---

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico, who was a pilot in the United States Air Force, serving in the Philippines, received a Distinguished Flying Cross and an Air Medal before returning to the United States.

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

Mr. Pearce: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this stay-the-course resolution, because it is, indeed, a stay the course. It says, blithely, that we support the troops, the troops are in Iraq, they are fighting. We support the fight.

We do not, on the other hand, support an escalation, which would be another course of action, nor do we present the other alternative that says bring them home. We can bring them home, increase or stay the course, and so this stay-the-course resolution is one that is very curious indeed today.

The last two speakers that I have heard say that there is no good military action left. That is a credible viewpoint. It is one that is expressed, and yet I ask my friends why did you not have the courage to simply say, if there are no goodwill alternatives left for the military, then bring them home. That is fair and adequate.

I have also heard that it is a misguided conflict. I have also heard that our soldiers' work is done. If their work is done, please have the courage to bring them home.

I want to speak today on behalf of our soldiers, the soldiers of today. I will do it while remembering the soldiers of yesterday. Through no fault of my own, I served in the Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. I say through no fault of my own, because I was not a volunteer. I got there because I drew a very low draft number. As time has proved, it was going to be the only lottery that I am going to win, but that lottery gave me a free pilot's certificate and sent me to Vietnam to fly in 1971, 1972 and parts of 1973.

I was in Vietnam during the time that Jane Fonda made her trip to the North, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I was in Vietnam during the time that there were demonstrations in the streets back home. I was there during the time that our soldiers were cursed at and spit on. Today, as I beat around the back dusty roads of New Mexico, I encounter those same soldiers that I encountered back then. For those soldiers who are my age, who are on walkers, life has been difficult.

There is a common greeting for soldiers of that era. It is welcome home, brother, or welcome home, sister, because they were never thanked for their duty and they were never welcomed home with parades with yellow ribbons. We were snuck back into the country.

I have brought a couple of photos to help us remember, to remember the people who were trying to get out of Saigon, not just Americans, but those people who had sided with us. They are crawling up the ladder trying to get into the helicopter. The helicopters proceeded out to carriers, then the helicopters were pushed off the side of the carriers. This is the way we left Vietnam.

I bring this up because I am beginning to see the same thing today. My colleague yesterday spoke of this resolution and mentioned that the resolution was vague, where people of very different beliefs could believe that it represented them. If you support the war, you believe that it supports your position. If you are opposed, you will somehow believe that this is the one step that is going to stop us.

Yet it really does nothing, the vague language, that clever language points out, this is not a time for cleverness, it is a time for decision, because I will be a constant voice for our soldiers. I read and I hear the comments today.

I read when Chrissie Hynde says, "Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on. I hope the Muslims win!"

I hear from the left, William Arkin, "Those soldiers should be grateful that the American public . . . do still offer their support to them, and their respect . . .

"So we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead."

Our friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not discount their intent, but I know what they are trying to do. They are doing the same thing that was done in Vietnam: they are trying to feed that hungry tiger that lives on the left, that hates the American way of life, that hates the American military, that will do anything to discredit, disrespect, and discount the service of our soldiers.

My friends, you will not be able to appease the left with this toothless resolution that you are presenting. You know that your own Members, some of your Members, have called for defunding; but defunding is going to allow the exit that looks like this, and it is going to allow the mass catastrophe, the mass killings that are going to occur, and that is all part of the problem.

But before you allow your friends, who would never vote for me, who disrespect our soldiers so much, before you empower them and before you encourage them, I would recommend that you think carefully about just cleanly bringing our soldiers home.

If you are going to do nothing in the resolution, you have an obligation to do no harm. This resolution does no harm. This resolution empowers our enemy, encourages our enemy, and encourages people who are going to disrespect our soldiers. I recommend a vote against the resolution.

Mr. Meeks of New York: Mr. Speaker, I know of no one in this House, whether you be to the left or to the right, who does not believe in our troops and our soldiers, who does not respect them and honor them. In fact, I think that by having every Member have the opportunity to speak on this floor to talk about their patriotism is exactly what is supposed to happen in the people's House.

With that, I am proud to yield 5½minutes to a man who was one of the leaders in opposition to giving the President the authority to unilaterally go into Iraq, a man who is steady and effective on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas, the Honorable Lloyd Doggett

Mr. Doggett: I thank the gentleman.

This debate is late, very late, thousands of deaths too late. This escalation scheme is an unmitigated disaster.

President Bush seems determined to continue to make the same old mistakes, just make them a little bit bigger; defying sound military judgement; defying the Iraq Study Group; defying the wishes of our allies and the Iraqis themselves; and, most particularly, defying the will of the American people.

This President continues to pursue a go-it-alone strategy in Iraq. Like most every problem that he has created, and there are many, he seeks only to pass it along to his successor, who we will elect next year--pass along in this case what is no doubt the most colossal foreign policy failure in American history.

The administration's top budget official told me in a hearing just last week that "the best minds in the Pentagon" see no need to fund this escalation, which has not yet really begun, for more than another seven months. In truth, our military has been so overstretched that it cannot sustain a prolonged escalation, even when it unfairly recalls inadequately supplied troops for a second, third, and fourth tour of duty. Little wonder that the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, admitted last week that he is already looking for another plan after this escalation falls short.

This week, this House, we say "stop the increase." And next, we must begin the decrease with a phased withdrawal from Iraq. We should not act precipitously, but we must move very expeditiously to extract our troops from the crossfire of the warring factions in this civil war quagmire.

To our troops, whose courage we honor today in this very resolution, we say to you, those of who you who are out there on the front lines today, we will do everything we can to protect you; but we will also be working as hard as we can to bring you home safely to your families sooner rather than later.

There is a better way to show support for our troops than just sending more of them to be killed. There is a better way than continuing to give this President a blank check for war funding. Unless we move forward to place firm limitations on the appropriations, we will leave this war-making President constrained only by Dick Cheney's imagination.

The words of our adversaries in this debate have often been very short, but their true conflict is not really with us; it is with reality. They are in a losing war with the truth. Iraq has never been the central front in the war on terrorism. Like the alleged connection between 9/11 and Iraq, like the claim that Saddam's nuclear mushroom cloud was looming just over the horizon, this charge is but another falsehood foisted off on the gullible.

The central front on the war on terrorism was largely abandoned by President Bush in his ideological rush to invade Iraq. Vital resources and expertise that were needed to capture Osama bin Laden and the terrorists who caused 9/11 were cut in Afghanistan when President Bush ran into Iraq. The real war on terrorism suffered a major setback from which today it has still never recovered. That is the only "cut and run" that now endangers our families. Nor does this debate in the people's House embolden the enemies of democracy when we exercise democracy here in America.

To me, the terrorists seem mighty emboldened with their daily death and destruction that they wreaked across the Middle East long before anyone ever conceived this resolution. Frankly, it is the administration that is the terrorists' top recruiter.

As we predicted at the outset, this war is creating new generations of terrorists who view it as a war against all Islam. We cannot kill our enemies fast enough with the current policies creating more of them every day.

And now this President is stoking the flames of war with Iran. Ironically, that is the only country in the world to have directly benefited from his attacking Iraq. Widening the war to Iran with the macho slogan that "boys go to Baghdad, but real men go to Tehran" risks an even wider, even more destabling debacle that can eventually involve our families in a third world war.

Having failed entirely to learn any lessons from Vietnam, this administration seems to already have forgotten our experience in Iraq. Some here who profess to be conservative have been very liberal with billions of misspent taxpayers' dollars and very liberal with the blood of others in the sand of Iraq.

President Bush was absolutely correct when he personally declared his war in Iraq to be a "catastrophic success." He has certainly been successful at creating one catastrophe after another in Iraq.

Our Nation is great enough with sufficient resources and creativity to change course, but each day we delay we sink further into a quagmire from which fewer and fewer choices remain. We must step back from the abyss

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I yield now 5 minutes to a longstanding member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and presently a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Ms. Berkley: Mr. Speaker, almost 4 years ago our brave men and women in uniform defeated the armed forces of a brutal tyrant, and he has been brought to justice.

In the years since Saddam's fall, our troops have won thousands of battles, taken numerable objectives, built schools and utility systems, and provided all types of humanitarian relief in countless villages, towns, and cities ravaged by sectarian violence. But now our fighting men and women are thrust into a civil war that pits religious and ethnic factions against each other. Lurking amid Iraq's civilian population, they mercilessly kill their fellow Iraqis.

These fanatical killers plant thousands of explosive devices and crouch in thousands of ambush positions to attack our troops, who seek to replace senseless sectarian violence with a measure of stability so that the dysfunctional and deceitful Maliki government can survive. To fight and die in the middle of an Iraqi civil war fueled by centuries- old religious hatred is not why we sent our troops into harm's way.

Our troops have stepped up for 4 years. They have paid the price in blood. Now is the time for Iraqi authorities to step up. If they are ever to do so, it will be only after they understand that it will be their blood, not the blood of young Americans, that will be shed to stop the horrific sectarian violence that is tearing Iraq apart.

Throwing 20,000 additional Americans into the carnage of a Sunni- Shiite civil war can only allow the Iraqi Government to continue to shirk its responsibility for the security of its own people, as they continue to use our troops to eliminate their adversaries rather than sitting down and negotiating with them to share power and oil revenue.

After the election, the President said he heard the concerns of the American people and he promised a new plan for victory, but what he has proposed is merely a continuation of the same failed policy. Sending 20,000 more American troops to Iraq will do nothing to further the cause of victory. It will only prolong the agony.

Our mission in Iraq remains dependent on a viable Iraqi Government with both the ability and the will to confront the extremists that are tearing that country apart. The Maliki government has demonstrated neither the ability nor the will to take the action necessary to bring an end to this sectarian bloodshed.

The Members of his government at the highest levels and Maliki's strongest supporters are using their office to aid the insurgents and are directly involved in the sectarian violence gripping and destroying Iraq and killing our troops.

At a time when we should be doing everything we can to promote diplomacy in the Middle East, our attention to resources have instead been focused on a civil war in Iraq which threatens to envelop the surrounding nations and further inflame the region.

The effect of this open-ended conflict on our military preparedness cannot be overstated. We have zero active duty or Reserve brigades in the United States that are combat-ready. One quarter of our troops deployed in Iraq are National Guard and Reserves. Our Guard units are stretched so thin, only 30 percent of their essential equipment remains. These units are the ones we depend on in case of domestic emergency. By further extending our commitment in Iraq, we are compromising our safety here at home.

In my home State of Nevada, one-third of our Guardsmen have served in Iraq, and with this surge they will face the possibility of further tours and extended time away from their families.

I commend our troops for their bravery in carrying out their mission. They have not let us down; we have let them down. We cannot ask them to continue their sacrifice while we wait for the Iraqi Government to step up.

I remain opposed to a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and I realize the grave consequences we face if our mission fails. But that does not mean that I will give a blank check to the President for a surge when he has not given us a clear understanding of why such an increase is needed or how it will help us succeed.

President Bush has yet to put forth a strategy that outlines where we are going, how we are going to get there, how long is it going to take, how much is it going to cost, and at what sacrifice to the American people. He must define the meaning of victory before it is too late. "Mission accomplished." "Bring them on." "Stay the course." And "we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up." Our campaign slogan is not "thoughtful strategies for victory."

The President has failed to make the case for sending 20,000 more U.S. troops into a civil war with an open-ended mission and a bull's- eye on their back. I say yes and thank you to our troops, and I say no to the surge. I ask my colleagues to join me in doing the same for the good of our families, our military and our Nation.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Paul Gillmor, who is a United States Air Force veteran. And he was a judge advocate, so he knows some of the legal problems involved in this thing. I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Gillmor: I thank the gentleman from Texas, who is a real American hero, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering does not do a single thing to help our troops or to achieve the goals of America, our allies or the Iraqi people.

Congress is spending an entire week on a nonbinding resolution that, even if it passes, will not change the course of action in Iraq. Our time could have been spent much better debating real issues, such as how to most effectively win the war that terrorists are waging on us.

Now, personally, I am skeptical that an increase of 20,000 troops will make the difference and that it will stabilize Baghdad and Iraq. But, for me, the question is, to whom should we listen regarding operational decisions in Iraq? Should we listen to the recommendations of the U.S. military or to the politicians in Washington?

And as an Air Force veteran, I think we should accept the recommendations of our military. And in that respect, 2 weeks ago the General in command of ground forces in Baghdad said, and I quote, "By bringing more troops in, it provides us the opportunity to work with them, to provide more time to defeat this threat, which is both an al Qaeda threat as well as sectarian violence."

I have visited in Germany in the medical facilities with our wounded troops from Iraq. A member of my family served a year in a combat zone in Baghdad, and I am incredibly proud of our men and women in the military. They are talented. They are dedicated. They are professional and they are the best in the world. And we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Now, even though it is nonbinding, there is, I think, a large omission in this resolution. While it does compliment the actions of our military men and women, nowhere does it commit to continue providing funding for troops in the field. And at a time when some in this town are talking about cutting off funding for our troops, I think we should commit to providing full funding for our Armed Forces as long as they are in the field.

Now, there is no guarantee that this troop buildup will be successful, or that the Iraqis will succeed in finally taking over the security situation in a responsible way. But what we do know is, at this point there is not a better plan proposed which has a chance of victory. And we also know that failure in Iraq threatens the security of the United States, the security of the Middle East, and, in fact, the whole world.

Early last year I had the privilege of leading a delegation to Asia, where we met with the Prime Ministers of India, of Thailand and Singapore. And those are all countries that are now and have been under terrorist attack. All of them agreed with the need to cooperate for security purposes, and with the importance of winning the war against terrorism in Iraq because of the consequences of not winning would have on the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution has two purposes. First, it rejects the only plan which has been suggested by military leaders with a chance of success in Iraq. Second, it begins this Congress down a path which ends with cutting off funding for our troops and abandoning our foreign policy because of failed congressional fortitude. I am opposed to the resolution and opposed to our micromanaging of the war on terror.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, as well as the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Artur Davis.

Mr. Davis of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, approximately 24 hours from now, this House will bring this debate to a conclusion and it will vote. And the vote, based on everything we expect, will be an overwhelming one. It will include people from the left of this House, the right of this House, it will include people from both political parties. It will include people who supported this war and who believed in it 5 years ago, and it will include those who have questioned it from its inception.

And there is a reason for this consensus, Mr. Speaker. There is broad agreement on several things in this House. There is broad agreement that we have been caught in the cross-hairs of a civil war between two sets of radical Islamist fundamentalists, neither of which shares our values.

There is broad agreement in this House that the human and material cost of this effort has gone too high, and there is broad agreement in this House that the moral obligation is not to put 21,000 more soldiers into harm's way; but to do the opposite, to begin the process of pulling our men and women out of this cauldron that is now Iraq.

And there is broad agreement on one other point, Mr. Speaker. It is this: that the President of the United States is wrong to say that it doesn't matter to him what this Congress thinks, or what this country thinks.

I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, I am one of the younger Members of this House, I was in college a little more recently than some of my colleagues.

I had a very esteemed professor back in the 1980s named Richard Newstadt who wrote about the American Presidency for a number of years. And one night he invited all the freshmen in the class to come over and to have a dialogue with him about the future of the Presidency. And a number of us said to him, Mr. Newstadt, what do you fear about the Presidency of the United States? And it is interesting what he said, and it is relevant today. He said, I don't fear that someone corrupt will become President one day. I don't fear that someone incompetent will become President. There are too many guardrails built in the system. The process is too exacting for that to happen. But what I fear, he said, is that one day someone will come in that office who is absolutely convinced he is right about something on which he is absolutely wrong. And he said this: that if the country is frightened enough, if we are in enough danger, that enough people may think that what is rigid is what is strong.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that this resolution carries no weight, no legal or moral force. I will tell you the weight that this carries, my friends. Twenty-four hours from now, 65 percent of the Members of this Chamber will send a signal to the American people that we have heard their voices. That is a powerful thing when I think of all the people in this country who sent a clear signal, last November 7, that they were not heard.

And I end with this point. A number of my colleagues in this debate, our adversaries in this debate have said that there is a group in Washington. There is a group of people on the left. Some of you have said there is a group on the other side of the aisle who want to defund, or who don't somehow have the strength, the fiber, to support our troops.

I remind you, my friends, your disagreement is not with the Democratic Caucus. It is not even with the 50 or so in your ranks who will vote for this resolution. It is a disagreement with the 65 percent of this country. It is a disagreement with the people in my very conservative State of Alabama, 60 percent of whom now think this war is wrong and who say to me, Mr. Davis, why on Earth have we taken sides in a battle between radical Islamic fundamentalists? Why is a blood feud between Shiia and Sunni worth the spilling of American blood?

They are the ones you are saying are wrong. They are the ones you are saying lack strength.

So, Mr. Speaker, I simply end by thanking my colleagues who had the good judgment to be right about the futility of this war from the outset, by thanking the colleagues who were wrong 5 years ago and are right today, and by asking one last thing.

The President of the United States, who brags that he has watched none of this debate, if he could only hear just one plea from debate, that he listen to some fact, some evidence, because, Mr. Speaker, this is the problem that we face with this President. No set of facts, no set of truths can tell him that he is wrong. Tomorrow this Chamber will tell him so.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Dave Camp, a fellow Member of Congress from Michigan, and a fellow member of the Ways and Means Committee, one of the ranking members.

Mr. Camp of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him also for his distinguished service in the United States Congress, the United States Air Force, seven of those as a prisoner of war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this nonbinding resolution. And I share with my colleagues, our servicemen and women and their families, the wish that this war was over and won. It is not, and the resolution before us today does nothing to resolve this conflict, does nothing to reduce the loss of American life, does nothing to stabilize Iraq and does nothing to advance our security.

I would like to use my time today to relate some of the comments that I have received from my constituents in the Fourth District of Michigan. From Big Rapids: "The Congressmen and women who are opposed to these plans should come up with better solutions! Don't penalize our military men and women by making politics a part of their safety and well-being!"

From my hometown of Midland: "Please stop playing politics with our lives and the lives of young people who are defending our country."

From Alma: "I am sick of the partisan politics. We went into Iraq united, but we have let politics divide us. It is time to realize some things are bigger than the political parties!"

Friends, we may often disagree. But the facts are, regardless of how it began, and irrespective of the benefit of hindsight, we are at war and Iraq is the central battleground.

Islamic extremists are waging a jihad against us, and they are struggling to make Iraq a base camp. Our focus must be on winning; and, disturbingly, I see no mention of winning, succeeding, or victory in this resolution. That in itself is telling of just how the other side perceives this conflict: not in terms of defeating an enemy of America, but in terms of defeating a political foe.

Our troops deserve better. The American people demand more from their leaders.

Again, in the words of one of my constituents from Bannister: "I hope Congress is tough enough to do what works, not just what is politically correct. We need to move carefully and deliberately, showing a united front, or we are again going to be the victims of some outrageous terrorist attack."

Sadly, the new majority does not seem to understand what so many Americans readily grasp. "If you support the troops, you must support the mission or you send the wrong message to the enemy," as it was so aptly put by a constituent from Ashley.

From Farwell: "Congress needs to get behind the President and help, not hurt, the morale of the soldiers that are fighting. They believe in their mission!"

And I believe in them, which is why I cannot and will not support this resolution.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to leave you with two comments. The first is from Traverse City: "We should all pull together and get the job done."

And the second, from an airman from Corunna: "Thank you for the much needed support of me and my fellow airmen."

I hope that once we dispose of this nonbinding resolution, our focus turns to supporting our servicemen and women, making America more secure and achieving the victory our military personnel are putting their lives on the line for.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Representative Peter Visclosky.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and express my profound disapproval of President Bush's decision to increase our troop levels in Iraq.

Late last year the President had an opportunity to create a new strategy. The voice of the American people was heard at this past election. The voice of the Iraq Study Group gave the President a bipartisan plan to draw down our troops. New leadership at the Pentagon also could have been a voice of change of strategy. But President Bush did not listen to any of these voices. He decided to escalate our troop levels in Iraq. No time frame, no measurable benchmarks, no end.

Mr. Speaker, if President Bush chooses an erroneous path, then it is our constitutional responsibility to show the way.

I have the deepest respect and gratitude for our women and men in uniform. I honor their commitment, their courage and their sacrifice.

Our troops have done everything we have asked them to do. They overwhelmed the old Iraqi Government and captured Saddam Hussein. They provided security while Iraq formed its provisional government, approved a constitution, and elected a permanent government.

Nine individuals from the First Congressional District of Indiana have already given their lives and made the supreme sacrifice for our Nation. These brave men and women will always be remembered: Sergeant Jeanette Winters; Specialist Gregory Sanders; Sergeant Duane Rios; Specialist Roy Buckley; Private First Class John Amos, II; Private Luis Perez; Private First Class Nathan Stahl; Corporal Bryan Wilson; Private First Class Steven Sirko; Specialist Nicholas Idalski; Specialist Adam Harting; and Staff Sergeant Jonathan Rojas.

I am so proud of the dedication and service of the people of my State in the United States military. We owe them a commitment equal to their courage. We owe them the courage to act on our conviction.

With the passage of 4 years and the loss of over 3,000 brave Americans and countless others who have been permanently injured, I regret to recall that we were told we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed materials for weapons of mass destruction. None could be found. I regret that the President felt compelled to justify the invasion by claiming a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when the 9/11 Commission found this was simply not true.

Our situation in Iraq has redirected our Nation from its true mission. The war in Iraq has diverted our attention from the global war on terror. We need to reconstitute our Armed Forces. We also need a strategic redeployment of our forces that will give us the ability to focus our efforts directly on the global terror networks that target innocent people around the world.

I voted against the authorization of the Iraq invasion in 2003. There was no plan or exit strategy then, and there are clearly no good options now. Yet the Iraq Study Group provided a bipartisan perspective on some changes in strategy. They called for a drawdown of troops and for intensive diplomatic efforts to resolve the sectarian violence there. We need to listen to their recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, it is not too late to change our strategy, and the first step along the new way is to prevent the President's escalation of this war. It is time to obligate the Iraqi Government to assume the full burden and consequences of governing their country. We need to listen to the majority of the American people. We need to listen to reasoned voices such as the Iraq Study Group. The time to pursue a new course is now. I support our troops, and that is why I support this resolution.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5½ minutes to the great Congressman from the State of Minnesota, an ex- Marine, John Kline.

Mr. Kline of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will overlook the "ex-Marine" slight. Never an ex-Marine; always a Marine.

It is a tremendous honor for me today to even be on the same floor as this great American here. We heard earlier today the hardship of some of our servicemen and -women missing a holiday with their families, and I know in my 25 years in the Marines I missed a number of those. But there is nobody who has missed more holidays with his family than this great American next to me.

We have heard a lot of speeches during this so-called debate. I am not sure how much real debate there is, but certainly a lot of speeches. Some of them have been very eloquent. I think of Mr. McHugh the other night giving one of the best speeches I have ever heard on the floor of this House. Some of them have been partisan. Some of them have been shrill. Some persuasive; some not. We have heard a number of opinions expressed, and it reminds me a week or so ago we had a hearing in the Armed Services Committee and we had three experts, Ph.D.s all of them, experts in the field of international relations and military operations.

One of them, the former Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, and it turns out that at the end of the hearing, each of the three of them had a different idea about what we ought to do. None of them supported what the President had been doing. One of them sort of supported what the President was doing. But each of them had different ideas. They had an opinion, arguably an informed opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.

And on this floor we have heard more opinions. We have heard people say, I don't agree with this; I think this is a bad idea; or I think this is a good idea. We have heard some people say I have a better idea; or I am a member of a caucus who has a better idea; or I propose this; or I think that. And it kind of reminds me why it is a very bad idea to conduct a war by committee. But I fully acknowledge that people are allowed to have opinions and certainly every Member of this body can have an opinion.

I remember the principal author of this resolution before us, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, stood up on the other side of the aisle here on the first day of this debate and he said, "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts." So I would just like to take a little bit of my remaining time here to talk about some of the claims and some of the facts that have been brought forward in this debate.

One of the proponents said the new plan "ignores the recommendations of the military commanders on the ground." How many times have we heard that in these two days? Well, what is the truth? General Petraeus, the new commander of the multinational force in Iraq, confirmed by the Senate with no dissenting votes, said: "If we are to carry out the multinational force-Iraq mission in accordance with the new strategy, the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential . . . " He said that last month.

General Odierno, a new U.S. commander, Corps commander, says: "This is about Iraqis taking charge of their own security. In order for them to do that, we have to buy them time to continue to train and for the government to become more legitimate to the eyes of the Iraqi people. They are doing that by moving forward. By bringing more troops in, it provides us the opportunity to work with them, to provide more time, and defeat this threat, which is both al Qaeda threat as well as sectarian violence."

Even General Casey last month said he thought we needed more troops.

Another claim has been by one of our colleagues: "Prime Minister al- Maliki has indicated in virtually every way he can that he too opposes the surge." And yet on January 13, Prime Minister Maliki said: "The strategic plan announced by U.S. President George W. Bush represents the common vision and mutual understanding between the Iraqi Government and the U.S. Administration"?

I have more examples here, but one that we have heard over and over and over again in various forms was stated by one of our colleagues yesterday saying: "Our President, again, is ignoring . . . members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group who opposed this escalation."

This is the book. I commend it to every American.

I would like to quote now from my dear, dear long-time friend and hunting partner, the former Secretary of State, James A. Baker III, who said on January 30 of this year: "This is the language and all of the language of the report with respect to a surge: `We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.' The only two conditions are `short term' and `the commander in Iraq determines it would be effective.' "

Both of these conditions have been met.

There have been many claims of fact which I have some counterarguments with.

I would just say to all of my colleagues that I would concur with Chairman Skelton that we are entitled to our own opinion. We can certainly express it. But we are not, in fact, entitled to our own facts. So let's stick to the facts.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Science Committee, Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee.

Mr. Gordon of Tennessee: I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as I have watched this healthy debate over the last 2 days, I keep thinking about an e-mail that I received from a lady in Springfield, Tennessee. You would never accuse this woman of not supporting the troops because her husband was a soldier serving in Iraq. He was a month from returning home to his wife and his two daughters, but he was ordered to stay in Iraq for another 6 months because our troops are spread so thin. He hasn't been home since October of 2005. These are the words that she wrote to me: "Mr. Gordon, we need to help other countries, but there are already 3,000 families in America whose lives will never be the same. I want, need, and would love to see my husband again."

Mr. Speaker, this lady supports the troops. I support the troops in Iraq, and I believe everyone in this Chamber supports our troops. They perform their missions with bravery and honor, and I commend them for the job they are doing. But I am unconvinced that deploying more troops and spending more money is the right strategy. And I am not the only one. General Colin Powell said in December: "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for purposes of suppressing this civil war will work."

General George Casey, the former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said last month: "It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problem in Iraq . . . "

In December it was reported that the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously disagreed with the concept of troop escalation.

General Colin Powell, General George Casey, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, these are men who support the troops. Yet these American generals, the Iraqi Study Group, and the Iraqi Prime Minister have all opposed this troop surge.

We have had four other surges since we first went to Iraq. None produced a lasting change on the ground. In October more combat troops were sent into Baghdad to fight the growing violence there. Unfortunately, the sectarian violence has only grown worse. Many have endured great sacrifices in the 4 years this war has been waged. More than 3,000 Americans have lost their lives; 23,000 more have been wounded. We have spent more than $350 billion with many billions more to go. We have been in Iraq longer than we were involved in World War II. And there is no end in sight.

For 1,300 years Sunnis have been fighting Shias. Now is the time for the Iraqis to take more responsibility for securing the peace in their own nation. No one has offered any evidence that 20,000 more American troops would change the direction of a 4-year-old war or 1,300 years of history.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to the distinguished Congresswoman from the U.S. territory of Guam, Madeleine Bordallo.

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

Ms. Bordallo: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 63.

I rise today to acknowledge and honor the service and sacrifice made by military and civilian personnel who have served and who are serving today in Iraq, Afghanistan, on the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere around the world in defense of the national security of the United States. These individuals, and their families who support them from home, are to be commended for their dedication to our country.

I represent the island of Guam. Sons and daughters of Guam, and those from our neighboring islands in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshalls, serve proudly in the United States Armed Forces. These individuals serve at a critical point in our country's history and we are grateful for their dedication to their mission and their commitment to ensuring our freedom.

I have been able to visit on eight occasions with our servicemembers deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa to see first hand their living conditions, learn about their missions, and gain a better understanding of the challenges that confront them. All of us on Guam are immensely proud of our men and women from Guam who serve our Nation. I have heard their stories and have been humbled by their struggles, their heartbreaking loss, and their inspiring instances of achievement. I have come away from each of these visits with profound gratitude for their sacrifices and their professionalism.

Serving in defense of the United States does not come without heartache and sacrifice. Eighteen servicemembers from Guam and our neighboring islands in the Pacific, Saipan, Pohnpei, and Palau, are among the more than 3,000 reported by the Department of Defense to have made the ultimate sacrifice in the Global War on Terror. Our island communities united to mourn the passing of each one of our sons and daughters, as we mourn the loss of all servicemembers. We will continue to provide support to grieving families who suffer the burden of these losses. Every American owes a debt of gratitude--albeit an un-payable one--to our fallen and injured servicemembers and their families.

The year 2007 also will be witness to more tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa for our active duty, Guard and Reserve servicemen and women. For some it will be their second, third, and fourth tours of duty in those theaters of operations. This is a lot to ask even of the world's finest fighting men and women. They serve proudly and their morale remains high and their fighting spirits remain strong. God bless their families and friends who remain behind supportive and proud of their loved ones.

We owe our servicemembers and their families our best efforts toward helping our Armed Forces achieve an expeditious and honorable completion to Operation Iraqi Freedom. This should be a primary goal for all of us. But the situation in Iraq will not yield a solution easily. Nevertheless, the President, in consultation with this Congress, must endeavor to find one. And it is for this reason that I introduced H.R. 744, the Iraq Policy Revitalization and Congressional Oversight Enhancement Act. H.R. 744 also would aim to revitalize U.S.- Iraq policy; would require the President to provide to Congress a plan that addresses the whole of the challenge in Iraq; would improve congressional oversight of Operation Iraqi Freedom and events in Iraq; would seek to increase the commitment made by the international community to the stability and security of Iraq; and would ultimately, help bring our troops home in an honorable, expeditious manner without sacrificing their mission.

The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, concluded that many of the challenges in Iraq are of an international nature, and they become more so--not less so--as each day passes. As a result, it is becoming increasingly important to view United States policy toward Iraq as a part of and not isolated from United States policy toward the region as a whole. It also is becoming increasingly important for countries in the region and the international community to become more fully engaged in the effort to stabilize Iraq. The Iraq Study Group recommended that we support efforts to promote a multilateral agreement between the United States, Coalition countries, regional states, and multilateral organizations. A multilateral agreement will help bring renewed focus to and enhanced international cooperation toward resolving Iraq's problems. A multilateral agreement will help reaffirm the existence of a united front against elements that seek to destabilize Iraq, and thus bring added pressure to bear on those actors. Lastly, a multilateral agreement would provide for the formation of a forum in which current and future regional security, political, and economic issues regarding Iraq's continued development can be discussed and addressed. The establishment and maintenance of conciliatory relations between Iraq, its neighbors, regional states and the international community is essential to stabilizing Iraq internally.

As the debate today on H. Con. Res. 63 continues, I take this opportunity to call attention to H.R. 744 and the various other legislative proposals that have been brought forth by members of this body to help us bring Operation Iraqi Freedom to a conclusion. In the weeks ahead I hope that this body will seriously consider these measures. It is very difficult to consider the merits of the President's decision to deploy additional troops to Iraq at this time without having received from the Administration a comprehensive plan that clearly communicates to the Congress and the American people exactly what is necessary to complete the mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to Representative John Shimkus from Illinois. He is an ex-Army Academy graduate and served in the United States Army and still is in the Reserves.

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

Mr. Shimkus: Mr. Speaker, these are real e-mails from veterans, active duty members, and National Guard and Reservists:

"John, my son, a Marine gunny sergeant embedded with the Iraqi Army around Rimadi, called a few weeks ago. I asked him if he knew about the President's plan for more troops. He hadn't heard about it, but his only comment to me was `We can use them.' Please support the President and the troops. It may be our last, best chance to win this thing. Winning is the imperative. Semper Fi."

And another: "We have to let our generals be generals and wage this war as only they are trained to do and have hope that the announced troop buildup will be the final key that is needed by the Iraqis to build a secure, united country."

We have to hope that it is not too late for the U.S. to make a difference in Iraq."

Another: "We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed."

Still another: "My fellow Guardsmen are ready. We will do whatever is asked of us. Please ensure that the resources, funds and equipment continue to flow. Supporting the troops means giving us the means to do our job."

And another: "We also need to stay in Iraq and put forth the necessary will and resources that will allow our strategy to succeed."

And another: "Moreover, our troops need more open rules of engagement to do their job effectively."

Another e-mail: "Elections have consequences, and for our recent election the consequences have been a major setback in the war on terror and a greater threat to terrorist attack at home."

Still another: "Like Vietnam, our enemies view us as not having the stomach to fight a protracted war. If we withdraw, however, the credibility of the U.S., our military, and our assurances would be lost for years, probably decades."

Another: "The overwhelming response among officers is we must stay and finish what we have started. Many of these officers have built strong relationships with local Iraqi and Afghan citizens who want to raise their family in peace."

Another: "We do in fact have many more Iraqi Army and National Police units moving into Baghdad and many are effectively partnering with U.S. units."

Another: "They did pass their budget for 2007 last week," sooner than the U.S. Congress, incidentally, "and have made some progress with other legislation, which indicates they can work some political compromises."

I will end with this: "I would hope that your colleagues would be able to continue to support what we are doing, because it honestly does have a reasonable chance at success."

These are real communications with real soldiers, Active Duty, in Iraq, National Guardsmen, reservists, and veterans throughout our country who say there is no substitute for victory. We have to win this campaign. It is in our national security interest to support moderate Arab states.

John, my son, a Marine Gunny Sgt. imbedded with the Iraqi army around Rimadi, called a few weeks ago. I asked him if he knew about the President's plan for more troops. He hadn't heard about it, but his only comment to me was: "We can use them!" Please support the President and the Troops. Maybe our last, best chance to win this thing. Winning is the imperative. Semper Fi!

We have to let our generals be generals and wage this war as only they are trained to do, and have hope that the announced troop buildup will be the final 3 key that's needed by the Iraqis to build a secure and united country.

We have to have hope that it's not too late for the U.S. to make a difference in Iraq.

We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed.

The main effort is really the political reconciliation and the security of the population is the key precondition to that. The language and some action from the Iraqi government and Army leaders have been good in the past several weeks. The next several months will be critical--probably decisive--and I believe there is reason to be realistically hopeful.

I believe that what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan supports the NSS. What I have heard in the debate is that we no longer have a security interest in Iraq. What part of out NSS is to support moderate Muslim governments? Another part of the NSS addresses humanitarian rights, to include rights of women.

My fellow Guardsmen are ready. We will do whatever is asked of us. Please, ensure that the resources, funds and equipment, continue to flow. Supporting the troops means giving us the means to do our jobs.

We have not had a failed Iraq policy--we have just had overly optimistic expectations of how fast the Iraqis would be able to establish a stable government and a unified country that functions in a manner to our satisfaction. Ironically, we want the Iraqis to pursue a unity government and national reconciliation, but we don't do that ourselves. The partisanship that we are seeing here in the U.S. is no different that the partisanship that we are seeing in Iraq.

We also need to stay in Iraq and put forth the necessary will and resources that will allow our strategy to succeed. Imagine a Super Bowl football team quitting the game in the third quarter simply because they were behind. The premise is so absurd it is inconceivable so too would be our quitting a war to protect our way of life simply because battlefield conditions are not going perfectly.

Moreover, our troops need more open rules of engagement to do their job effectively. This is war, and they are soldiers, not police officers. The U.S. and Iraqi governments must expect civilian casualties and collateral damage. It's unavoidable. The irony in this matter is that most Iraqi people would welcome the increase security.

Elections have consequences. And for our recent election, the consequences have been a major set back in the war on terror and a greater threat to terrorist attack at home.

Like Vietnam, our enemies view us as not having the stomach to fight a protracted war. If we withdraw, however, the credibility of the U.S., our military, and our assurances would be lost for years, probably decades.

The Iraqis are watching all of this, and they can see which way the wind is blowing. They know if we leave either the Sunni insurgency or the Iranians would likely come in, and their newly gained freedoms would be lost. This reality shapes the thoughts and actions of all Iraqi officials, from Prime Minister al-Maliki, down to the police officers on the street.

Many Americans are in denial about the threat from radical Islam. Unfortunately, it may take another 9/11 before they wake up. God help us if one of our cities gets nuked when that happens.

The overwhelming response among officers is that we must stay and finish what we started. Many of these officers have built strong relationships with local Iraqi and Afghan citizens who want to raise their families in peace. They feel we have given our word as a country that we will stand by them. I agree with this sentiment.

Lincoln/Sherman figured out that to truly defeat the south, he had to march to Savannah to convince the locals that it was not worth continued conflict. WWII had similar actions for resolution like Hiroshima. While these were waged against conventional forces, Congress must understand that the current conflict is more than between insurgents and U.S./Coalition forces.

If we do not have the will to do this hard work, we need to get out now. We cannot continue to try to get the job done with the minimum force. If anything we should send more than we think we need. Our focus on being liberators has caused us to misjudge what is needed. You cannot liberate until you have gained control. We never got there and must do so now.

Speaking of which, my two cents. The most basic job of government is to protect its citizens. If the Surge is properly designed to do that, then it is a good idea. I say give it a chance, even though it should have been that way to begin with. From my experiences in Desert Storm '91, I firmly believe that most people, Middles Easterners included, just want to protect their family, practice their religion, and have an opportunity to prosper.

We have to be able to go after all the killers regardless of who or where they are. The Iraqi follow-on forces then have to maintain the peace, not bring in their individual hatreds to the power vacuum. Helping them secure their borders from fighters through Jordan and Syria and equipment from Iran is also critical (Navy and Air Force tasks with limited ground support?). Getting the "Rule of Law" established will eventually replace the need for "Self Protection" (Militias).

The biggest hurdle is at home. If the media continues its selective reporting (failures only), then even if its an unqualified success on the ground, it will be perceived as a loss at home due to its depiction on TV and Press reports. Tying Iraqis to a yardstick measuring success or failure seems to be a good idea.

Press the Senate not to pass the latest Resolution limiting support-- it is just a grand standing event for presidential hopefuls.

We do in fact have many more Iraqi Army and National Police units moving into Baghdad and many are effectively partnering with U.S. units.

They did pass their budget for 2007 last week (sooner than the U.S. Congress, incidentally) and have made some progress with other legislation, which indicates they can work some political compromises.

Everyone is forced to telescope political, economic, and security reforms that would normally take 7-10 years into 7-10 months.

So the question that you are debating is whether or not $100 billions (less than 0.8% GDP) and tragically, probably 700-900 U.S. soldiers' lives is worth a 50% chance of preventing a national security crisis that will set back U.S. policy for decades.

If you are the parent or spouse of one of those soldiers who may die, it is GD probably not worth it. But if you are a national leader, I would hope that your colleagues would be able to continue to support what we are doing because it honestly does have a reasonable chance of success.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the vice chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGovern: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq and I strongly oppose this war. We had no basis or justification or right to invade Iraq. It was a mistake. There are no easy answers or solutions before us. No matter what option we pursue, there is no nice, neat, happy ending. Sometimes you can't fix mistakes.

Hopefully we can make this awful situation less awful. This war should never have happened. That is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of many of the top military leaders in our country. The war has diminished our standing in the world. It has been used as a recruiting tool by the very terrorists we say we want to defeat. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. And, most significantly, we have sacrificed the precious lives of so many of our brave servicemen and women, and thousands more have returned home severely wounded.

Now, I have listened as many of my colleagues have come to the floor and said we must follow our leader and be quiet. Some have even suggested that those of us who support this resolution and want this war to end are doing a disservice to our troops.

Mr. Speaker, for 4 long years, Congress has done absolutely nothing in the face of mistake after mistake after mistake in Iraq. None of us in this Chamber have to wake up tomorrow in Baghdad or Fallujah or Tikrit. None of us have to wake up each morning and go on patrol in Anbar Province. None of us in this Chamber are in harm's way. But we are all responsible, all of us, just like the President, for assigning tens of thousands of our bravest young men and women for being referees in a sectarian civil war.

If we truly want to protect our troops, if we truly are concerned with their safety and well-being, then bring them home and reunite them with their families.

Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen put it this way: "There is no better way to support those fighting in Iraq than to guarantee that no more of them die in the service of political miscalculation."

Mr. Speaker, the American people are way ahead of the politicians in Washington. Citizens of all political persuasions are sick and tired of the political spin and political posturing. Our focus should not be about saving face. Instead, it should be about saving lives.

The people of this country have been misled, they have been deceived, and they have been lied to. Increasingly, people do not trust their government to tell the truth on the war. Mr. Speaker, I don't trust my government to tell me the truth about this war.

There is no military victory to be had. The only hope is a political solution.

The Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people have the power and the ability to move in a different direction, a direction that seeks to calm sectarian violence and heal sectarian divides, respect the rights of all citizens and uphold the rule of law that applies to everyone equally. But they have to choose that path themselves. Regrettably, I have little confidence that the current Iraqi Government will make such a choice. I hope I am wrong.

Mr. Speaker, it is essential to change the dynamic inside Iraq, and to do that it is essential that we dramatically change our policy. That means we must end the U.S. occupation and begin an all-out diplomatic effort to promote reconciliation and an end to the violence. That means we should begin the immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. That means we should provide protection and political asylum to those in Iraq who have assisted us and who may be in danger because of it. That also means that the United States must demonstrate the maturity and the common sense to talk to political leaders and to countries we don't like, including Syria and Iran.

None of this will be pleasant, none of this will be easy and there are no guarantees that it will work. But I am sure of one thing: What we are doing now is failing. What we are doing now is not healing the divisions in Iraq and is not serving the best national security interests of the United States. Our own intelligence agencies have reported to us that this war is creating more terrorists.

No one in this House enjoys this discussion. Some, I know, wish that somehow this issue would go away. But, Mr. Speaker, it won't. So no matter how uncomfortable this debate is for some of my colleagues, it is long overdue.

The message that Congress will hopefully send tomorrow by passing this resolution is one that the American people want us to send and one that the President needs to hear.

President Lyndon Johnson once remarked, "It is easy to get into a war, but hard as hell to get out of one." The choices before us in the next weeks and months will not be easy. Indeed, it will be difficult, even painful, to extricate ourselves from this war. But it is the right thing to do.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution which strongly supports our troops and opposes this escalation

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I just would like to correct something. We are not occupying Iraq. We are helping the Iraqi government, who has complete control over there trying to win this battle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to our new representative from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. There are many flaws in this resolution. One of the most serious is that while it gives lip-service to a desire to support and protect the troops, it turns around and disapproves of the plan that is best calculated by the commanders on the ground to bring order to Baghdad.

This surge is the best way, in the opinion of the commanders, to clamp down on the insurgency, to protect our troops and ultimately to lead to victory. I don't see how you can claim to protect and support the troops while taking away the best option for victory.

That brings up another serious flaw in this resolution: It has no positive alternative. The resolution seems to say that we should go on as before, which I thought my colleagues across the aisle said was unacceptable.

Yet another serious flaw is that Members of Congress, who are many thousands of miles away from the battlefield, are substituting their judgment for that of the commanders in the field. This is foolish and arrogant. This gives rise to a constitutional conflict as well. The Constitution gives the President the power of Commander in Chief. President Bush, who was reelected by a vote of the entire American people just 2 years ago, has the duty and authority to conduct the war in Iraq.

Congress has the power to declare war and to fund or to not fund war, but does not have the power to conduct a war. This constitutional division of powers is vital, because, among other things, a clear chain of command is better calculated to lead to victory with the least possible loss of life. War by committee, on the other hand, does not best serve the interests of our country or our troops.

Because this resolution is so deeply flawed, it will send bad messages if it is passed. It will send a message to our enemies that we are weak and unable to complete a difficult task. It will send a message to our allies that we are undependable. It will send a message to the families and loved ones of our fallen soldiers and marines, to our brave men and women who have been disabled and to the troops in the field, that their sacrifice is in vain because their mission is not worth our commitment. These messages will be destructive, and I urge my colleagues not to go down this road.

If America does abandon Iraq, which many of my colleagues across the aisle want to be the ultimate outcome, destruction will spread across the entire Middle East and will be more likely to come to our own shores.

I know that the struggle against terrorism is difficult, but we cannot give up. Yes, we must learn as we go, and, yes, we must adapt to changing circumstances. But we must not think that retreat will bring relief. We and the entire world will pay a terrible price if we go down that road. This resolution is the first step down that road. I urge the defeat of this resolution.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the vice chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63. I also rise in strong support of the brave men and women who have served or are serving in Iraq and around the world.

I represent thousands of men and women on Active Duty and in the National Guard and in the Reserves. I have visited our wounded and injured troops at both Walter Reed and Landstuhl Regional Center in Germany. My commitment to our brave men and women is unwavering. However, I disagree with deploying more than 20,000 more U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

The President has consistently said that the size of the force would be determined by military leaders on the ground. Yet the two previous leading commanders on the ground do not support the addition of more troops. General George Casey, the former commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq and current chief of staff of the Army, advocated transferring security duties to Iraqi soldiers.

General Casey said, "The longer we and the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the Government of Iraq has to make the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias." He goes on to say, "And the other thing is that they continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which at face are their problems. It has always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq in the long run."

Additionally, General John P. Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. Central Command in the Middle East, has said that he did not believe that adding more American troops right now is the solution to the problem, and also advocated transferring responsibility to the Iraqis.

General Abizaid said, "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps Commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

During the course of the war, I visited Iraq twice, in 2003 and 2005. While I was there, the main goal, other than achieving victory, was developing Iraq's infrastructure. Yet after 4 years and hundreds of billions of dollars, we have not had much success in improving infrastructure and still face serious problems. Oil production is one- half of the prewar level, while conditions of basic services, such as water, power and sewage, are below that. In Baghdad, electricity levels are at an all-time low. And while we have spent billions of dollars on these problems, $9 billion is lost and unaccounted for.

That is why I also rise today in support of the Blue Dog resolution which provides cost accountability for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This resolution will directly address the infrastructure and security failures in Iraq. More specifically, the resolution requires the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction to report to Congress every 90 days with:

One, a detailed accounting of how military and reconstruction funds in Iraq have been spent;

Two, a detailed accounting of the types and terms of contracts awarded on behalf of the United States;

Three, a description of efforts to obtain support and assistance from other countries toward the rehabilitation of Iraq; and, finally,

Four, an assessment of what additional funding is needed to complete military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, including a plan for the security of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, our troops have done their job and performed with great courage and honor. The solution in Iraq can no longer be resolved militarily. We must win both politically and diplomatically. We must ask Iraq's six neighbors to use influence that is consistent with our own objectives, and we must convince them that stability in the region is in their best interests.

In closing, I want to offer my utmost gratitude and appreciation for our troops. Our thoughts are with these brave men and women and also with their families as we pray for them to return safely.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we continue here on the House floor another chapter in the long and healthy debate on promoting freedom and democracy around the world, while maintaining the security of our country, of our cities, of our homes and our families.

The resolution before us today appropriately begins with the reaffirmation of our vigorous, unwavering commitment to the brave men and women now serving our country in uniform. We pledge to give them every tool they need to fulfill their assigned missions while providing the maximum protection possible. Additionally, we pledge their families every means of support when their loved ones are overseas and when they return home.

My district in eastern Washington is the proud home to Fairchild Air Force Base that houses the 92nd Air Refueling Wing. These men and women have been an important part of fighting the global war on terror. Our community, like every community around the country, supports our men and women in uniform. Together, we have celebrated victory; and, together, we have mourned losses.

We unanimously stand by our troops because, almost 5 years ago, this Congress asked them to step forward to protect our country and win the fight against terrorism.

On October 10, 2002, before many of us were here, including myself, 296 Members of this body, including 81 Democrats, passed a bipartisan bill authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. The next day, 77 Members of the Senate approved a motion authorizing the same use of force.

What Congress realized then was the importance to the security of our own country of a free and stable Iraq and a peaceful and secure Middle East. Five years ago, Congress was at a crossroads and made a very difficult decision. Today, young girls in Iraq can now attend school, democratic elections have been held, a fledgling government is in place, and Saddam Hussein, a murderer of over 300,000 Iraqis, is no longer a threat to his own people or to our national security. In Iraq, we have acknowledged victories and successes.

In the past year, we all recognize the condition in Iraq has grown more grave. I know a lot has changed since I visited nearly a year ago. Al Qaeda operatives, Sunni death squads and Shia militias, propped up by the reckless dictatorship of Iran, have fueled violence and threatened the hopes and dreams of the Iraqi people.

So Congress is once again at a crossroads. The reality of the circumstances in Iraq require a winning strategy. The information provided by our reformed intelligence community sends a clear warning in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: "Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress, the situation will continue to deteriorate." The solution cannot be in leaving things as they are. The NIE continues: "Coalition capabilities remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq."

There are three courses of action: leave things as they are; we know this is not sufficient. Draw down Armed Forces in Iraq; this will only lead to deadly indiscriminate violence, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Or respond by giving our commanders in Iraq the resources and the mission options needed for success.

All of us here support our men and women in uniform. We must continue to empower them to defeat the enemies of freedom in Iraq.

Congress is now in the midst of making a decision that will contribute to the future security of our great country or begin the process of chipping away at the core of this resolve. Supporting our troops by not supporting the war is not an option. Victory is the only real choice. The consequences of failure are unacceptable.

Abandoning Iraq would embolden the militants. It would create a humanitarian crisis impacting millions. Instability in the Middle East will create more violence and leave the U.S. vulnerable to future attacks.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. Kanjorski:. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the overwhelming majority of American people, the Congress and many top U.S. military commanders to voice my opposition to President Bush's ill-conceived plan to send more American troops into the middle of an ongoing civil war in Iraq. The President's plan, which has been attempted before on four separate occasions and failed, is simultaneously too little and too much. 21,500 troops is too little to make a difference in a city of 6 million who are unwilling to see beyond their sectarian differences, and too much burden to place on an American military already stretched to the breaking point.

Mr. Speaker, in October 2002, I voted in favor of the legislation to allow President Bush to defend the national security of our country against the stated threats posed by Saddam Hussein. In large part, I based my decision on the information I learned in several classified briefings with high-level administration officials about the capabilities of the Iraqis to deliver weapons of mass destruction to the United States.

These officials pointed to an imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his potential use of unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver weapons of mass destruction to our shores. Of course, we now know that these weapons, as well as the Bush administration's claims regarding Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, were fictional. The consequences of our action, however, are quite real.

To date, the Iraq war has come at a terrible cost to the United States. More than 3,100 servicemembers have been killed and greater than 23,400 have been wounded. My home State of Pennsylvania has lost 149 soldiers and over 1,000 have been wounded. Moreover, the United States has spent almost $380 billion to date, with hundreds of billions of dollars more requested by the Bush administration.

The war in Iraq has also diverted much-needed resources away from fighting the war on terrorism and eradicating al Qaeda. The focus on Iraq and away from the real threat of al Qaeda has resulted in an increasing number of deadly attacks launched by Taliban and al Qaeda forces in and around Afghanistan.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that NATO's top commander, General John Craddock, does not have enough forces for the anticipated spring offensive by the Taliban. The general warned that "failure to send reinforcements was weakening the mission and jeopardizing the lives of soldiers fighting" in Afghanistan.

More than 135,000 troops are currently serving in Iraq. Many have completed their second or even their third tour of duty. Multiple tours of duty for the National Guard and Reserve members have created hardships for many families in my district and throughout the United States. Currently, these brave American forces are caught in the middle of a religious dispute that began in the 7th century between rival Muslim factions. These underlying sectarian hostilities have come to the fore in Iraq and have grown into a full-blown civil war.

Bringing stability to Iraq cannot be achieved through an escalation of our military involvement in that country. Rather, Shiites and Sunnis must decide for themselves to forge a political solution to this crisis in which the interests of all Iraqis are represented. Nevertheless, President Bush is ignoring the advice of his top generals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the majority of Congress, and, most of all, the American people by announcing his intention to send an additional 21,500 American troops into harm's way to continue pursuing a flawed policy.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this escalation of our troop presence in Iraq. The time for more troops was 4 years ago when General Shinseki presciently warned of the need for hundreds of thousands of military personnel to stabilize post-war Iraq. But the President, the Vice President, and the former Secretary of Defense believed they could fight this war on the cheap, with too few troops, too little armor, and too little help. They were wrong, and now it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, the resolution before us today has been long overdue. The American people have called on this Congress to express their disapproval of this war of choice in Iraq and this President's prosecution of it. To that end, I will support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3½minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Speaker, national security should be the highest priority of the U.S. Congress. I talk to my constituents in western North Carolina a lot about the situation in Iraq. We understand the challenges. I think the American people understand the challenges of this war. But we also know the consequences of quitting are too dire and too dangerous.

We know that leaving an unstable Iraq endangers Israel, other Western democracies, as well as our own national interests and our constituents here in the United States.

The President put forward a plan that he and his generals believe will lead to a safe, secure, and stabilized Iraq. Let me repeat that: he put forward a plan, a plan of action and a plan for success.

The Democrats, in response, put forward a nonbinding resolution. Now, this is Washington-speak for legislation that does not have the force of law. Now, the disturbing thing is not that it is a nonbinding resolution; but the message that this legislative tool sends, it sends not only to our American people, not only to the troops in the field, but our allies around the world, and it also emboldens our enemies.

This resolution says that this time the Democrats are not prepared to offer a new direction, a plan or a solution for the challenges we face in Iraq. I offer this bit of wisdom to the Democrats: you must be the change you want to see.

If the Democrats are serious about developing a new plan, then the right thing to do is submit it. That is a true test of leadership, to submit solutions, solutions; and in order to effect change, you have to put forward ideas for that change.

I ask the American people to imagine what it would be like if their Representatives used this time to hammer out ideas and positive solutions. That is the American ingenuity that we should focus on as a Congress. This is the American way.

The Democrats say this debate is to send a message to the President. Well, I will tell you, I think he has heard you loud and clear.

But let me give you a message from the battlefield from a friend of mine in Iraq. He says the argument over what got us to this point is a diversion. The problem set is the present. The terrorists and would-be terrorists that have flowed into Iraq will not stand at the border and wave us good-bye and good luck. They understand our politics, our systems, and our weaknesses.

They believe that it is a war of endurance, and that we have shown historically and repeatedly that we don't have the national will for prolonged engagement.

Unfortunately the political grandstanding has endorsed their belief and ensures the terrorists' continued bloody engagement until November 2008.

The bottom line, we need reinforcements to set the conditions for success, and we need political support for the endurance to continue this fight. That is from my friend in the battlefield.

And I say to my colleagues, the American people need better than this. We need a plan of action for results and success in Iraq.

And I say, "Madam Speaker, you have made your points. Now where is your plan?"

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Rick Boucher.

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

Mr. Boucher: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I hope that its adoption by the House will send yet another powerful message that a change in the direction of our Iraq policy is required.

Sending an additional 21,000 troops into Baghdad only serves to put more American forces in harm's way. The troop increase will not bring long-term stability, it will not halt the sectarian strife which has plunged Iraq into a civil war, it will do nothing to speed the day when U.S. forces can hand over the mission to the Iraqis and come home. But there is a better way.

Our Virginia colleague Frank Wolf originated the formation of the commission that was chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and by Lee Hamilton, who for years, with distinction, chaired the Foreign Relations Committee in this House. I commend Congressman Wolf for his foresight and for the public service that he provided to our Nation when he originated the formation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. That commission was bipartisan. It was composed of our most experienced foreign policy experts, spanning administrations of both Republican and Democratic Presidencies. Its recommendations were unanimously presented by the members of the Commission. They embody the collective wisdom of these highly experienced Americans for the best course that our Nation can take for a new and more promising direction in Iraq.

At the core of their proposals was a bold recommendation: that the United States begin a dialogue with Iraq's neighboring countries about a way to achieve regional stability and, most particularly, stability in Iraq.

Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia all have influence with the various warring factions in Iraq. Iran and Syria in particular have a strong interest in a more normal relationship with the United States. All of these countries have a long-term interest in a stable Iraq. The Baker- Hamilton Commission's direction for a U.S.-led negotiation among these nations is the only real option we have left in order to achieve under United States guidance a peaceful Iraq. President Bush has rejected this recommendation. He has acted, in my view, very unwisely.

More United States troops are not the answer. Blind faith in the Iraqi Prime Minister with his ties to the Shia militia leader, al-Sadr, is not the answer. A military solution standing alone is not the answer. The only path to success lies in diplomacy and accepting the wise counsel of the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

Finally, the administration decided to try real diplomacy in North Korea, and it is working. It is also the only hope we have for stability in Iraq.