispus Attucks, who fought in the Revolutionary War, an African American man who gave his life because he loved this country, could not vote at the time, could not own property, but again he fought in a war because, again, this was the greatest country in the world.

So what do we do today as we discuss H. Con. Res. 63? It is time to engage in a diplomatic solution. We cannot win this war militarily. The generals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken out against the escalation. What is the plan, Mr. President? How do we bring our soldiers home, redeploy them on the periphery, and make our country safe, and, at the same time, invest those dollars in Americans' lives, in their children's lives?

Dr. King wrote a book, "I Have the Strength." I have the strength to stand before you today for the American people. I have the strength to let you know that we as a Nation can be all that God wants us to be. That in fighting wars, and wars will come from time to time, this is the time to bring this one to the end.

I will protect and speak out for the over 3,100 families who have lost young men and women, over the tens of thousands who are blinded and amputees, and over the many hundred thousands we do not yet know who will be in need of mental health services as our mental health capacity in this country has been shredded.

Those dollars have to be invested so that we take care of our veterans. I have the strength to stand here before you this evening because it is time, as we debate H. Con. Res. 63, that we rise up as a Nation and speak out and continue our legislative responsibilities, as I stood before you, took my oath of office that I would protect this country, our Constitution, against both domestic and foreign intimidation.

I stand before you tonight as one of 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus during this African American History Month, who love our country, who want us to invest in America's families. H. Con. Res. 63 will begin that discussion. It will make it available that we might change course, do something different, listen to the American people.

We love our troops. We served in those troops. Our families served. We want the strongest military that we have available. We are now having in Iraq equipment shortages. If we spent over $503 billion, why is it that equipment is not adequate for our soldiers to engage in battle?

Accountability. The Inspector General recently reported $9 billion is unaccounted for. That is $9 billion as part of the $500 billion that could be invested in American families. So I say as I stand here, H. Con. Res. 63, vote "yes." Let's change course.

I am honored and blessed with the understanding of a power greater than that of any singular or even collective Membership of this Congress. That power has allowed Congress to finally debate the most pressing question of our time--the War in Iraq. As I prepared myself to speak in support of H. Con. Res. 63, a very simple and very clear declaration that Congress supports our troops, but we oppose the escalation of this war, I reflected upon the words of one of the greatest warriors for peace this world has ever known, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A prolific author, Dr. King wrote a book entitled, "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?" In it, Dr. King writes that "we are faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity." Congress lost our opportunity for real debate on this war a little more than four years ago. Congress has that opportunity now.

As this is the height of Black History Month, I also speak to America today because of the investment that my ancestor put through 4 centuries of slave labor, 4 centuries of lynchings, 4 centuries of Jim Crow laws, 4 centuries of sitting on the back of the bus, 4 centuries of combined discrimination. And despite 4 centuries of second class citizenship, African Americans have always heeded the call to arms in defense of a country that did not always defend them.

Indeed, when it comes to war, the very first person, black, white, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native American to die for this country was an African American, Crispus Attucks, who did not even have the right to vote, the right to buy property, the right to be recognized as a human being. He wanted the right to love our country. Like the hundreds of thousands of African Americans who have followed his footsteps in the military, I honor and I appreciate the service of all our women and men in the military of all ethnicities. I support all of the women and men who serve, without glory but with honor, efficiently and effectively protecting all of us, never hesitating to pay the highest price any human being could pay for our freedom.

I speak to America today because Americans have had enough, as best selling author Frank Rich illustrates, of the "decline and fall of the truth." Of what decline and fall do I speak? Of "Mission accomplished." Of "bring 'em on." Of "shock and awe." Of "dead or alive." Of "uranium coming from Africa." Of "smoking guns becoming mushroom clouds." Those Americans who have had enough are not just the Democratic majority. They are not just the senior citizens, the working class women and men who punch a time clock every day, or the liberals of America. They conservatives, my Republican colleagues in Congress and elsewhere, people in the red States and blue States, business owners, military women and men and their families.

My father served this country honorably as a member of our military, as have many of my relatives. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus have also served this country in our military. Just off of the top of my head, my colleagues Chairman John Conyers, Chairman Charles Rangel, Congressman Ed Towns, and Congressman Bobby Scott, among others, have worn the uniform. My political mentor and hero, the late, great mayor of Detroit, Michigan, Coleman Young, was one of General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.'s understudies as a Tuskeegee Airman as a bombardier and navigator. During the Vietnam war, African Americans served despite the opposition of Dr. King and other groups opposed to the Vietnam war. They did it for the same reason why I serve this country as a Member of Congress--because I love our country.

The investment that began when African Americans set foot in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619 and continues to this very day is the reason why I stand in support of this resolution that is but the first step, to resolve the challenge that is Iraq. I am not a military expert, and I don't pretend to be a military expert. But, as noted genius Albert Einstein once said, "insanity is doing the same over and over again and expecting different results." Over and over, Congress has spent over $503 billion in Iraq. Over and over, America's finest have died, with more than 3,000 women and men, in Iraq. Over and over, women and men are wounded or maimed, some for life, with more than 25,000 today. Today, we still cannot safely fly planes on a reliable basis in and out of Baghdad. This is progress?

Progress is what Americans want. I know that war can be messy, amorphous at times, and brutal. After a war that has lasted more than the United States involvement in World War II, our military women and men deserve progress. Our taxpayers deserve progress. Our current course, and this surge, is not what Americans want, this is not what Congress wants, this is not what I want.

Historians have generally acknowledged that the debate on the war in 1991 was one of the high marks of this institution. Congress did not cede its role then to a popular President. Instead, Congress and the White House worked together to achieve a worthwhile goal. It was difficult. Both sides had to compromise. But guess what? That is how a democracy works.

Unfortunately, Congress did not have this debate over 4 years ago in a war that has now lasted longer than the United States was involved in World War II. Thank God, we have that debate now. Thank God, we have heard the voice of the American people. Thank God and the American people, it is time for a change.

After this debate, after this resolution, I hope that this is the beginning of our country, and our world, to begin to choose between chaos and community. As Dr. King once wrote, "we have a choice today-- nonviolent coexistence or violent co annihilation."

Dr. King wrote another book entitled "Strength to Love." It is because I have the strength to love my country, the strength to love our troops, the strength to love the oath I took for this office--that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic--that I have the strength to support this resolution. We need to be smarter about our policy in Iraq to include diplomatic and political solutions rather than repeating the same military policies that have not worked, but continue to put the finest of our women and men in harm's way. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, working together, can arrive at a solution that establishes a stable democracy in Iraq, protects American interests, and increases the role and responsibility of the Iraqi people to fend for themselves.

Instead of "bring them on," I hope that my colleagues agree that Congress can start to "bring them home." I will vote in strong support of H. Con. Res. 63, and hope that Congress can quickly work to bring stronger, binding legislation to the floor soon.

Mr. King of New York: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Terry: Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res 63. Our troops have made tremendous sacrifices in waging war against Islamic extremists who not only want to deny freedom to their fellow countrymen but remain committed to attacking America and our way of life.

We have lost some of the bravest, most dedicated and committed Americans we have been honored to know, love, and mourn. They deserve the highest honor and respect from this Congress and the American people for their service. Those brave men and women still in harm's way have earned the right to come home as quickly as possible.

This does not mean, however, that we should abandon this mission and leave Iraq to certain failure by prematurely pulling out our troops, nor should we cut military funding or adopt nonbinding resolutions that embolden our enemies and undermine our troop morale.

Now, that last statement has been accused by many speakers on the Democrat side as being a red herring to chase the American public away from the attention of this addition of 20,000 troops. But I read their authored resolution. And the words are that you support and protect members of the Armed Services who are serving, are serving or have served, which means that they will not support our troops, any uniformed member that is newly sent to Iraq, whether it is for training the Iraqi troops, whether to be embedded and help them, or any capacity. So the next logical step from their own wording of this resolution is to cut funding. That is the only way to stop supporting any new military member that goes to Iraq.

So we have to ask, how will they do that? Now, I believe the Iraqi Government needs our assistance to restore security and prevent a descent into anarchy and civil war, or, worse yet, a heightened foreign insurgency that results in terrorist control of that nation.

The situation in the Middle East is a powder keg that will explode if the United States abandons it. The resolution under debate today offers no military or diplomatic solutions apart from expressing disapproval over the plan to increase troops that will help train the Iraqis to go to the front and take more responsibilities to securing Iraq.

The U.S. military personnel will be working closely with and training Iraqi soldiers. Pentagon leaders tell us that embedding these highly trained U.S. troops have been highly effective in making the Iraqi military better.

In anticipation of the American withdrawal, 23 Sunni clerics in Saudi Arabia have already expressed support for sending their Sunni fighters to Iraq as have Shiite clerics from other areas of the Middle East in anticipation of the U.S. leaving Iraq.

The Jordanian ambassador has described it well, saying that it is like the U.S. has stepped on a land mine, only that this is the other type of a land mine that will explode when you take your foot off of it. We will see an explosion if we do as this Democrat resolution sets up and stop supporting our troops and begin withdrawing them.

This Congress must not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. War should not be conducted by 535 self-proclaimed generals. Politicians should not be dictating troop levels or planning missions. Our duty is to conduct effective and responsible oversight while giving our soldiers and military commanders the resources that they need to get the job done. This resolution specifically says you will not do that.

Premature withdrawal or a forced gradual withdrawal, which this resolution seems to endorse, from Iraq, through cutting funds, may appease those who oppose the war, the base of the authors who wrote this resolution, but it surely will produce more bloodshed and sectarian violence far exceeding the level currently reported by newspapers today.

I am not willing to gamble with those lives of future Americans of our generations to come. This resolution runs away from the best option we have been presented to provide security in Iraq. I am open to alternatives, better plans, including those from our colleagues on the other side. It is just that we are not able to engage in that discussion today.

I will vote "no" on this resolution, and hope that the majority of my colleagues will join me.

Mr. Faleomavaega: Madam Speaker, I gladly yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Jefferson: Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to address an issue of grave importance to our country. I rise in support of the resolution that is before us. The resolution continues to support our troops who are presently fighting in Iraq. But it calls into severe question the wisdom of escalating our military involvement there.

I personally believe that escalating our efforts in Iraq is a tremendous mistake. It is time for us to recognize that there is no military solution to what is happening there. The only solution that will work in Iraq is a political solution. Even those who believe this surge to be an excellent strategy do so because they hope that it will lead to more favorable conditions for a political settlement.

The political solution depends on the Iraqi people themselves deciding to work together to knit their country together and to fight in behalf of their own nascent democracy. The rampant violence in Iraq is the result of a civil conflict in that country, and the Iraqi people must decide whether they will truly have a real representative democracy that includes the Sunnis, the Shiites, and other significant segments of their society.

If the Iraqi Government is to stand up for its own future, we must begin now to make it clear that we will not stay there forever and continue to add our troops. I personally believe that the best way to signal that our commitment is not open ended in this civil war is to start now the withdrawal of some of our troops. However, short of that, this resolution is an important first step toward ensuring that the people of our Nation know that we are changing direction in Iraq, and so that the people of Iraq will know that they must plan a future with the United States as an important ally, but not as an enforcer of the status quo in their nation.

Madam Speaker, the justifications for the invasion of Iraq have long ago been discredited. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no nuclear threat. Every credible source and study has established that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and the tragic events of 9/11. These were the reasons that were given as justification for our entry into the Iraqi war and that supported the statement that our national interest was at stake. Unfortunately, since the reasons were erroneous, no national interest exists.

Winning a military conflict, even if it were possible, does not create a national interest. Adding more troops to fight under the present conditions on the ground in Iraq cannot create a national interest where none truly exists. Such a strategy will simply add more human targets in a civil war that does not threaten America.

We are straining our troops and our military and financial resources beyond all reasonable limits. We are decimating our National Guard strength at a time when we have more than enough disasters here at home to which we must attend.

At a time when Louisiana needs the support of our National Guard, members of our National Guard are being called to serve in Iraq. At a time when the New Orleans area residents struggle to rebuild following the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history, and following deadly tornadoes just 2 days ago, we need National Guard troops here at home to fight crime in our streets and to keep our people safe. We need the billions of dollars that we are spending on war and the rebuilding of Iraq to wage a war on poverty and ignorance here at home. We need a greater commitment to rebuilding the Gulf Coast communities, including my beloved City of New Orleans.

Madam Speaker, let's not continue to make matters worse at home and abroad by pursuing a policy in Iraq that cannot work, that has not worked and that simply can no longer be justified.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution which supports our troops in the field and supports, at the same time, the commonsense objections to escalating our troop presence in Iraq. The people of this great country eloquently expressed their disapproval of the course of this war in the November elections, and on their behalf we should do no less.

Mr. King of New York: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Rogers of Alabama: Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this resolution. In doing so, I want to say I understand and share in some of the frustrations of those who are disappointed in the course of this conflict.

Over the past few days we have heard passionate debate on both sides of the issue from Democrats and Republicans alike. But I would say to my colleagues, passing this resolution is not the answer to their frustration. Not only is it purely symbolic and offers no productive solution for helping our military succeed, it sends the wrong message to our troops.

Instead of debating a resolution that says what we should not do in Iraq, it seems to me a more reasonable question should be, how should we go forward from here?

In January, the President put forth a plan to send reinforcements to help secure key areas in and around Baghdad and Anbar province in order to achieve a level of security to allow the Iraqi Government and security forces to assume control. As we all know, it may work and it may not.

But if the President, as Commander in Chief, and General Pace truly believe this plan will succeed, then I believe it should be given a chance to work.

Having listened to proponents and critics of the plan, it seems to me its success or failure is dependent on some key factors, including, first, whether our soldiers will be given the latitude to fully perform their duties without political interference; secondly, whether the Iraqi Government will be held accountable to live up to its commitments; and, third, whether the Iraqis will finally take responsibility for their own affairs.

Madam Speaker, the stakes in this debate are high. Iraq, indeed, is now the primary battlefront in the global war on terror, and there are no easy answers.

The House may pass this resolution this week, but in doing so, we will have missed an opportunity for a better and more balanced debate, including the chance to vote on a substitute bill.

Given the sacrifices our Nation has made, I agree the time to see real progress in Iraq is now. We all want our troops to come home safely and as soon as possible. But we also need for them to be successful in order for our Nation to remain secure.

Though our patience is being tested, our men and women in uniform deserve better from us than this purely symbolic resolution. They need our complete and unqualified support.

Mr. Faleomavaega: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who currently is the chairlady of our Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the House Resources Committee. She also serves as a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mrs. Christensen: Madam Speaker, I come to the floor of this House today wearing my American Legion auxiliary pin, as I do every day, to honor the men and women of our Armed Forces who have served and continue to give the highest service to this country even today in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world.

And I rise as a proud American and the representative of the more than 120,000 people of the United States Virgin Islands who love this country and desire nothing more than it be the strongest and best it can be in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63, which expresses our strong support for the members of the U.S. Armed Forces for their honorable and brave service in Iraq, but just as forcefully and clearly states our disapproval of the decision of the President to deploy the over 20,000 additional troops.

I don't take this position lightly, as we currently have over 100 members of the Virgin Islands National Guard serving in that theater today, and having recently lost two members of the Guard as well as four other soldiers who preceded them.

However, Madam Speaker, as the sole Representative of the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Congress, Americans who have fought and died in every war and conflict from the Revolutionary War to this and yet cannot vote for the Commander in Chief, I consider it my solemn duty to express their views on this, the most pressing and important issue facing our country.

Madam Speaker, our fellow Americans spoke loud and clear last November, expressing a desire for a change of direction in Iraq, and by a more than 2-to-1 margin, they presently oppose the President's plan.

It is important, Madam Speaker, that we engage in this important debate today. The American people are demanding that we do so. Far from second-guessing the President's strategy and undermining our troops, as the White House charges, we are fulfilling our constitutional role and doing the responsible thing. The last 4 years have demonstrated that the present course in Iraq is not the correct one, and it is time that we demand that the President listen to other experienced experts and responsible voices that are calling for another approach.

This modest resolution is but the first step in that effort, an effort to support our troops and support our Nation by holding the President and the Department of Defense accountable, by insisting on an exit strategy that extricates our men and women from what is now a civil war, and allows the Iraqi people and their government to take responsibility for their country's welfare.

We are also told by Members on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, that if we change course in Iraq, it will be disastrous for the Iraqi people. But the Iraqis themselves don't think so. Not only do polls show that 78 percent of Iraqis believe that American troops provoked more violence than they prevented and that nearly three- quarters of Baghdad residents would feel safer if American forces left Iraq, but previous surges have indeed resulted in an escalation of violence, killing greater numbers of Americans as well as Iraqis.

Instead of beating the drums of war, the President should be engaging in diplomacy, as the Iraqi Study Group called for, to pursue our common interest in a stable Iraq, even if it means sitting down with Syria and Iran, as we have done in the past. Peace and the lives of our men and women deserve this effort.

With all of the thousands of Iraqis killed and over 3,100 of our troops having made the ultimate sacrifice, we have paid a far greater price for the decision to invade Iraq without the proper justification or an exit strategy and without adequate preparation, training, and protection for our troops. We have further paid the price of the loss of respect and esteem by the international community and the loss by the people of this country of any confidence that what we are told by the White House is the truth.

While we, sadly, cannot bring back those who have died, we can honor their memory by restoring truth and restoring this country to the high respect, regard, and leadership that the brave men and women of our Armed Forces dedicate and sacrifice their lives to preserve.

House Concurrent Resolution 63 begins that restoration and repair. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

Mr. King of New York: Madam Speaker, I would remind the supporters of the resolution that more than 70 percent of the American people, in opinion polls, opposed President Truman's policy in Korea, and that was one of the turning points in the Cold War.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 1/6 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), who is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Wicker: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on December 31, 1776, with the fate of the Revolution in doubt, General George Washington faced a challenge of convincing his soldiers to stay in the fight. With their enlistments over, they wanted to go home. Washington made an impassioned plea and even offered volunteers a bonus. But no one responded. He spoke again, saying that all they held dear was at stake. And finally one man stepped forward. Then others followed.

Public opinion at that time was not on Washington's side. Only a third of the population supported the war for independence. One-third were openly hostile, and another one-third simply did not want to be involved.

We should be grateful that George Washington was not obsessed with public opinion polls.

Only days earlier Thomas Paine had written: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered."

In the summer of 1863, Colonel Joshua Chamberlain of Maine faced a similar crisis. He had to convince a group of mutineers to stand and fight in a key battle. He promised to plead their case later if they rejoined the ranks. They did, and helped him win the Battle of Gettysburg.

Public opinion at that time was running against President Lincoln and the war. It was lasting longer and costing more than anticipated. In Congress, Democrats demanded the troops be brought home immediately, but Lincoln stood by his convictions and won the war.

It is easy for us to look back on these pivotal moments in our Nation's history without remembering how tough the going was, how reluctant many of our own people were, and how it took strong leadership to bring about victory.

Let's contrast those times with the situation today in Iraq. Clearly the American people are tired and impatient with this war, and many believe we cannot win. Yet troop morale is high. In testimony before Congress last week, the senior enlisted personnel from each service, the National Guard, and the Reserves, said our forces in Iraq believe in what they are doing and that positive things are being accomplished.

But you don't have to take their word for it. The enlistment and reenlistment figures themselves are a testimony to the commitment of our troops. All service branches met and exceeded their goals in both categories in 2006. The command sergeant major of the Marine Corps told our committee that young people join the Marines today to get to the fight. Knowing full well they will go to Iraq, they are signing up with enthusiasm and purpose. It almost takes your breath away to hear the troops who have been there say they continue to believe in our mission and want to see it through to completion.

I hear the same thing from my constituents who have returned from Iraq. They express frustration about the news media's focus on the bad news. Returning troops tell of their successes in helping steer Iraq toward a path of democracy and freedom.

I received an e-mail this week from a Mississippi soldier in Iraq. He said, "No one wants everybody home more than I do, but we must finish the job. We are doing good things here and taking bad guys out of the game."

The most important question in today's debate is what message does this resolution send to our military, to the volunteers who have been serving so proudly in harm's way? And make no mistake, they are listening to what we say here and watching what we do here. Will the passage of this resolution give our troops encouragement? I don't think so.

The Americans are conflicted about this war. A CBS poll this week showed that only 44 percent of Americans support this resolution; 45 percent are opposed. That is all the more reason for leaders to lead. Washington and Lincoln were not concerned about public opinion polls. They did what was necessary to succeed, and that is what is called for in the halls of Congress today.

I am convinced that deep in their hearts, most Americans realize we are in a serious global war for survival against an enemy that wants to wipe us off the face of the Earth. When all is said and done, the American people want us to win this war. Success in Iraq is a key element in winning against the terrorists.

Osama bin Laden's chief deputy has urged al Qaeda operatives in Iraq to expel the Americans, extend the "jihad wave" to neighboring countries, and 2 weeks ago he spoke of Afghanistan and Iraq as two "most crucial fields." I regret to say that enemies like these will be pleased when this resolution passes.

Madam Speaker, let's send the terrorists a message of strength and resolve. Let's send a message of support and unity and confidence and appreciation to our troops. This resolution sends the wrong message, and I will vote against it.

Mr. Faleomavaega: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), currently serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Environmental and Hazardous Materials of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Wynn: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63, a bipartisan resolution supporting our troops in Iraq, while opposing the President's troop escalation strategy.

This marks the fourth year of this war. It is time to bring our troops home now. We have not quelled the violence. We have not thwarted al Qaeda. We have not stabilized the region. We have not deterred terrorist radicals. In fact, because of our presence, there are more jihadists in Iraq than there were before.

Thus, I find it inconceivable that the President's response to this situation, 3 years of military failure in Iraq, is to suggest that we add more troops, 20,000 additional troops.

Since the start of the war in 2003, over 3,000 U.S. troops have died, more than 50 from my State of Maryland alone. In addition, 23,000 American soldiers have suffered serious injury and will have post- traumatic consequences. The President's approach will only result in the loss of more U.S. lives.

Iraq is in the midst of what has become a civil war between Shia and Sunni. There also is internal tribal and gang violence. Our troops can play no constructive role in this environment, except as targets for all sides.

This is not a partisan Democratic issue. Let me be clear. The President's proposed troop escalation runs contrary to the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and military experts such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to a December Washington Post article, the Joint Chiefs have long opposed the increase in troops.

Generals Colin Powell, George Casey, John Abizaid and Barry McCaffrey have all expressed skepticism about the President's surge strategy. Even some of my Republican colleagues will oppose this surge strategy, and for good reason.

Troop buildups in Iraq haven't worked. U.S. troop levels increased by 18,000 from November 2004 to January 2005 in advance of the Iraqi elections, yet insurgent attacks increased. In 2005, the administration increased troop levels by over 20,000 to secure Iraq ahead of its constitutional referendum. The strategy not only failed to quell the violence, but insurgent attacks increased by 29 percent.

Some of my Republican colleagues make an argument that if you support the troops, you must support the mission. They say if we don't defeat radical Islam in Iraq, then where will we do it? Unfortunately, both of these theories are flawed.

Our troops have performed admirably, sacrificing life and limb, often without sound strategy or adequate equipment. And, yes, the goal of peace and stability in the Middle East is admirable, but this mission is misguided. The fact is that despite previous congressional support, this mission was inadequately planned and our troops inadequate equipped. In addition, the administration has cast a blind eye at massive fraud, waste and abuse that has undermined the reconstruction efforts and cheated the American taxpayer.

We are now in the midst of a civil war that we neither understand nor can we resolve. I support the troops, but I cannot support this ill- conceived mission.

As hard as it is for some, we must understand that this is not a World War II type conflict. This is not our great army defeating their great army.

We cannot defeat a radical Islamic insurgency militarily. This does not mean we cannot defeat a radical Islamic insurgency. It does not mean that if we oppose a troop escalation or begin withdrawing our troops that we have failed. Rather, it is a recognition of what the American people already know: We need a new strategy.

This administration operates under the arrogant assumption that only America wants peace in Iraq. In fact, other Arab nations in the region have an even greater desire for peace and stability. They don't want to see their brethren killed. They don't want to see waves of refugees flood their region. Our new strategy should be a diplomatic initiative to bring countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and Syria to the table to engage in finding solutions.

Now, I know the war hawks will say diplomatic approaches cannot work. But think about it. It wasn't too long ago that this administration and these war hawks were saying that North Korea was an intractable enemy. Yet today, through diplomatic efforts, we are making appreciable progress. I believe this diplomatic approach can work in Iraq.

We need a dramatic change in strategy. We should begin with the withdrawal of U.S. troops and place more responsibility on the Iraqis to foster their own democracy. Most people, including General John Abizaid, understand that we cannot impose democracy on the Iraqis if they don't want it for themselves. That is why I support the End the War in Iraq Act, which would use the congressional power of the purse to bring this war to an end if the administration cannot or will not do so.

But in addition to beginning a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, we must pursue an aggressive diplomatic initiative to involve willing Muslim countries in creating a ceasefire first, a peace process second, and the rebuilding of Iraq in the third instance. These countries have a vested interest in promoting peace and stability in the region.

It was said many years ago war is not the answer, and today more war in the form of troop escalation is the absolutely wrong answer. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. King of New York: Madam Speaker, I remind supporters of the resolution that the newly confirmed commander in Iraq says this is new strategy and it will work, and he is the expert on counterinsurgency.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Friends and colleagues, I am glad we are having this debate. It is good to debate the most important issue facing our country, the most important issue facing the world. I am glad we are talking about Iraq. We need to have a debate about Iraq.

I have grave concerns about the conduct of this war. I look back at the last 3 or 4 years and I think to myself, boy, I would have done that differently, I would have done this differently; they should have done that, they should have done this. I think we all can look at hindsight and see how things should have been done differently.

Well, here is where we are. The question is, is this the right resolution to pass? I for one don't know if this strategy is going to work or not. I believe our troops are going to do exactly what we ask them to do. I have perfect confidence that the U.S. soldiers, airmen, Army and Marines are going to do exactly what we ask them to do and they will do their jobs.

Where my doubts lie are with the Iraqi Government. Will the Iraqi Government do what we are asking them to do? Will the Iraqi Government do what is needed to do to hold up their end of the bargain? I don't know.

But what I do know is this: If we pass this resolution, this resolution, while our troops are in the middle of implementing this mission, while our troops are over there right now implementing this strategy, and we pass this resolution which says, you know what, we don't think you can succeed; we don't think you can do the job; we don't think you can do what you are being asked to do right now, that is a slap in the face. It is a killer of morale. This is the wrong message to send our troops.

We have to think about the alternatives. We have to think about the consequences of failure. We have to think about the message this sends our troops. We have to think about the message this sends our enemies.

Madam Speaker, by telling the world, by telling Americans and by telling our enemies and our troops we don't think this is going to work, we don't think this can succeed, what message does that send?

And for those who say this won't work and I am voting for this resolution, it is your obligation to tell us how better you can do this, what is your plan, what is your strategy. Because we have to think about the consequences of failure. We have to accept and know that if we just pull out we will have sectarian genocide. We will have a safe haven for terrorists with oil money. We will have a Middle East power struggle that will be very, very ugly, where countries that are very hostile to us, like Iran and Syria, will have the run of the region. We have to look at those consequences.

But more important than anything else, Madam Speaker, is the fact that I just cannot look our soldiers in the eyes, and I am traveling to this region in a few days, I cannot look them in the eyes and tell them that when I was in the comforts of Congress, I sat there high open my pedestal and I told the American people and you that the mission you are about to engage in, the job you are trying hard to do for us, you can't complete it. You are incapable. It won't work. Why bother trying? I can't send that message to our troops.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge a "no" vote. This is the right debate to have, the wrong resolution to pass.

Mr. Faleomavaega: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of Ohio (Mrs. Jones), currently serving as the chairwoman of the Committee on Ethics and a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mrs. Jones of Ohio: Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 63. Today through this resolution, we reiterate our support for our troops, these brave men and women, who even when they did not have proper equipment and resources, continued to serve and protect this country. Today we pledge to offer them the same support they have so willingly given us throughout the conflict.

To date, 3,100 soldiers have given their lives in this war and over 20,000 have been injured. I often feel that we gloss over the numbers and forget that each one was an actual person. They were somebody's son, daughter, somebody's mother or father, somebody's brother or sister. They were real people, as real as 19-year-old PVT. Brandon Sloan and 1SG Robert Dowdy, who were the first soldiers from my congressional district to become casualties of this war.

There have been many others, including SGT Michael Wiggins, a graduate of Shaw High School in East Cleveland, killed on January 23; or Charles King, a man described by family and friends as a highly decorated, hardworking soldier, died October 14 of injuries sustained when an improvised device detonated near his vehicle; and Samuel Bowen, who was affectionately called "Smokey" and always had a great smile on his face. He was killed when a rocket-propelled grenade exploded near his vehicle.

At his funeral, Specialist Ronald Eaton, a soldier rescued by Bowen, said, Without regard to himself, without regard to the injuries he had sustained, Sam grabbed me and pulled me to safety.

All of these are special stories, but I will share a few more with you about Brandon Sloan and Robert Dowdy.

Brandon Sloan was a special young man who exhibited a unique blend of personality and strength, a loving child who played and enjoyed spending time with other children. Later he became a big brother to his sister Brittany, with whom he shared a close relationship.

He began his education in East Cleveland and remained in the district until his family moved to Euclid. While in East Cleveland, he developed a love for basketball and continued in various athletic pursuits.

In 1996, the family moved to Oakwood in the Bedford School District, and there Brandon became a Bearcat. He confessed his hope in Christ during his high school years and was baptized. Later, he pursued a career in the military where he subsequently gave his life.

MSG Robert Dowdy was a native of Cleveland, a member of the 507th Maintenance Company. He was a loving son and devoted husband, a distance runner, placed second in a 10-kilometer run in El Paso.

Why am I talking about all of these personal things? Because somehow in the course of this discussion, we have taken it away from being personal, about people. We stand here on the floor talking about a surge, or giving life and saying we are not supporting these troops. These families want their babies to come home and so do I.

This past weekend I spoke to the 112th Battalion of the Ohio National Guard. The battalion is the oldest and most decorated military organization in the State of Ohio, with lineage and honors dating back to and including World War I and World War II. These men and women have sacrificed greatly for this country, and now they are being asked to support the President's plan to send 20,000 more troops.

I simply cannot support it. You have heard all the things I said previously. This is not the way. We do not need to send any more Brandons or Robert Dowdys or Michael Kings or Sam Bowens over there to die.

We pledged to take this country in a new direction without regard to the war in Iraq, through greater accountability, oversight, and through stronger diplomatic and political initiatives.

At the services for the 25th Marine Regiment, a Band of Brothers, we lost some 12 young men from Brook Park, and I said to them in my closing words, because these are the words I think these young men are saying to us:

"Please celebrate my life, please have no regrets; we did not spend all the time we wanted, yet the time we had was well spent. We did not reach every rung of that ladder, yet we wrung all that we could from each height.

"We did not sing every song, yet we sang every note of the song we sang, we did not laugh all the time, but when we did we often laughed until we cried or until our stomachs hurt; and when we cried, we cried until our tears ran dry.

"But most of all we loved, and our love is everlasting, if you look for us listen for us, but most of all live for us.

"We have fallen but you can lift us up. Your love, your faith, your support, and your pride was what we needed then; God's love, grace and mercy is what we need now."

Lift these young men and women who have been killed in Iraq, lift them up and say to the world, no surge, no more young people will be lost in Iraq. Bring our troops home.

Mr. King of New York: Madam Speaker, I certainly acknowledge the passion of the former speaker on the floor.

I would just say, though, that all of us have suffered casualties and deaths in our districts. Certainly a gentleman from my former district was killed last week. He was a graduate of Duke University. He was offered scholarships to law school. He was an All American lacrosse player, volunteered to serve in the Army, was in his third tour. His family more than ever supports the effort in Iraq, and you can find families on all sides.

I think it is wrong to somehow suggest that those who died, somehow the families want us to vote for this resolution or against it. We can find sufficient numbers on both sides. Certainly in my experience, most of those would oppose the resolution. I certainly would not impose that on anyone else.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), a distinguished member from the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Turner: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for accommodating me so I might have some time to speak on this issue this evening.

Today, Speaker Pelosi has continued with what is called a debate on the Iraq war, but this is not a debate. The floor here is empty, except for the Members scheduled to come to the floor for the record and comment on the failures or success of the war on terror, the conflict in Iraq, prewar intelligence, the search for weapons of mass destruction, reconstruction efforts, al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and, yes, George Bush. No real debate.

School children across America who are schooled in debate would not recognize what has happened here today, which should be the intellectual process of argument, because to call these series of speeches a debate is fiction, just as to call the nonbinding resolution proposed by the Speaker as congressional action is fiction.

This resolution has no binding effect on the administration, and it does not even have any binding effect on this body of Congress. This resolution is not a document from which decisions will be made or any action taken. This is not policy. This is not governance. It is, at best, a press conference. It is just talk.

The travesty of this fiction of a debate on the House floor is that there is no plan debated or alternatives for us to consider, only opposition. We do not have on the table a plan, an answer, or an action for us to take.

Now, I was not a Member of Congress when this House was asked in October of 2002 to grant the President authority to go into Iraq, and neither were 66 of my Republican Members of Congress. If they were with me they would fill this well, 66 of us that were not here on the Republican side when the President asked for authority to go into Iraq. However, I believe there are 55 Democratic colleagues who voted to send troops to Iraq who are still here today, and yet even those 55 Members who voted to send troops to Iraq offer no alternative plan. At a minimum you would think if you voted "yes" to send troops you would feel responsible and have a plan before publicly disapproving of the President's plan.

Now, there is certainly enough about the administration's handling of the Iraq conflict to disapprove of if we were to have a real debate. There is no question that serious mistakes have been made in the execution of the Iraqi conflict. But today we will not debate solutions because, unfortunately, this resolution does not provide any.

In the war on terror, we have real enemies who want to kill Americans and our allies. No nonbinding resolution passed on this House floor will change that reality.

This is not a debate but it should be. The risks to our country are great. Our enemies and our men and women in uniform are listening. The only proposal brought forth by the Speaker is a statement of opposition and disapproval.

The House and the administration should work together on a bipartisan plan for winning the war on terror, a plan with a commitment that is not undermined by political expediency or partisan division.

Mr. Faleomavaega: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5½minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend from North Carolina, who currently is chairman of the Oversight Investigation Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Watt.

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

Mr. Watt: Madam Speaker, in October of 2002 I worked meticulously with Members of the Congressional Black Caucus to craft a statement of principles that has proven to be so absolutely prophetic. Listen to what our 2002 principle said, and it will put in context why I feel so strongly that this war has taken us in the wrong direction and why this resolution is so necessary and worthy of our support.

First principle: "We oppose a unilateral first strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States."

My colleagues, history will record that the President took first strike action, and that there was neither a clearly demonstrated nor an imminent threat of attack on the United States.

Second principle: "Only Congress has the authority to declare war."

History will record that Congress delegated that authority to the President, but I say unapologetically that history will also record that I voted against that delegation of authority. I never believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; and, even if it did, I never believed that they posed any imminent threat to the United States.

Third principle: "Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted."

History will record that our President instead thumbed his nose at the United Nations and at almost all diplomatic options in his rush to lead us into this foolhardy war.

Fourth principle: "A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, destabilize the Middle East region, and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities."

The passage of time has demonstrated and history will record that every single one of these concerns was legitimate and warranted.

Fifth principle: "Any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and require a long-term commitment."

We haven't yet gotten to a level of stability that we are trying to maintain, but the cost of this war today exceeds $500 billion. That is costly and with no end in sight. If we continue to follow the President, the duration of our commitment has no end in sight and no plan to bring home or redeploy our troops.

Increasing the number of troops in Iraq does not make ending the war more foreseeable. Past troop increases in Iraq have paraded under different names than surge, but make no mistake about it, this is not the first time the United States will have increased troop levels, and each time they have been met with greater levels of violence.

From December of 2003 to April 2004, the troop increase paraded under the name "troop rotation" and resulted in an increase from 122,000 to 137,000 troops; yet April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for U.S. forces.

From November 2004 to March 2005, the increase paraded under the name "improving counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive," or "increasing security after January 2005." We increased our troop level to 150,000 troops; the result, no impact on violence increase. And again, September to December of 2005, we went to 160,000 troops, still no decrease in violence.

In most respects, what the President has proposed is business as usual, simply under a different name. It did not work before, and there is no prospect that it will work this time. Madam Speaker, this resolution is one that we should support and bring our troops home.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Resolution. Simply stated, as the Resolution says, I support the troops and I oppose the increase in the number of troops. Simply stated, I support a redeployment of the rest of our troops from Iraq as soon as possible.

But I can't go forward before I review how we got here in the first place. Looking back helps me to put a time perspective on this because this War is now approaching 5 years in duration, a period longer than the Second World War. And looking back also helps me to put a substantive perspective on this that I think is absolutely critical to an understanding of my vote.

It's gut wrenching for me to recall that as early as October 2002-- several months before the President proceeded to war in Iraq and long before I was later elected to serve the 2-year term that I have now completed as Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus--I worked meticulously with every single member of the Congressional Black Caucus to craft a Statement of Principles that have proven to be so absolutely prophetic. Listen to what our 2002 Principles said and it will put in context why I feel so strongly that this War has taken us in the wrong direction and why this Resolution is so necessary and worthy of support:

First 2002 Congressional Black Caucus Principle: "We oppose a unilateral, first-strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States." My colleagues, history will record that the President took first strike action and that there was neither a clearly demonstrated nor an imminent threat of attack on the United States.

Second Principle: "Only Congress has the authority to declare war." History will record that Congress delegated that authority to the President, but I say unapologetically that history will also record that I voted against that delegation of authority. I never believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and--perhaps more importantly--even if they did, I never believed that they posed any imminent threat to the United States. Saddam Hussein was a dastardly tyrant and bully toward his own people, but was a coward and no threat to the United States.

Third Principle: "Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted." History will record that our President, instead, thumbed his nose at the United Nations and at almost all diplomatic options in his rush to lead us into this foolhardy war.

Fourth Principle: "A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, destabilize the Middle East region and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities." The passage of time has demonstrated and history will record that every single one of those concerns was legitimate and warranted.

Fifth Principle: "Any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and require a long-term commitment." We haven't yet gotten to a level of stability that we're trying to maintain, but the cost of this War to date exceeds $500 billion. That's "costly" and with no end in sight. If we continue to follow the President, the duration of our commitment has no end in sight and no plan to bring home or redeploy our troops.

Increasing the number of troops in Iraq does not make ending the War more foreseeable. It will only escalate the number of troops and the prospects of casualties and will likely only increase the resolve of the enemy, the same thing that increases in troop levels have done in the past. Past troop increases in Iraq have paraded under different names than "surge". But, make no mistake about it, this is not the first time the United States will have increased troop levels. And each time they have been met with greater violence.

From December of 2003 to April of 2004, the troop increase paraded under the name "troop rotation" and resulted in an increase from 122,000 to 137,000 troops. Yet April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for U.S. forces.

From November 2004 to March 2005, the increase paraded under the name "improving counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive" or "increasing security before the January 2005 constitutional elections" and increased troops to 150,000. Result: short term positive impact, but longer term increase in violence and resistance.

Between September and December 2005, troop levels were increased again, taking the number up to 160,000, around the constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. The referendum and elections proceeded without major violence, but the increase had little long term impact on sectarian violence.

In most respects, what the President has proposed is business as usual, simply under a different name. It did not work before and there is little prospect that it will work this time.

Madam Speaker, this Resolution is our attempt to make it clear that we do not support a troop increase or an escalation of this War. I intend to vote for the Resolution. I just hope the President is listening.

Mr. King of New York: Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman, while he believes this plan has no chance of working and it is the same as previous plans, the fact is the newly confirmed general in Iraq, General Petraeus, who is by all accounts the most significant general we have had in Iraq, who is the author of the counterinsurgency policy, said it is a significant change and it will work. That is why I would say that while the resolution says it supports the troops, you are in effect undermining the new commander by challenging either his credibility or his competency. And that is a terrible message to the troops.

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

Mr. King of New York: I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Watt: I am just sick and tired of people telling us that we are unpatriotic and not supporting of the troops.

Mr. King of New York: Reclaiming my time, I never suggested unpatriotic. I said you are questioning the competency or credibility of the commander in Iraq, who was just confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California: I would just like to say, it was interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about the principles articulated some years ago. They are reminiscent of the arguments I heard on this floor some 20 years ago when Ronald Reagan made the courageous decision to put medium range nuclear weapons into Europe, despite the protest of Europe, despite the protest of many on the other side, despite the fact we were told we were taking a unilateral step.

Sometimes it is difficult to make these decisions, and you can't always guarantee success. And if we always went by that argument, frankly, America would not be where it is today.

Let me begin with a note of bipartisanship, however. It goes without saying that we can all agree that things have not progressed as we wished they would in Iraq. Perhaps we could all agree with the characterization of the Iraq Study Group that the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. I think we can all agree that there was therefore a need for a change in the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq.

Not only has this happened, but we have a new Secretary of Defense and, as was stated on the floor just a moment ago, we have a new commander on the ground in Iraq.

It is at this point, however, that I am somewhat mystified by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Since the resolution of disapproval concerning this change in the direction of U.S. policy contains absolutely no alternative, it follows that its adoption represents a tacit endorsement for the policies which we all agree are not working. It is a simple, logical entailment that criticism of a change in policy without any concrete alternative is tantamount to the endorsement of the status quo. Thus, we find ourselves in the ironic situation that to support this resolution is to condone a policy that virtually everyone agrees has not been working.

We are telling our troops that we are sending a new commander. We are telling them by this resolution that we don't support what the new commander is doing. We are saying by this resolution we don't believe that the new plan will work. We are saying, Godspeed, we support you. But we are sending you on a fool's errand.

If you truly believe that, stand up here and have the guts to stop the program by cutting off the money. Take responsibility for your actions, which the Constitution allows you to do.

Let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the absence of any comprehensible policy objective leaves only one element of the resolution intact: Disapproval of the President. And this, in my estimation, is most unfortunate, for there was one thing on which I wish we could all agree. This should not be about George Bush. It is far more important than that.

Our response to the current state of affairs in Iraq will have dramatic consequences not only for the people in Iraq but for the security of the American people as well.

I believe we must resist the temptation to fight over matters which have long ceased to be of any relevance.

The question of whether we should have initially gone into Iraq is simply not the issue. The fact is that we are there, and that is the unpleasant but essential reality to which we must respond. It is not possible to pretend otherwise or to keep looking backward or to keep quoting things that were said in the past or to suggest that we shouldn't be where we are. We are there. It is of little solace to our troops to say, gee, we made a mistake in putting you there, and therefore we are going to pass a resolution of disapproval of what we are asking you to do now. What sense does that make? What sense at all does that make?

It should be acknowledged that findings concerning the absence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are not dispositive of the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. As Peter Berger, the only Westerner to conduct an interview on television with Osama bin Laden puts it, there is one thing that bin Laden and Bush agree on, says Peter Berger: that Iraq has become a central front in the war on terror. Berger, who did not support the decision to invade Iraq, warns of a potential repercussion at war's end that could make the blowback from the Afghan war against the Soviets look like high tea at the Four Seasons. This, in my estimation, is why it is so important that the impression not be given that our hand has been forced by Iraqi insurgents, notably al Qaeda of Mesopotamia.

If we have learned anything from the tragic events of the Khobar Towers, the Embassy bombings in East Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole, it is that the fanatics' perception of success only serves to embolden those who seek to kill us.

The extreme nature of this murderous mens rea is illustrated in an article in the London Telegraph which reports, "A husband and wife arrested in the British terror raids allegedly planned to take their 6- month-old baby on a mid-air suicide mission, using the baby's milk bottle to hide a liquid bomb." The story is shocking on many levels, but perhaps so disturbing is that it shatters the belief that mothers and fathers share a common commitment to the future of their children.

We face an enemy which subscribes to an ideology rooted in a nihilistic culture of death. This contemporary version of the "will to power" seeks justification for a totalist world view through the abuse of a religion to camouflage its deeper roots.

As Paul Berman has chronicled in "Terrorism and Liberalism," this fascist-like ideology arising out of the revisionism of Sayyid al Qutb taught that there was no middle ground and no possibility of compromise. Bin Laden became interested in a radical distortion of Islam from the fiery taped sermons of Abdullah Azzam, a disciple of al Qutb, and came to share Qutb's grim view of the world and used it to justify mass murder.

By the late 1980s, following the crackdown by the Egyptian Government on the extreme Islamist groups in response to the assassination of Sadat in 1981, many of the Islamic militants went into exile. It was through the presence of Egyptian Islamist teachers in Saudi Arabia that bin Laden and other al Qaeda members were influenced; most notably, Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader in the Egypt Islamic jihad.

Another avenue by which this totalist ideology was introduced to the Middle East via the Vichy Government of France during World War II, which despite its short shelf-life, infected the French mandated territory of Syria-Lebanon. It was during this time that the ideological foundations of the Baathist Party were laid and a Nazi regime headed by Rahid Ali was set up in Iraq. During this same period, the mufti of Jerusalem was wined and dined by none other than Hitler himself.

The point is that there were some very dark influences on this region of the world which are still playing themselves out today. We cannot believe that our absence from this area will solve problems and allow us to retreat.

We must make no mistake about their intentions: They seek to kill us. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command, has left us with no ambiguity on the matter when he states that they have the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children, and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. No, we must not give such people a misapprehension about any misguided notions they may have about their providential place in history.

Although our ultimate objective in Iraq is to hand over power in an orderly fashion to a duly constituted government, the manner in which we do so is of the highest order of importance. That is what I don't hear from the other side. It is not just the question of peace being the absence of war, it is what we will have in the aftermath. What kind of a world will we have in the Middle East? Will it be safer for our children and our grandchildren? Will the implications of our decisions be heard in history as something of which we will be proud, or will it be just that we got tired of the effort?

And if we believe that by absenting ourselves from the area, that solves problems, it has never been the case. It wasn't the case when we got out of Lebanon following the attack on our marines; it was not the case when we basically got out of the area after the USS Cole.

Again, independent of the origins of al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, the relevant point is how al Qaeda itself perceives the war there. It is their potential reaction to our Iraqi policy which has most relevance. In this regard, the intercepted letter sent by al-Zawahiri to al- Zarqawi is most important and has been mentioned on this floor many times. He said, We must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals.

The first stage: Expel Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, and then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of caliphate over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq and Sunni areas in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries of neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: Go after Israel.

It is, therefore, clear that regardless of how we might wish the situation to be, wishful thinking, as described in this resolution, is not a basis for policy.

Al Qaeda is present in Iraq, and they perceive it to be a central front in the war. It is simply not possible for us to pretend otherwise, as much as we would like it. This resolution does nothing to help us in this war against Islamic fascism. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction.