---

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Holden): 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 on Wednesday, February 14, 2007, time for debate on the concurrent resolution on that day had expired.

Pursuant to the resolution, it is now in order for a further period of debate on the concurrent resolution.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) each will control 6 hours.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Meeks of New York: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the Honorable James Clyburn of South Carolina.

Mr. Clyburn: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the debate we join today is essentially over the matter of sending 20,000 more American troops into Iraq. Over the past 2 days, some deeply felt sentiments have been expressed in this Hall by some patriotic and honorable Americans from all walks of life and on both sides of the aisle.

And I respect and appreciate the intensity of those feelings.

If this were the only issue, if the matter were only a matter of troop strength and numbers, then the issue would lend itself to military and strategic solutions and we would not be having this debate.

That is not the real issue, however. That is not the reason that every Member of this Congress is being granted the opportunity to speak on this issue. No, my fellow Members of Congress, the real issue we are addressing today is not that simple. The real issue goes to the very heart of our American democracy.

Last November the American people voted for a change in leadership. They did so overwhelmingly because they want a new direction in Iraq. The American people also voted for a new Congress, because they had lost faith in the old one. As a Congress, we had lost our footing, and as a result, our Nation lost its way on the international stage.

I believe that last November's call for a new direction in Iraq is also rooted in our lost faith in those who are leading that nation.

We were stung when Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki seemed to offer amnesty to Iraqi insurgents that killed Americans.

We have been robbed by the disappearance of billions of dollars sent to Iraq in good faith to help build the country.

We have been deceived by the promise of trained Iraqi police forces who should be prepared to provide law and order for their country, but instead ally themselves with insurgents.

I traveled with some of you to Iraq last Memorial Day, and enjoyed what I thought was one of the best meetings of the trip with the Iraqi Speaker of the Council of Representatives. The optimism I felt following that meeting was destroyed when, just days after our return home, I heard the Iraqi Speaker denigrating American efforts in his country.

We in the new leadership of Congress do not stand here as defeatists and not as opponents of this Nation's best interest. Only fools could reach that kind of conclusion from this discussion. We stand here today to say there is a victory to be achieved, but it is not a military conquest.

The victory we seek is earned through the restoration of America's role as peacemaker, not warmonger. It begins with the restoration of this Congress, as the deliberative arbiter and representative of the best interest of the American people. It begins with the understanding and acceptance of this Congress as a full partner in the future of this activity.

Many of us have seen firsthand and witnessed firsthand the realities of our presence in Iraq. Many of us have informed ourselves as fully as possible on the complexity of the problems we face. Many of us have agonized over the dangers and hazards which lie ahead, no matter which direction we take. We do not take these steps lightly.

Now we stand ready to create new paths to new victories. We stand ready to initiate the kind of victories, which will restore America's respect around the world and self-confidence here at home.

We cannot achieve this by military might, but by diplomacy. The need for a stable Iraq is not just an American interest, it is a regional and global concern.

Iraq's neighbors must be brought to the table. American troops must disengage from the Red Zone and redeploy to the outskirts of Iraq where they can remain at the ready and not serve as targets for insurgents.

The best way for the Iraqi Government to gain the trust of the American people is for them to step up and take control of their country's security.

We say today that the victories we seek are real victories, permanent victories, victories of a Nation which still believes that the voice of the people is our final and best judgment.

With this debate, we are taking steps to regain our footing as a Congress and chart a new way forward on the international stage.

I am hopeful this debate will not only be heard, but will be accepted as the moment at which America turned its face toward a triumph of enormous proportions, a triumph for peace and a triumph for democracy everywhere

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

Mr. Speaker, he was conscientious, committed to peace and momentarily praised. His laurels burned in the bombings. His valorous and vain efforts had but hastened upon his people.

Yet, in eulogizing this "English worthy," Sir Winston Churchill, an ardent opponent of the deceased's policy of appeasement, unexpectedly struck a conciliatory chord toward the late Neville Chamberlain:

"It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase, men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later when the perspective of time is lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History, with its flickering lamp, stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor."

Mr. Speaker, while not serving in this Chamber during the debates on the resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use martial force to remove Iraq's Baathist regime for numerous just causes, including its refusal to honor its Gulf War cease-fire and United Nations' resolutions, during my time as a temporary custodian of my constituents' office, I have striven to ensure our Nation's victory in the battles for Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overarching war on terror. In doing so for 3 years, I have four times traveled to Iraq and once to Afghanistan to meet with our troops; visited wounded citizen soldiers, eulogized our fallen, and consoled their grieving families. As a witness to their courage, sacrifice and suffering, I have been morally compelled to support every appropriation for our military and civilian personnel in harm's way, oppose every policy injurious to our country's common cause of victory; advance my own ideas on how to secure our victory, including the introduction of bipartisan, though ultimately unaccepted, legislation to establish concerted congressional oversight over the course of this conflict; and refused to condone a resolution by my Republican peers which failed to meet its duty; and, immediately afterwards, introduced a resolution of my own in order to fulfill my duty to our soldiers, my constituents, and our country.

As a staunch supporter of our Nation's mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, I did so in the belief that it is morally imperative for every sovereign American citizen and their congressional servants to ensure our valiant troops victoriously come home to their loved ones' arms. Were I to do otherwise and lapse in my moral duty, I would not only be violating our troops and my constituents' trust, I would be violating the dictates of my conscience.

It is equally true, of course, how within this House other Members' dictates of conscience have led them to a decidedly different, though equally constant course of action. To these Members and their fellow citizens who have done so to date, I share the sentiments Sir Winston held for Neville Chamberlain: You are "An American Worthy," who "however the fates may play, will "march always in the ranks of honor." Yet, because the resolution thrust before us is a craven exposition of political expediency in a time of national crisis, today many may stray from the ranks of honor.

This resolution is "nonbinding," which means the resolution has no force of law to compel future legislative acts in compliance with its dictates. In sum, then, this resolution legally changes nothing. Americans' money will still unabatedly facilitate our troops' continued deployment into harm's way, despite the United States Congress collectively condemning the President's announced troop reinforcement plan. This impotent resolution is injurious in the eyes of its opponents because it will undermine the morale of our troops, their families, and our fellow citizens even as it heartens and emboldens our enemies; and this impotent resolution is injurious because it will not stop what many of its supporters purport will be a loss of life in a lost cause. By neither stopping the war nor speeding our victory and by calculatedly doing nothing in this time of national crisis, this resolution is immoral.

This immorality is manifest in how the resolution guilefully attempts to insinuate the United States Congress can simultaneously support our troops and oppose their mission. During a time of war, if an act is not i our national interest, such as the President's plan is deemed to be in this resolution, the act is injurious to the national interest. At best, the act will expend resources, most tragically claim lives without furthering the cause of victory. Better than anyone, our troops understand this. Therefore, this Congress does not support our troops when it proclaims they are risking their lives in a doomed mission injurious to America.

Yet, if Congress persists in this insanity, the Members must meet their responsibility to enumerate the reasons they disapprove of the President's plan and, in point of fact, the mission upon which our troops have already embarked. But this resolution does not provide any rationale for its conclusion. Thus, rather than deserving our collective concurrence, this resolution deserves our universal condemnation.

To this, some supporters will object and allege two defenses for this resolution's fatal omission. Do not these supporters' floor remarks provide the rationales sufficient to sustain this resolution? No. If floor remarks alone are sufficient to sustain the resolution's conclusions, then floor remarks alone would be sufficient to derogate the President's plan and, ergo, vitiate any necessity for a written resolution. Conversely, if it is imperative for the plan's detractors to express their opposition in a written resolution, it is also imperative to express their reasons in writing. Alas, such logic pales before some Members' impulsive muse of the moment.

Let us, then, move to some of the resolution's supporters' second, far more distressing defense: "A vote of disapproval on the President's plan will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor." As no one who participated in the crafting of this covert legislative agenda has deigned to inform the American people as to its aims, one wonders if it will cut off funding for our troops in harm's way or cut off critical reconstruction funding in the supplemental appropriations bill, thus toppling an unheralded but essential pillar of the President's new victory strategy and proving the perspicacity of the present resolution. While we wonder and worry, according to newspaper reports there is a strategy to make this rumored legislative plan palatable to the public. This strategy's tactics, which its instigators are more than happy to relate to the media, are reputed to include a coordinated multimillion-dollar TV campaign by leftist special-interest pressure groups. No doubt somewhere beyond this ephemeral stream of time there lurks a jealous Clement Vallandigham. But, in fairness, let us disdain a priori speculation, and instead examine a previous resolution to glean the potentialities of the present resolution's supporters' secret legislative plan. The following passages are excerpted from a previous resolution which, albeit more forthrightly, also opposes the Commander in Chief's decisions:

"Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after 4 years of failure . . . by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for cessation of hostilities . . . to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace be restored."

This previous resolution too expresses its support for our troops in harm's way:

"Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic Party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our Army and sailors of our Navy who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that brave soldiers and sailors of the Republic have so nobly earned."

This previous resolution is the Democratic Party platform of 1864.

If the past is prologue, let us be firm in a fair request: If the resolution's supporters possess a victory strategy, or otherwise, for Iraq, these public servants must immediately reveal it to the sovereign citizens of the United States. If these stealth strategists refuse, they will incur the American people's inference this legislative plan assumes and will hasten our Nation's defeat in Iraq. How else could one explain these individuals' already having a legislative plan and an accompanying media plan premised upon our troop reinforcement failure, and doing so regardless of potential American victories on the ground or the advice of our military commanders? Perhaps while they demur from revealing it, these anonymous commander in chiefs will dubiously coin their legislative plan an "exit strategy."

It is an irrelevant distinction. Right now the enemy is actively seeking to murder more American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians. So right now and for the immediate future, an exit from Iraq is a defeat in Iraq. Whatever one pretends to the contrary, one will never convince our enemies otherwise.

Yes, it is all too human to wish the world were different; all too human to rationalize away one's misguided actions. Being composed of frail, fallible human beings, even great assemblies such as this have succumbed to the temptation. We must not.

Writing well before Churchill's magnanimous eulogy of Chamberlain and, to the contrary, warning the British people's representatives how history was pitiless, George Dangerfield coldly assessed his national leaders' mismanagement of state affairs during the pre-Great War years of 1910 to 1914: "Along that row of distinguished and original faces there would pass from time to time, as lightly as a shadow upon the waters, an alarming, an alien spirit, a spirit dangerous and indefinite, the Spirit of Whimsy . . . In the hush of crisis, in the tumult of abuse, or when the stuffy air of the Commons seemed almost to glitter with the shining, salt ripples of sarcasm, there it played, airy, remote, and irresponsible."

Is an inchoate angst over history's final verdict the reason some supporters of this resolution have taken to this floor, though not in this resolution itself, and verbally professed three key defenses of their decision? One defense is they were misled into supporting an Iraqi regime change because of the false claim it did or might possess weapons of mass destruction. Mercifully, let us stipulate these elected officials performed their due diligence on the matter and, especially for our Democratic colleagues so situated, they did not overly trust the some many of them had accused of stealing a Presidential election.

Again, there were numerous justifiable reasons for authorizing the President of the United States to militarily execute a regime change in Iraq. As those reasons are written in that resolution, I will not dwell upon them, for they do not constitute the crux of the matter, which is this: the war aim of regime change was a success. It is the post-war failure of Iraqi reconstruction breeding our present perils.

Thus even if a Member of Congress can be excused for authorizing force on the basis of being "misled," the Member of Congress cannot be excused for failing to demand adequate post-war reconstruction planning, nor for a 3-year failure to demand constructive changes to an inadequate post-war reconstruction plan.

Dovetailing with this defense, some of the resolution's supporters now claim their initial ardor for the regime change was a mistake because this administration has botched Iraqi reconstruction beyond salvaging and the fledgling democracy is now in a state of civil war. This argument has the merit of being partially correct, for despite the hard-learned lessons of our Nation's former successes in doing so, this administration utterly failed to comprehend and implement the fundamental principles of reconstructing a defeated, belligerent nation. Importantly, this does not preclude reconstructing Iraq now.

While rife with sectarian violence, much of it instigated and perpetuated from external elements, Iraq is not in a civil war. Relative calm exists in most of the beleaguered nation's provinces, and if one dares to look, there are the agonizingly slow but significant signs of incremental progress in the establishment of order. This progression will be expedited by the administration's new plan, which finally incorporates the two fundamental principles of Iraqi or any reconstruction plan, one, a liberal democratic society evolves upward from its traditional roots of order, not from a centralized bureaucratic government downward; and, two, a nation's transformational evolution into a liberal democracy must contemporaneously provide transactional benefits to its citizens. These fundamental principles will be implemented through critical initiatives, such as provincial reconstruction teams, an accord on oil revenue allocations, and a national reconciliation process, amongst others.

But to earn the support of terrorized Iraqis, security must first be established so they may commence securing the blessings of liberty. This is why the troop reinforcement is required and why the twin pillars of troop reinforcement and grass-roots reconstruction can achieve a joint American and Iraqi victory over the enemies of liberty.

The ineluctable fact of our victory is it must be won with the help of Iraqis, which is disconcerting to many of this resolution's supporters who believe the Iraqis are unwilling to fight for their freedom and are incapable of perpetuating once it is secured. This argument often intersects with the charge our mission in Iraq has been untenably shifted from effectuating a regime change to erecting a model democracy; and for the above reasons, they think this is impossible. This deplorable argument is antithetical to the self-evident truths written into our own Declaration of Independence, though, sadly, it is not without precedent. Once more, let us reference another resolution, this one opposing a military mission creeping toward a decidedly different goal:

"Resolved: that the emancipation proclamation of the President of the United States is as unwarranted in military as in civil law; a gigantic usurpation, at once converting the war, professedly commenced by the administration for the vindication of the authority of the Constitution, into a crusade for the sudden, unconditional and violent liberation of 3 million Negro slaves; a result which would not only be a total subversion of the Federal Union, but a revolution in the social organization of the Southern States, the immediate and remote, the present and far-reaching consequences of which to both races cannot be contemplated without the most dismal foreboding of horror and dismay. The proclamation invites servile insurrection as an element in this emancipation crusade, a means of warfare, th inhumanity and diabolism of which are without example in civilized warfare, and which we denounce, and which the civilized world will denounce as an uneffaceable disgrace to the American people."

So much for the prognostications of the "Peace Democrat" controlled Illinois legislature's 1863 resolution. Thankfully, by the grace of God and the sanguine sacrifice of the American people, it was this Illinois legislature, not our African American brothers and sisters and our Nation's great emancipator, who are to be denounced by the civilized world for all eternity.

What of our legislative body? Now resurrects the specter of our own judgment, which hovers above and shadows us as we seek to ensure we are not forever weighed in the balance and found wonting. It is as it should be, as it must be, for notwithstanding its nonbinding nature, even after this resolution's disposition, our duty demands we make moral decisions affecting our Nation's victory or defeat, and our fellow citizens' lives or deaths. Is this not why, even while bearing malice towards none of them, in defending his own war plan, our own maligned President warned his opponents history is a harsh mistress:

"Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here, Congress and Executive, can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not `Can any of us imagine better?' but `Can we all do better?' Objection whatsoever is possible. Still the question recurs `Can we do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.

"Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just, a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

My friends, history harkens your honorable hearts to reconsider supporting this immoral resolution. If one believes all human beings are equally God's children, whether they be free or yearning to breathe free, one cannot, after a cruel sip of hope, condemn 20 million of God's equally beloved children to a saturnalia of slaughter. If one supports our troops, one cannot deride their cause as injurious to our country. If one seeks our victory in the war on terror, one cannot advocate a retreat and defeat in the face of our enemy.

My friends, through the fog of war, our fiery trial illumes and creeps ever nearer along the trail. Rather than curse the darkness and dread the echoes of history's verdict, let us acquit ourselves with lasting honor by leading our searching Nation through these trying, transformational times and into a transcendent, triumphal tomorrow. Let us earn the esteem of the latest and later generations of all free people by reaffirming our revolutionary Republic cherishes the self- evident truth that all human beings yearn to breathe free. Let us, in our Nation's finest traditions and truest character, remove the Iraqi people's bonds of oppression and replace them with bonds of brotherhood amongst our free, sovereign, and secure peoples.

Let us, in the face of terror, march always in the ranks of honor and courageously and selflessly secure the Iraqi people's blessings of liberty and, in so doing, secure our own blessings of liberty for unnamed generations of American children.

Mr. Speaker, fully cognizant of my moral duty to our troops, my constituents, my country, and my Creator, I cannot in good conscience support this resolution, which is injurious to the cause of our Nation's victory and in consequence is patiently immoral. Therefore, I urge this resolution's rejection and pray God graces, guards, and guides the steps of all who bear the burden of our decisions made on behalf of the majestic American people.

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

Mr. Meeks of New York: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that from my understanding, we are a separate but equal branch of government. The Executive does its thing; we do ours. And part of our responsibility is to debate, investigate and evaluate what the President says and not simply rubber-stamp what he says. So we are doing our job and what the American people elect us to do

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, the chief deputy whip, the Honorable Jan Schakowsky.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents in Illinois to say, as strongly as possible for myself and for them, that we reject President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Tragically, the President and his administration are dealing with an Iraq that exists only in their imagination. Bob Herbert said it well in Monday's New York Times: "We need to stop pretending that there is something sane about continued U.S. involvement in this ruinous war. We keep sending troops into the combat zone, and they keep sinking ever deeper into the ancient Middle East sand. To keep sending young people off to die in a war that everybody knows is pointless is criminal."

Each time that the Bush administration has proclaimed that we must stay the course because the war has just reached a turning point, that turn has led to a dead end.

May 2003, President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." By the end of 2003, 486 of our troops were dead and 2,408 were wounded. And yet we stayed the course in Iraq.

In June 2004, President Bush said, "We're handing over authority to a sovereign Iraqi Government . . . a turning point will come in less than 2 weeks."

By the end of 2004, 1,334 of our troops were killed and 10,408 were wounded. And yet we stayed the course in Iraq.

In June 2005, Vice President Cheney said, "I think they are in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." And in December 2005, President Bush said " . . . the year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq, the history of the Middle East, and the history of freedom."

By the end of 2005, 2,180 of our troops were killed and 16,354 were wounded. And yet we stayed the course in Iraq.

In May 2006, President Bush called the formation of a new Iraqi Government "a turning point." By the end of 2006, 3,001 of our troops were killed and 22,736 were wounded. And yet we stayed the course in Iraq.

And just last month, Vice President Cheney proclaimed, "Well, I think if you look at what's transpired in Iraq . . . we have, in fact, made enormous progress." And President Bush told us that his new strategy to escalate the war in Iraq "will change America's course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror."

Since those remarks made just days ago, more than 120 troops are dead, and yet once again we are being asked to stay the course in Iraq.

My colleagues across the aisle want to characterize this troop increase, the fourth escalation, as a new direction. But the American people know better. They recognize "stay the course" when they see it, and they are saying no. And the administration continues the charade that if you don't support this war and this escalation, then you don't support the troops.

Shame on them. It is they who have failed to serve the troops who have served us so well. From day one our troops were sent into the war theater without the proper equipment to maximize their safety. Families have bake sales to buy their loved ones better vests and helmets. Just last month the Pentagon's Inspector General found that the Defense Department hasn't been able to properly equip the troops it already has with enough guns and ammunition to "effectively complete their missions." That is a quote. Soldiers are short body armor, armored vehicles, and communication equipment. Imagine this war is costing $12 million every hour, 24/7 for 4 years, nearly half a trillion dollars, and our soldiers don't have enough body armor, ammunition, communications equipment?

If our troops aren't the priority, who is? Halliburton, Blackwater, other corporate chums of the President? Don't lecture us about caring for the troops.

The Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America recently said of our returning soldiers and marines, "And when they come home, there aren't nearly enough transitional care services, job placement, transitional housing. It is just not there." Twelve million dollars an hour to wage this war, and our veterans are returning home without the proper care they need?

Our support for the troops compels us to oppose this war and this escalation. Of the terrible options the President has left us after 4 years, the absolute worst is to continue to send our young men and women in uniform to die in the meat grinder that is Iraq and to put them in the cross-hairs of a civil war.

Speaker Pelosi has said that our goal is to end this war. We can begin right here, right now, by passing this resolution.

Mr. Meeks of New York: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the mover and shaker on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Van Hollen: I thank my colleague from New York.

Mr. Speaker, next month we will mark the fourth anniversary of the President's decision to launch a war of choice against Iraq. Many of us came to the floor of this House in the weeks before the invasion to urge the President to take a different course. The White House ignored those appeals for restraint. The President's mantra was, and these are his words, "Bring it on."

For almost 4 years after the invasion, the President had a rubber- stamp Congress right here that never seriously questioned his misguided policies in Iraq. It was the "see no problems, hear no problems, conduct no oversight" Congress.

When the President stood below the banner "Mission Accomplished" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003, the rubber-stamp Congress believed the slogan, rather than the facts on the ground.

When Vice President Cheney declared that the insurgency was in "its final throes" back in May 2005, the Republican Congress accepted that verdict without question.

When the President unveiled his so-called "Plan For Victory" at the Naval Academy in November 2005, the old Congress dutifully parroted the talking points sent down from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The days of the rubber-stamp Congress are now over. This Congress will no longer serve as the mouthpiece for the White House. This Congress is finally standing up to do its job as a separate and coequal branch of government.

Mr. Speaker, the message from the last election was clear. The American people have an uncanny ability to cut through the slogans and get to the heart of the matter. They understood clearly that more of the same in Iraq was not working. And the American people understand what both General Casey and General Abizaid have told us: that the escalation of more troops in Iraq is not the answer; that it will make matters worse, not better.

Increasing the number of American troops in Iraq will put off the day when the Iraqis, the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds, must make the difficult compromises necessary to achieve political and national reconciliation. Putting more American forces in the middle of a bloody sectarian civil war will only lead to further violence and more American and more Iraqi casualties. It is time for the Iraqis to assume more responsibility, not less.

The Bush administration has been wrong about this war from the beginning and it is wrong with respect to its proposed course of action now. The recommendations of the bipartisan, independent Baker-Hamilton Commission provide for the responsible redeployment of our forces and represents the best way forward in Iraq.

And to those who would suggest that having this debate will undermine our troops, I say shame on you. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace put that canard to rest just last week when he said, "There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period."

Our men and women fighting in Iraq understand the strength and vibrancy of this democracy, and they understand that it is our duty in this Congress to exercise our best judgment for America's national security. What has harmed our national security is not the debate in Iraq, but the lack of serious oversight over the Bush administration's decisions and conduct.

What emboldens our enemies is not the exercise of our democracy, but misguided policies that have weakened our national security.

Our national security is weakened when our credibility around the world is undermined by false claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. Our national security is weakened when the chaos in Iraq allows Iran to greatly expand its influence in the region. Our national security is weakened when America's diminished standing in the world has eroded our ability to influence the actions of others. Our national security is weakened because we have diverted our attention away from completing the mission against the architects of 9/11, against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the terrorist network that continues to operate along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

We must change course. We must strengthen our national security position, not compound the errors we have already made. That is what this resolution is all about. We hope the President will join us in that effort. Let's chart a new direction now together.

Mr. McCotter: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Cole of Oklahoma: I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate over the last 2 days, really dozens and dozens of speeches, and, frankly, speeches of exceptionally high quality on both sides of the issue. I have listened particularly to the speakers who were here in 2002 when the momentous decision to go to war was actually made. Those who were opposed, I have admired because in their opposition in October of 2002 they were taking an unpopular position, but clearly one that they believed in, and I think they deserve our respect for that, even if I don't agree with that particular point of view.

Second, I have watched those who voted in favor of that tough decision, and I have watched as they have stuck to that decision because they believe the stakes are so important for the United States. They have done so even when public opinion has turned against their position. And I admire that.

Frankly, I have watched speakers who have changed their position, who were first for the war and now are opposed to it. It is easy to deride people in that position. But, quite frankly, I have watched them, and they are anguished in their opinions and their conclusions; they are sensitive, obviously, to the easy and cheap criticism of opportunism. And I particularly admire those, frankly, in my own party who have broken with their President and their party over a position that they believe in deeply. I don't agree with them, but I admire them.

What I don't admire is the Democratic leadership that has brought us a resolution which is divisive without being decisive. It orders no action. I have spoken on that at length before, and I am not going to go into it now. I want to instead focus on the issues at stake.

Like all of those elected in 2002, 2004, 2006, I was not part of the initial decision to go to war, and, frankly, I often think how fortunate I was to have been spared that responsibility. But, of course, none of us on this floor ever truly escapes responsibility.

My attitude toward this conflict reflects that of my district and, frankly, that of my father, who was a career noncommissioned officer in the United States Army. I recall once when he was talking about war, he summed it up pretty simply: When you are in it, win it.

That is what I have tried to do with my vote, my voice, my energy, since I have been elected to represent my district. I have done so because, frankly, in some areas I have seen progress. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing and I am proud that that was accomplished, and it would not have been accomplished without the valor and the professionalism of American men and women in arms.

I am pleased to have seen a Constitution formed in Iraq that is the envy of the Arab world.

I am proud to have seen three elections take place, all of which had increasingly high participation and had, frankly, higher percentages than vote in our own elections.

I was hopeful when I saw a coalition government formed that had Kurds, that had Sunnis, that had Shia, that had other elements in the Iraqi population.

I have been impressed with Iraqi forces that do stand and fight. And let's make no mistake about it: Most of the fighting and dying militarily is being done by Iraqis and they deserve our respect for that.

And, frankly, I think like all Americans, I was enormously relieved when I see actors like the late al-Zarqawi, people who would kill Americans anywhere, anytime, who are not from Iraq, being sought out with the help of Iraqis and killed far away from our shores. That is important, and that is something we should acknowledge.

I have also supported the war because I feared the consequences of defeat in Iraq. And, believe me, there are consequences to losing the war. These are real.

If we are not successful in Iraq, we will have an emboldened enemy. Not just the terrorists that we deal with, they are bad enough, but also the states that use terrorism as a tool of diplomacy. States like Iran, states like Syria, will draw comfort.

We will have demoralized friends in the region and around the world that wonder whether or not they can really count on us once we make a commitment.

We will see the death of an infant democracy, never a good thing for the lovers of freedom.

We will see a sectarian bloodbath in Iraq that will result in the death of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis.

And we will see a destabilized region in which the United States has vital interests and to which our own security is intimately tied.

I acknowledge that things have not gone in Iraq as I, certainly, and I think everybody, regardless of their position on the issue, would have hoped. There is no question that we underestimated what was required, not to defeat Saddam, frankly, that was done brilliantly, but to secure Iraq.

We have underestimated the persistence of and the difficulty the outside players would create for us. We underestimated how anxious people inside Iraq would be to settle old scores instead of to look ahead. And we have underestimated the impact of the divided loyalties of Iraqis themselves, where so often we see sect against sect, ethnicity against ethnicity, tribe against tribe.

But these difficulties and mistakes, regrettable as they are, do not change the consequences of losing in Iraq, for the region, for Iraqis, and, most importantly, for ourselves.

At this critical point, the President has offered a plan to avert defeat, and, if the Iraqis are up to the task, to turn the tide. It has an American military component, and that is what this resolution deals with.

But contrary to what I have heard on the floor, it is not a major escalation in forces. It is not an effort to allow the Iraqis to avoid the fighting. Nor is it an effort to win militarily. It is an effort to buy the time needed to create an environment in Iraq that will allow Iraqis to succeed politically. It will allow them to begin to push toward the reconciliation process and review the de-Baathification program. It will allow them to share power with one another. It will allow provisional elections to take place. It will allow oil revenue to be distributed more equitably. It will allow Iraqi units the time to train, stand up and continue to fight and fight more professionally and proficiently than they have.

The U.S. force is indispensable in achieving these measures, but it will not be and it is not intended to be decisive. What will win or lose in Iraq ultimately are Iraqi politicians: Can they put their differences aside? Iraqi soldiers: Can they fight for their country instead of against one another? And the Iraqi people: Can they put aside the differences and demand better leadership than they have received thus far from their own people.

Some will say this is a hopeless task, but our military leaders and our troops in the field don't tell us that. General Petraeus, a man whom all sides acknowledge is not only professional, capable, but is dedicated and a great patriot, tells us he thinks this is an achievable mission if he has the forces he needs to succeed. The average soldiers that I talked to from my district and other units also tell me they believe this is doable. But they want us in Congress and in this country to have the political resolve to match their personal courage.

History teaches us that freedom is a powerful force. We should trust it. And it also teaches us sometimes it needs outside help. All of us as Americans are justly proud of the American Revolution. We often forget it took a French fleet, French army and Dutch money to finally finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, because I believe the consequences of losing in Iraq are horrible for Iraqis, for Americans, and for the cause of liberty and our friends around the world; because I think that we, the Iraqis and the Americans together, can still win; because I believe that defeat has catastrophic consequences for the United States, I urge the rejection of this resolution and support the cause that our fighting men and women are so nobly advancing in Iraq.

Mr. Meeks of New York: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5½ minutes to the Chair of the Steering Committee, the Honorable Rosa DeLauro.

Ms. DeLauro:Mr. Speaker, this week the Congress finally takes up its obligation to change course in Iraq. We have arrived at a new moment. Few responsibilities are more solemn for a Member of this body than one in which he or she is obligated to register a vote of no confidence in their President in a time of war.

Under different circumstances, I think most Americans would want to give their President the benefit of the doubt on matters of war, that they would want to trust the President's judgment to do what is right for our country, for our national security interests, and for our troops and their families who never leave our prayers.

It is a measure of how desperate matters have become in Iraq that the Congress considers this resolution of disapproval. Today, we find ourselves embroiled in a war that is not winnable, a religious war that is inconsistent with our original mission there, a war the American people no longer support.

And with 3,100 American lives lost, sectarian violence threatening to spill over into the entire Middle East, and no prospect for a stable, constitutional democracy in Iraq in sight, today we consider this war for not what we wish it were but for what it has so clearly and tragically become, a mistake of historic proportions.

As such, I will support this resolution opposing the escalation of this conflict. And with this debate, the Congress takes up its constitutional responsibilities with a sense of urgency and accountability that the public so desperately seeks from us. For too long the Congress has asked too few questions and been all too willing to put politics and ideology before our Nation's security.

To be sure, matters of war are the most serious that I will deliberate over in the United States Congress. Indeed, such a vote was my first in the Congress in 1991. But with this moment, Congress now has the opportunity to take the country into a new phase of this war. To me, nothing matters more than getting this right.

Four years ago, I voted against authorizing the President to go to war because, as I said on this House floor, I believed taking unilateral action against Iraq would "weaken our moral authority, our military effectiveness and our ability to keep events under control afterwards."

Today, 1 month into the new Congress, and for the first time since the previous majority rushed to authorize this war in October of 2002, every Member of this institution, Democrat or Republican, will face a different choice. With the situation so clearly out of control, Members can trust President Bush one more time as he escalates the conflict in Iraq, or they can support a change in direction that begins to redeploy our troops out of Iraq, that uses our military in the right way, to make our country safer and raise America's standing so that we have both allies and moral authority to address our threats.

To be sure, of all the concerns we take to the floor with, it is the deteriorating welfare of our troops that is most alarming. Of course, every American takes comfort in the heroism and the determination that our soldiers have shown. They have performed magnificently, but they have been charged with an impossible mission that undermines their incalculable sacrifice and has strained our military in countless ways, from manpower to morale.

As the father of one marine whose son has been deployed for the second time to Iraq wrote to me, "You forget what it is like to actually sleep through the night without waking up to the horrible thought that you might not ever see your son again."

Mr. Speaker, we all know our troops will do anything their country asks of them, but let us not ask them to escalate an unwinnable war.

Today, virtually everyone agrees we need a new strategy, everyone, that is, except for the President who continues to pursue an objective the consensus judgment of our Nation's intelligence agencies says has no chance of success. Indeed, in proposing an escalation of the current strategy, the President rejects conclusions drawn by the National Intelligence Estimate, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, his own generals and, perhaps most importantly, the American people. In so doing, he sends what could be as many as 170,000 troops into a civil war that is being waged along sectarian fault lines that have existed for more than 1,300 years.

Such a policy will not only make matters worse, in my view and that of the Iraq Study Group. It will also postpone Iraqis taking responsibility and postpone diplomatic efforts that we so urgently need to reach a political settlement in Iraq and avoid an all-out civil war that spills into the entire Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to stand here in the well of the House of Representatives and not move to change our policy in Iraq. There are too many lives at stake, our security at stake. I support the conclusions and recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, but I have crossed the Rubicon on this war. I support phased redeployment over the next year and will seek every opportunity to mandate such a change in law. But that begins with stopping this escalation

Mr. Speaker, I harbor no illusions about the President's willingness to hear this message from the Congress. Before long, it may be necessary to mandate reductions in troop levels. But the President must understand that the public and the Congress do not support his policies in Iraq--that if we can even hope to achieve a stable Iraq, a peaceful Middle East and a more secure America, our strategy must change. That is what this vote of no confidence is about. That is our obligation-- let us honor it.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas:Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement later, but right now I would like to introduce Congressman Geoff Davis from the State of Kentucky who was in the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and served this Nation as an assault helicopter flight commander in the 82nd Airborne Division, which is where I went through jump school, too, and I think he is well qualified to discuss this issue.

I would like to recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes.

Mr. Davis of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops and dedicated civilian professionals, and to my former comrades and friends now serving, and against the Democrat resolution disapproving of reinforcing our troops in combat.

This week, Congress has spent its time debating a futile, nonbinding resolution when, in reality, we should be debating policy initiatives that will help our troops in their mission and lead to stability. I believe that in fighting the war in Iraq that there is room for an open and honest debate about the best way to advance the compelling national security interests of this Nation. Honest debate, respectful disagreement, and constructive dialogue are components of our great Republic; and it is important to honor the process that our institution provides.

Furthermore, this measure seeks to debate whether we support an operational decision that, in reality, should be made by the commanders on the ground, not by politicians in Congress. What are we going to be debating next week, Mr. Speaker? Which block in Baghdad? Which precinct to target? This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military. At least one Democrat has likened this type of resolution to a child stomping in the corner.

The troops will be doing their job by completing the mission that they have been given, and we in Congress need to do ours. Our troops who are fighting abroad do not get to debate the validity of their mission. Their enemies are real, and they are fighting day in and day out to protect our country, the Iraqi people and themselves.

This resolution does not help make progress in Iraq. It does not provide a new approach in Iraq and does not make our Nation or our troops more secure. That is what we need to be doing, not wasting our time debating a measure that can dishearten and demoralize our citizens faithfully serving in theater while encouraging and emboldening the adversaries of stability.

We have seen the aggression of this faceless and cowardly enemy in the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988, in al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the tragic events of September 11. This enemy is driven by hate and seeks to do Americans harm.

Over the course of time, it has become evident that we are involved in a long-term struggle with Islamic extremism to preserve our freedom and the freedom of the world. Every day, our men and women in uniform and our civilian professionals risk their lives to protect our freedom. From providing security to building an economy, we are strengthening the security of our country and the international community.

We have not had a terrorist attack on our soil in over 5 years because of our vigilance in pursuing the security of our Nation at home and abroad. Success in Iraq is our only option for continued national security and the preservation of freedom.

I have had the opportunity to speak to hundreds and hundreds of men and women in uniform whose experience spans all ranks, all services, and all units. Consistently, they share an optimistic and sober message about the importance of continuing the struggle to defeat Islamic extremists. A resolution like this blurs the many successes in the war they have had against the extremists.

The messages of our troops do not come without an understanding of the reality and the resources that we must commit to this mission. Fighting the terrorists will require a strong commitment, and the road to victory will be long. Our partners in Iraq have stated their commitment to the mission, and we must stand behind them.

At the same time, the Iraqis must continue to assume responsibility for their success as a nation and that our commitment is not open- ended. Success in countering an insurgency largely happens outside of the realm of combat. Security is only one aspect.

We must work on establishing frameworks within Iraq that can keep the water running and the electricity on, which will in turn allow people to go to work and children to return to school. Returning normal life to Iraqis is important, but it should not be the sole responsibility of our troops who are providing security and stability. We need to strengthen the involvement of the international community in this endeavor as we empower and engage the Iraqis.

I strongly believe that if we are to fully support our troops that we must listen to what they are saying. And when the troops are saying that they are committed to their mission then, I believe, we should listen. I remain a committed supporter of our troops, and I thank them for their service.

Soon, Congress will vote on the Department of Defense's supplemental budget; and in it, the Pentagon is requesting $5.6 billion for troop reinforcement. This will be the real test of commitment, not this meaningless resolution. A "yes" vote on that funding supports the troop reinforcement being debated here today, and a "no" vote will delete funding for this important mission. This will not only show people where Congress stands, but give accountability to our actions here in Congress with the force of law behind it.

I support our troops and our civilian professionals, and I intend to keep my commitment to my many friends on active duty and to vote to provide them the funding for their mission when the time comes.

To my former comrades and friends in the 101st Airborne Division and 82nd Airborne Division, thank you for answering the call again and know that I stand with you.

Mr. Meeks of New York: Mr. Speaker, I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Speaker of this House and to the Democratic leadership for allowing us the opportunity to have every Member come to the floor of the people's House to talk about Iraq and whether or not they agree with the President's escalation. I think that is what this House is about, and one of the Members of that leadership who we do owe that gratitude to is the Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus, and I am pleased to yield 5½minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, the Honorable John Larson.

Mr. Larsen of Connecticut: Thank you, Mr. Meeks, and also let me thank my colleagues across the aisle for the solemnity of the debate that has taken place over these last several days. I think it is so important to the constituents that we are sworn to serve, and they deserve to hear the voices that reside within the people's Chamber.

This debate, in so many ways, is an echo chamber for what Americans already know. They have found their voice and expressed it in several manners and several forms, most notably in last November's election, where they called for a new direction for this country, not the staying of the course that it is currently on.

It is long overdue then that the Congress find its voice as well. Past is prologue, and we must go back to June of 2002 when the President enunciated the Bush doctrine, the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism that has placed us in this situation that we have today in Iraq.

He was warned, most notably by people like Scowcroft, Eagleberger, Baker, and Colin Powell about the folly of this effort. It was not Kennedy or Berg or even Larson or other people that spoke out as eloquently as those former members of Bush the Elder's Cabinet.

I traveled with Jack Murtha in the buildup to the war, and we met with our ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Robert Jordan, who I said to him, Ambassador, you have a gathering storm here in Saudi Arabia, with all the tensions in the Middle East. And he said, Congressman, you are from New England. Gathering storm, he said? What we have here is the making of a perfect storm.

And if we unilaterally invade and attack this toothless tiger, Saddam Hussein, we will unwittingly accomplish what bin Laden failed to do: we will create a united Islamic jihad against the United States.

Professor Gram Ellison wrote that "this occupation has diverted essential resources from the fight against al Qaeda, allowed the Taliban to regroup on Afghanistan, fostered neglect of the Iranian nuclear threat, undermined alliances critical to preventing terrorism, devastated America's standing with every country in Europe and destroyed it in the Muslim world."

Instead of following the wisdom of Scowcroft and Eagleberger and Baker, Powell, this administration embraced Ahmed Chalabi with all the hubris and arrogance of staying the course.

And so we find our troops today in the midst of civil war, in the midst of sectarian, religious, and tribal conflicts that are more about settling old scores that seek revenge over the centuries than about creating a democracy. And it is into that caldron that we wish to send more troops, more troops that 87 percent of the Iraqi public says they want a time line for us to be out of there, and over 50 percent of them think that it is okay to kill Americans.

Our troops need leadership that is worthy of their sacrifice. It is important that this Congress on both sides of the aisle, as it has done, understands the difference between the war and the warriors.

I conduct hearings back in my district; I listen to what my constituents have to say. And, most earnestly, to those parents, those men and women who come to these hearings and talk about their children in harm's way: Carol Tripp of Bristol said it best, a woman with three of her sons and her husband stationed in Iraq, who hasn't shared a holiday dinner with their entire family since 2001.

I define success by being able to look into their eyes and tell them that the best path forward is the safe, secure, and strategic redeployment of our troops so that our Army can regroup and restore itself and proceed after the people who took the towers down in systematic fashion to go after al Qaeda and continue to regroup.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas:Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, it is an honor to be here today joined by Members of Congress who have served this Nation nobly both in the Armed Forces and today as statesmen and -women in the United States House of Representatives.

You know, there are lots of ways people can serve this country. Dedicating time to the Armed Forces, the greatest military in the world, can be some of the most fulfilling time in one's life. I know, because I spent 29 years in the United States Air Force; got called up from my ROTC class at SMU and flew 62 combat missions in Korea in a plane I named after my wife, "Shirley's Texas Tornado."

In 1965, I left for my first tour in Vietnam, working for General Westmoreland in the headquarters. In 1966 I returned again. And while flying my 25th mission, I was shot down, landed in the middle of a division of North Vietnamese soldiers.

What followed for the next 2,494 days can only be described as hell on Earth, or as my friend and fellow POW, Jeremiah Denton did, blinked the letters of one word in Morse Code into a movie camera as a desperate plea for help. The letters made up the word "torture." Of my nearly 7 years in captivity, I spent more than half of that time in solitary confinement.

As you can imagine, the North Vietnamese would say and do anything to break our will. The physical torture is not fit for describing as some of it is too graphic and too gory. There were many times that I would pray to God that I would pass out and slip into unconsciousness just to escape the pain if I couldn't escape the beatings.

Yet, what also scarred me for life was the emotional torture that the North Vietnamese broadcast to taunt us and break our wills. They constantly blared anti-American messages from back home over the loud speakers. The enemy knows that any anti-American murmur can be used as a weapon. And the same holds true today.

The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think that their Congress doesn't care about them, that they are going to cut the funding and abandon them and their mission. They want Congress to cave to the wishes of those who advocate a cut-and-run attitude. And we should not allow that to happen.

We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia.

Osama bin Laden said that "in Somalia, the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat, and failure behind it."

And we didn't blink an eye when the radicals bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia killing 20 and injuring 372; or after the Kenya embassy bombings that killed 213 people and injured 5,000; or that same day at the Tanzania embassy bombing killing 11 people and injuring 68. On October 12, 2000 the USS Cole bombing killed 17 and injured 39. And we all know how they tried to bring down the World Trade Towers and didn't stop until they completed the job September 11.

All of these tragedies of terrorism happened without a United States response.

We can't waver in our fight for freedom. We cannot abandon the bedrock of democracy; they are the brave and selfless men and women of our United States Armed Forces. We will stand up with them. We must stand up with them. And I will stand up with them in Congress, because they stand up for our freedom every minute of every day. They are the reason we call America the land of the free and the home of the brave. And I salute them.

Now, today I have the distinct privilege of managing time during this debate. Each person joining me is a shining example of duty, honor, country. And I know folks across America will learn a lot from hearing about their stories and hearing why they know firsthand freedom is not free.

Mr. Meeks of New York: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism, the gentlelady from California, the Honorable Jane Harman

Ms. Harman Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker and I thank the gentleman for yielding, and commend our leadership for organizing this very thoughtful and sober 3-day debate on a very serious issue.

Mr. Speaker, as Co-chair of the Blue Dog National Security Working Group, I rise to oppose the surge and to support tough and smart security strategies, including those outlined in H. Res. 97, authored by the Blue Dogs, to end war profiteering, put future war costs on budget, and adopt a Truman Committee to make those who have engaged in fraud and abuse in Iraq accountable for their actions.

As we conduct this historic debate, however, I am mindful that, eight time zones away, crouched in a tank somewhere in Baghdad, a 19-year-old private is doing his best to restore order to a city descending into all-out civil war. We owe this soldier, his mates, and their families so much. They volunteered to put their lives on the line to keep this country safe.

We in this Chamber also want to keep this country safe, but we do not share those day-to-day risks. Only a handful here have relatives in Iraq living the life of the soldier I described.

Mr. Speaker, as we have sadly learned, the intelligence that took us to war was wrong. Some of the most inaccurate claims--that an operational relationship existed between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that vast WMD stockpiles existed with their locations pinpointed--were presented by the administration as fact, even though the Intelligence Community had discredited them. That was shameful.

Most intelligence agencies around the world thought, however, that Saddam Hussein had WMD and the intention to use it against his people and U.S. interests. They believed it, and so did I. But they were wrong, and so was I.

The actions taken 4 years ago in Iraq created a failed state. We took out its government and occupied the country, unsuccessfully. About one year later, millions of Iraqis courageously elected a government, but that government barely functions, and we continue to occupy Iraq militarily.

Mr. Speaker, there are no good military options left in Iraq.

To the soldier currently in harm's way, I say, "You are a hero. You are doing your best to follow orders and to serve your country." But I also say, "We have given you a mission impossible, and that mission must change."

We have a moral obligation to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it, and that will not be achieved by surging 21,500 more troops into Baghdad. The surge will not work, and I oppose it.

But abandoning Iraq is not a viable alternative. We must invest in strategies to contain and ultimately reduce violence there in order to create stability in Iraq and in the region. That must now be our focus.

The Iraq Study Group made important recommendations to do this, including changing the military mission in Iraq; tying future U.S. support to measurable progress on national reconciliation; security and governance; and aggressive diplomatic outreach to Iraq's neighbors-- including Syria and Iran. But this administration rejected them.

Two weeks ago, a Saban Center report by Daniel Byman and Ken Pollack carefully assessed options to contain the spillover from an Iraqi civil war. They include not trying to pick winners between the Sunnis and Shia; pulling back from population centers; providing support for Iraq's neighbors; and laying down "red lines" to Iran. All of these ideas have merit.

Further good ideas come from David Schaeffer, a former U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, to put the Iraqi Government on an "atrocity watch" and warn its leaders that they can be prosecuted for war crimes if ethnic cleansing occurs.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has made calamitous mistakes in prosecuting this war. The surge, I fear, is yet another one. With this resolution, Congress starts action to force a change in strategy and to bring that soldier in downtown Baghdad and his comrades home safely-- and soon

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas:Mr. Speaker, I yield 5½minutes to the Representative from Virginia, Thelma Drake, who represents Norfolk and America's Navy.

Mrs. Drake: Thank you, Congressman Johnson, for your service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the past few years have been increasingly difficult ones for the American people, for our military families, and, most importantly, for our servicemembers in harm's way.

Our troops have done everything that has been asked of them, and more. Their sacrifices are unimaginable to many of us here on this floor. Through it all, the only thing that they have asked is for our support through our words, through our prayers, and, most importantly, through our actions.

During my two visits to Iraq, the question that I encountered from servicemembers was, What are they saying back home? They watch C-SPAN, and I know with certainty that they are watching us right now.

The resolution that we are discussing today is nonbinding and, therefore, merely symbolic within the Beltway. The driving force behind it has more to do with the situation in Washington than it does the situation in Baghdad. Yet, half a world away this resolution will have demoralizing effects for those men and women who we have asked to go into battle.

It is important for the American people watching this debate to know that this plan is currently under way.

The Second Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division moved into Baghdad nearly a month ago.

The Fourth Brigade of the First Infantry Division is deploying this month, with three more brigades set to arrive soon. That means that we are not here today to discuss whether or not the troops will go, we are discussing what message the troops will hear from us when they get there.

Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about the current situation in Iraq. Last April, I witnessed the election of the Iraqi Prime Minister. Since that time, the Iraqis have failed to make acceptable progress, stabilizing their nation, and strengthening their democratic institutions.

Many of us have concerns about the plan. Will Prime Minister Maliki live up to the commitments that he made in November? Does this plan get the most out of the 21 trained and equipped Iraqi battalions deployed outside of Baghdad? These are reasonable questions, and ones I believe that are within the scope of Congress to discuss and resolve.

I appreciate debate, and the American people appreciate debate. But it is important to remember that the American people have sent us here to solve problems. Unfortunately, this resolution makes no attempt to solve the problems in Iraq.

If Congress believes that the President's plan can be improved on, then Congress has the responsibility to work with the Commander in Chief to ensure that the Iraqis are meeting stringent benchmarks and are living up to their commitments. This resolution is best defined by what it lacks. This resolution fails to include the proposal for a bipartisan panel tasked with outlining rigorous benchmarks and making sure they are met so that our troops may return home in victory.

This resolution fails to specifically protect the funding that our troops need to execute the mission. This resolution fails to condemn the terrorists and insurgents who target both our troops and Iraqis, and, most importantly, it fails to reiterate that victory should always be the goal.

We were told this week would provide an opportunity for every Member to go on the record, yet the majority has not allowed a Republican alternative that would protect funding for the troops. How do the American people know where their Representatives in Washington stand on funding for our troops when the majority will not allow that to be?

The American people are anxious, but they want progress, not defeat. They want to see their elected officials working together to ensure success on behalf of our troops. Simply inserting a sentence, saying you support the troops, is not enough when your actions say otherwise. The consequences of retreat would be dire. This is understood by our allies as well as our regional partners who have spoken up against withdrawal.

According to the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate, it would result in an immediate increase in sectarian violence and genocide and has the potential to destabilize the entire region. For decades, the instability in the Middle East has repeatedly resulted in the deaths of American citizens and servicemembers, in places as far apart as Beirut and Yemen, New York City, and the Pentagon.

A retreat at this point in time could, down the road, necessitate our troops returning to an Iraq that is much more dangerous than the one they left. I truly believe that the United States has the most formidable military in the world, not solely because of our technological and tactical advantages, but because our men and women in uniform fight in the name of a free and Democratic people. They fight on behalf of freedom for all, knowing they have the full support and confidence of the American people.

When we take that support away, we strip our troops of the greatest weapon in the fight against tyranny. I ask my colleagues not to vote for this resolution, but to once again work together.

Mr. Meeks of New York: Mr. Speaker, the American people are indeed looking at this debate. They want to know where their Members stand, simply whether they support the troops and their position with the President and his escalation, and we had the opportunity for every Member to speak out on that. That is what this House is all about. We are doing our jobs. It is just the first step in many steps

As a result, the American people also, I am sure, will want to hear the distinguished gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Mike Doyle, who is the vice chair of the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pastor): The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Doyle: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who has opposed this misguided version from the war on terror from the very beginning, I believe it is way past time for our country to take stock of where we have been, where we are, and where we are going in Iraq. I think it is important to remember how we got there.

President Bush told Congress and the American people that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to the United States; that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attackers; that the invasion, occupation, and reconstruction would cost us nothing; that Iraqi oil revenues would cover all the costs.

So where are we today? We know that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and that he posed no imminent threat to the United States. We know Saddam had no operational relationship with al Qaeda. Eighty percent of the Iraqi people want us to leave their country. The invasion, occupation, and reconstruction of Iraq will cost us at least half a trillion dollars, not to mention the cost in human lives and international goodwill.

More than 3,000 American soldiers are dead, more than 20,000 American soldiers are wounded. The burden of the Iraq war is being borne exclusively by our children and grandchildren who will bear the debt, and the families of our military personnel, who, at best, experience long separations and terrible worry, and, at worst, lose a beloved family member forever.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has alienated our allies, has called our credibility into question around the world. It has soured Middle Eastern attitudes about the United States and Western democracy. Finally, the invasion of Iraq got us into a long-term bloody occupation of a country with no significant connection to the war on terror and diverted critical military and intelligence resources from the fight against al Qaeda.

The recently released National Intelligence Estimate concluded that there is little prospect for political reconciliation in Iraq at this time. So, what should the United States do? What does victory in Iraq mean at this point? Most of us would see victory as any kind of political settlement that ended the violence, but the American people need to hear the truth, and the truth is, there is no happy ending for Iraq as long as our presence allows the Maliki government to avoid making the political compromises necessary for peace in Iraq.

Now, the President has proposed a significant increase in the numbers of U.S. troops serving in Iraq. I believe that Congress should oppose this escalation. I don't believe it has any real chance of producing a political solution in the war in Iraq or even curbing the violence in Baghdad.

I am not alone in this belief.

General Colin Powell, General George Casey, General John Abizaid, General Joseph Hoar, General Barry McCaffrey, Major General Don Sheppard and General James Conway all question this escalation.

Now, many supporters of the President's Iraq policy ask what those of us who oppose this military escalation would support instead. This Member of Congress believes that the United States should begin an immediate orderly redeployment of our troops out of Iraq with the goal of completing that redeployment by the end of the year.

We should lead and enlist the participation of all neighboring countries in a massive diplomatic surge to help contain the civil war already underway, and that diplomatic surge should include all the countries in the region, including Iran and Syria. The only way to bring stability to that region is through a regional effort.

Our troops have performed with courage, compassion, and professionalism. They did everything that was asked of them. Their work in Iraq is done. We gave the Iraqis their freedom. It is up to them to decide what they will do with it.

It is time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. It is time for Iraqis to decide if Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds wish to share resources, share power, and coexist peacefully as one country.

America cannot force them to do this, no matter how long we stay there. Only the Iraqi people can decide this.

Mr. Speaker, it is time. The American people have known for quite a while it is time, and I believe this week that finally the United States Congress will take the first step to bringing our troops home by adopting this resolution.