---

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, at this time we would like to allow 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Tom Feeney.

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

Mr. Fenney: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the genuine American hero from Texas, Mr. Johnson, for leading us this afternoon.

I supported the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein's regime because it was in America's interests. Afterwards, it should have been up to the Iraqi people, and not Americans, to determine their fate and how they govern themselves. President Bush has stated: The survival of our liberty depends on its expansion throughout the world and America must actively construct those institutions. Which, to me, seems like a Wilsonian view of America's role in the world.

In 2000, Candidate Bush rejected nation-building. A view held by the Founding Fathers who believed the exceptional calling of the American people was not to shape the world in our image, but to be a light that lightens the world. I prefer Candidate Bush's position.

Having said that, I cannot support Representative Skelton's resolution. Nothing better illustrates America's democratic institutions than this body having a full and open debate about this topic.

I hope the Commander in Chief will recognize the desires and concerns of the American people as expressed today through their elected Representatives. But America has only one, and not 535 commanders in chief. We cannot micromanage the conduct of a war. Representative Skelton's resolution sends horribly mixed signals to our troops who must solely focus on carrying out their assigned and dangerous mission.

Once a decision has been made and mission assigned, this body should support the troops and their one and only Commander in Chief, as Representative Johnson's resolution, had it been heard, would have been done.

Critics of tactics who resort to a congressional resolution tell our servicemen and women and their families, intentionally or not, that their mission is futile. When we undermine hope, we undermine resolve, and we reduce the likelihood of success.

As Senator Lieberman has stated, a resolution would, in quotes, "give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression that the American people are divided." Or, as Army Sergeant Daniel Dobson expressed, "There is no honor in retreat, and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed."

Instead, the responsible thing for this Democratic-led Congress would have been to propose a new way forward, new tactics, new strategies, not just in Iraq but in the entire war on terror. Speaker Rayburn, a Democratic Speaker, once famously remarked, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one." There are no carpenters at work with this resolution.

God bless our troops. God bless their Commander in Chief. God bless America.

Shortly after I entered Congress in 2003, America used military force to remove the Saddam Hussein regime. I supported that action because it was in America's interest.

The Hussein regime repeatedly defied the terms that ended the 1991 Gulf War--the transparent and verifiable dismantlement of the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. Previously, that regime had used such weapons and wielded the potential of such weapons against its enemies. Rather than resorting to openness to demonstrate good faith compliance with its promises, the regime relied on Soviet- style deception and defiance.

In the face of such opaqueness, why are we surprised that the intelligence agencies of the United States and its Allies veered to a worst-case scenario? After all, the perceived "missile gap" that fueled the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union stemmed from Soviet deception about its actual nuclear weapon capabilities. The fault lies with those who deceive and not those searching for the truth.

The perceived threat extended beyond the Middle East and raised the specter of arming terrorists dedicated to harming the United States and the West. To those who scoff at this notion, I remind them about the dangers posed by "loose nukes" and how the West works everyday to counter this threat.

Furthermore, this brutal regime repeatedly attacked its neighbors-- threatening the stability of America's allies and interests in this region.

So with some sturdy allies, America took action. The Hussein regime was toppled. Others took notice. Libya surrendered its weapons of mass destruction capabilities to the U.S. including materials related to its nuclear weapons program and ballistic missile capabilities.

Today's U.S. military is the finest in world history.

America can defeat any contemporary enemy by itself. But, we cannot win the peace alone. We need help--not just from loyal friends like the British, Poles, and Australians. To win a peace, we need less reliable allies like France, Germany, and Spain to help. And we need support, or at least not hostile opposition, from former adversaries we are trying to befriend, like Russia and China. In this case, we have had too little help to win the peace.

And instead of focusing on establishing a free and stable Iraq, America strayed from the wisdom of its Founding Fathers who warned us of the hazards of trying to shape the world in our image. As John Quincy Adams noted in his 1821 Fourth of July Speech:

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." To do so would involve the United States "beyond the power of extrication, in all wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition. . . . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

The Founding Fathers believed that the exceptional calling of the American people was not to shape the world in our image but to be a light to lighten the world. Our exercise and preservation of liberty served as an example to other peoples. In today's world, we can see how our culture and international trade influence other peoples. But a critical difference exists between being an example and trying to impose a set of beliefs.

The historian Walter McDougall describes this original tradition as follows:

. . . the leaders . . . did not interpret [American] Exceptionalism to mean that U.S. diplomacy ought to be pacifist, rigidly scrupulous, or devoted to the export of domestic ideals. Rather, they saw foreign policy as an instrument for the preservation and expansion of American freedom, and warned that crusades would belie our ideals, violate our true interests, and sully our freedom.

Accordingly, I support using American military might to defend our interests as needed including preemptive strikes to those who would do us harm.

But we strayed from this tradition by undertaking a mission to hold Iraq together, build a nation based on Western liberal democracy, and then spread that way of life throughout the Middle East. This Administration labels this effort "transformational democracy." But it really is what Walter McDougall calls "Global Meliorism," that assumes:

The American model is universally valid, that morality enjoins the United States to help others emulate it, and that the success of the American experiment itself ultimately depends on other nations escaping from dearth and oppression.

Nothing is further from the conservative tradition. Conservatives understand that free societies and peoples take centuries to evolve. America traces its roots back to the Magna Carta. If you want to illustrate the shortcomings of social engineering and the illusive goal of remaking foreign societies, take these 792 years of hard earned experience and impose it on a nation cobbled together by the British after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and on a people who identify more with a tribal than a national identity.

Conservatives take a realistic assessment of human nature--including as George Will has noted "the limits of power to subdue an unruly world." This sobriety contrasts with the idealistic dream of engineering the world--a dream with roots in Woodrow Wilson's visions for a post-World War I world. As George Clemenceau remarked after Wilson's 1917 Peace Without Victory speech:

Never before has any political assembly heard so fine a sermon on what human beings might be capable of accomplishing if only they weren't human.

President Bush has stated that the survival of our liberty depends on its expansion throughout the world and America must actively construct those institutions. In 2000, Candidate Bush rejected nation building. I prefer Candidate Bush.

It is up to the Iraqi people--and not us--to determine their fate and how they govern themselves. That is why in 2003 I proposed that the Administration loan and not grant $20 billion for Iraqi infrastructure. We weren't rebuilding things we destroyed during the war. Rather, we were attempting to build an infrastructure degraded and neglected by the Hussein regime. I wanted the Iraqi people from oil proceeds--and not Americans--to build, fund, and protect their assets. As T.E. Lawrence noted in an earlier era:

Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably that you do it perfectly: It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them. Actually, also under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will not be as good, perhaps, as you think it is.

Having said that, I cannot support Representative Skelton's resolution. Nothing better illustrates America's democratic institutions than for this body to have a full and open debate about this war. We are a strong and outspoken people. This Chamber has witnessed similar debates at crucial times in our past. I hope the Commander in Chief will recognize the desires and concerns of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives.

But America has only one and not 535 Commanders in Chief. We cannot micromanage the conduct of a war. Representative Skelton's resolution cannot bring good. Rather, it sends horribly mixed signals to our troops who must solely focus on carrying out their assigned and dangerous mission. Once a decision has been made and a mission assigned, this body should support the troops and their one Commander in Chief as Representative Sam Johnson's resolution would. We should deny the enemy encouragement and provide resolve to our servicemen and women.

Critics of tactics who resort to a Congressional Resolution tell our servicemen and women and their families--intentionally or not--that their mission is futile. When we undermine hope, we undermine resolve and reduce the likelihood of success. As Senator Lieberman has stated: such a resolution would "give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression that the American people are divided." Or as Army Sergeant Daniel Dobson expressed:

Most service members would tell you the same thing: There is no honor in retreat . . . and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight for a cause. Those of us who fight for [peace] know all too well that peace has a very bloody price tag.

Instead, the responsible thing for this Democratic Congress would be to propose a new way forward, new tactics, and new strategies--not just in Iraq but in the war on terror. Speaker Sam Rayburn famously remarked: "Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one." No carpenters are at work with this resolution.

God bless our troops. God bless their Commander in Chief. And God bless America.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5½minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, and Science Education, the gentleman from Washington, Representative Brian Baird.

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

Mr. Baird: Mr. Speaker, every Member of this Congress, every Member is absolutely committed to the security of our families, our communities, and this Nation. And every Member is absolutely committed to supporting our troops and our veterans.

The real question today is not whether we are committed to security or whether or not we support the troops; the real question is how we believe that security is best achieved. On that, there is legitimate disagreement which is, or should be, what this debate is about. To have this debate is not only a right but a responsibility of the elected Representatives in a Republic such as ours. Indeed, it is to defend that very right that our young men and women are serving not only in Iraq but around the world.

None of us here today need to be reminded about the threat of terrorism from floor speeches or from Presidential homilies. But let us not forget that the terrorists of 9/11 did not originate in Iraq, they came from Afghanistan. And, with only one exception, every Member of this body, Democrat and Republican alike, voted to prosecute the war against the terrorists in Afghanistan, bring al Qaeda to justice, and topple the Taliban.

We were united then, along with virtually the entire world, and the fight was right. Iraq, however, is different. The focus on Iraq has distracted and detracted from the mission in Afghanistan and the real battle against terrorists. The President and the rest of the administration took this Nation into an unnecessary and ill-conceived war based on false threats and with a deeply flawed plan.

Before this war, I and many of our other colleagues asked the administration some fundamental questions: How many troops will this take? How many lives will be sacrificed? How long will we be there? What will it cost financially? How will we pay for it? And how will this impact our security profile elsewhere in the world?

The fact is, this administration has never answered any of those questions fully or honestly. Never. Either they know the answers and refuse to say them, which is duplicitous; or, they do not know the answers, which is incompetent. Sadly, it appears a little of both is operating.

I voted against this war from the outset, and believe to this day it was the right vote. But once we were committed and engaged, I, along with most of my colleagues, voted to continue to support our troops, to try to achieve success in our mission, and do our best to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. We fervently hoped and continue to hope the mission would succeed; but now, several years later, more than 3,000 lives later, U.S. lives alone, and nearly $1 trillion later, as we consider the President's latest proposal, we must ask again, "Mr. President, how many lives? How long will we be there? How much will this cost? And how will you pay for it? And what does it do to the rest of our security position?"

We still have no answers to those questions. And lacking such answers, which are fundamental to the security of this country and the safety of our troops, I must vote "yes" on this resolution and "no" on expansion.

My colleagues, it is irresponsible to allow a Commander in Chief who has not been honest or accurate from the outset to continue sacrificing the lives, the bodies, and the families of our troops in a mission that lacks a clear end point or a successful strategy. It is dangerous to permit a Commander in Chief to jeopardize our Nation's security by letting our military equipment, readiness, and troop morale continue to decline, and it is shortsighted and unwise to leave our National Guard and Reserve unprepared and under-equipped to respond to challenges overseas or at home. It is strategically unsound to concentrate so much of our intelligence resources in one nation. It is unsustainable for our economy to keep pouring billions of dollars every week into this ill-conceived plan, and to pile debt upon our children with no strategy for paying it back. It is a breach of trust to not fund the needs of our veterans when they return home. And it is immoral to leave our soldiers dying and bleeding in the midst of a centuries-old religious conflict that is not of our making and is not of our power or responsibility to resolve.

In written comments, I describe what I believe is a better course. Some of our friends have said there are no plans. I have offered a plan, and I urge you to look at it.

But before I conclude, I must also respond to those who suggest that if we don't give unquestioning support to this administration regardless of what they ask for, regardless of history, and regardless of the evidence on the ground, that we are empowering the terrorists or undermining our troops. I believe the evidence suggests, from this war, that while there may be differences of opinion about policy, this Congress and the American people have and will continue to support our troops. It is a sign of strength of our very form of government, which is, after all, what we are hoping to promote in Iraq and elsewhere in the world that we should have this debate.

Our allies and adversaries understand that if we turn the course of a failed policy and the President has not been honest with us, that is not cutting and running; that is wisdom, it is courage, and it is honesty. That is what this resolution is about. That is what we owe the soldiers who have already given their lives, and that is what we owe the families and that is what we owe the future of this Nation.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to the chairman of our Republican Study Committee, Mr. Jeb Hensarling from Texas, 5½minutes.

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

Mr. Hensarling: First, I want to thank my dear friend, and a genuine American hero, for yielding time to me today.

Mr. Speaker, speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor to speak against the past decision to go into Iraq. They criticize past lapses of intelligence, they criticize past actions, they criticize past setbacks. They want to live in the past.

Regardless of whose war this was in the past, today it is an American war. And the Democratic majority must decide do they support the mission, or do they not support the mission?

Now, certainly we are all disappointed that we have not achieved the success that we would have desired by now. And I myself do not know if the new strategy will prove successful. I think it can be successful. I hope it will be successful. And I know it is a strategy that has been recommended by the Iraqi Study Group and our new battlefield commander.

So until such a time as somebody comes to me with a more compelling strategy, or until somebody convinces me that somehow my Nation and my family will be more secure by our premature withdrawal from Iraq and subsequent implosion, I feel I must support this new strategy. I will support this new strategy. Defeat is not an option.

What are the options, Mr. Speaker? Clearly, many. Many, if not most, of my Democrat colleagues want to cut off funding for our troops and withdraw from Iraq. This is well known. And I respect their views when they are heartfelt. But since Democrats control a majority in both houses of Congress, why are we voting on a nonbinding withdrawal resolution?

That is why this is a sad day. Somewhere over in Baghdad right now is a marine sergeant who is tired, he is resolute, he has dirt on his face. But you know what? He volunteered, he loves America, he loves his freedom. He has a picture in his wallet. His parents are praying for him. He is thinking about his wife.

Who, who in this body, what Member can go to that marine and say, you know what? I don't believe in your mission. I don't believe you can succeed. I don't believe you can win, and I am going to oppose reinforcements. Guess what? I have the power to bring you home, but I am just not willing to do it. Because if I do it now everyone will know it, and I have to take responsibility, and I am just not willing to do that.

Mr. Speaker, if you believe in something, stand up for it. Where is the courage? Where is the conviction in a nonbinding resolution?

Mr. Speaker, we all know that fighting this war is costly. Like many Members of this body, I have met with the mothers of the fallen soldiers. Their burden and sacrifice is profound. But I never, never, never want to meet with the mothers whose children may perish in the next 9/11 if we accept defeat in Iraq.

Iraq must be seen in the larger context of the war with radical Islam, and whether we like it or not, the battle lines are drawn in Iraq. Don't take my word for it, listen to what the jihadists have to say. Listen to Osama bin Laden, "The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

We must soberly reflect on the challenge that we face. Listen to al- Zawahiri, who is number two in command. "Al Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children."

Listen to Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guard's intelligence adviser to the Iranian President. "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

Listen to Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini. "Even if this means using biological, chemical and bacterial weapons, we will conquer the world."

This is the enemy we face, and we face him foremost in Iraq. If we leave Iraq before subduing him, he will follow us to America. Make no doubt about it, the consequences in Iraq are immense. Don't take my word for it. Read the report of the Iraq Study Group. Read the National Intelligence Estimate. Read the work of the Middle East scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute.

If we do not pursue success, Iraq will become what Afghanistan once was. It will be a breeding ground, a safe haven for the recruitment, training, financing and sanctuary of radical Islamists bent upon attacking our Nation and our families. We cannot wish it away, we cannot hope it away, we cannot dream it away. There will be no greater event to empower radical Islam than our defeat in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We are Americans. We can meet this threat. We can work together. Vote against this resolution. Support our troops. Protect our Nation and our children from this threat.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see so many people on the other side of the aisle have discovered the report of the Iraq Study Group.

It is now my pleasure to yield 5½minutes to a senior member of the Ways and Means and Agriculture Committees, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Pomeroy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I had an experience I will never forget. In the snow, in the slush and the ice, I joined the family of Major Alan Johnson as his body was laid to rest at Arlington Cemetery. He had lost his life in an IED explosion in Iraq just 2 weeks before.

On behalf of the people of North Dakota, I expressed to the extent I could our profound condolences for the family's loss. The major's grieving widow stared into my eyes and said, "Do what you can for our troops over there."

This is not just a plea and a prayer of the families of our soldiers, it is the demand of the American people. I believe each and every one of us here shares an intense commitment to our soldiers that comes right from the bottom of our heart. This debate is revealing a sharp difference between us in how to proceed in Iraq.

But there are no differences when it comes to all we share about the valor our soldiers have displayed in service to our country. I have seen it personally in the four trips I have been to Iraq. I have seen soldiers in full battle gear, in 133 degree heat, doing their absolute best to perform their mission. I have seen North Dakota National Guard soldiers charged with training up Iraqi soldiers through an impossible, absolute, language barrier.

I have seen other soldiers just back from the life-threatening business of finding and detonating these explosive devices, saving American lives while keeping essential roads open. Like most of you, I have mourned and prayed with shattered families whose sons and daughters have lost their lives in selfless service to our country and all we care about.

So I cannot get Tori Johnson's fervent request out of my mind, take care of our soldiers over there. Honestly, there is nothing I care more about as a Member of this House.

So, how do we respond? We take care of our soldiers over there by making certain they have the equipment they need as they undertake this most difficult and dangerous mission. We take care of our soldiers over there by making certain their deployments are only for acceptable periods and at acceptable intervals, with enough time at home in between to heal, to rest and to train. But beyond these things, we take care of our soldiers over there when we as a Congress make certain the mission they have been sent to perform has a reasonable chance of success.

In a war where so many tragic mistakes have been made, this Congress must not sit quietly by while additional plans are cooked up in Washington, whose only certainty is to accelerate the loss of American lives, compound the already severe strain on our military capability and accelerate the burn rack of taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq.

For these reasons, this resolution is a very important opening statement for this Congress to make in Iraq in 97 words. It states our support for our soldiers, while opposing the President's plan to escalate the number of troops we send into the middle of the Shia-Sunni violence taking place in Baghdad.

On one of my trips to Iraq, a soldier said to me, "We can stand up an Iraqi Army, but we cannot create a country for this army to defend." This simple truth goes right to the heart of the issue and exposes the flaw of the President's plan.

Without the commitment between the warring parties in Iraq to stop the killing and create a political agreement upon which a national government can exist, 20,000 more U.S. soldiers are not likely to bring about a lasting peace. Our soldiers are disciplined and determined. They have superbly performed everything that has been asked of them.

However, the United States alone cannot create a democracy in Iraq. Only the Iraqi people can achieve that.

A broad group of experts, including the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the former senior military commander in the region, General John Abizaid, have all rejected the strategy of escalating U.S. troop numbers as a means of bringing the factions of Iraq together.

The bottom line is that this troop escalation will increase the terrible cost of this endeavor, more lives lost, more young men and women maimed forever, more tens of billions spent, all without improving our prospects for an acceptable outcome.

Under these circumstances, I will vote to oppose this escalation of troops. It is part of what I believe we must do. Under these circumstances, I will oppose this escalation of troops. It is part of what I believe we must do to support our soldiers over there and the American interests they have put their lives on the line to defend.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4½minutes to Mr. Garrett from New Jersey.

Mr. Garrett of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, the authors of this resolution say that we should provide our troops with all the resources they need, whether it be armor, bullets and Humvees. That is, all the resources they need, except two; and I would argue they are the two most critically important ones: manpower and the support of our national leaders.

This Democratic resolution can be summed up in three simple words, to "stay the course." The irony here is inescapable. Just months ago the very same supporters of this resolution derided the Pentagon and the White House for proposing to stay the course, but today they bring exactly that same strategy to life in their resolution.

This resolution doesn't propose a new course of action. It doesn't have the courage of its author's rhetoric, convictions, to change the course of the war. It simply states that this Congress will not support the new approach proposed by our new commander and the Iraq Study Group.

General Petraeus, the chief architect of this new plan, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, and yet many in that body and this body are adamantly opposed to this very strategy he now seeks to implement. So it begs the question: If the general is the right man for the job, then why is his plan now not appropriate?

They claim to support the troops but seek to undercut their new leader's strategy. How can we support the troops when we insist that their orders are faulty? We cannot praise the general out of one side of our mouth while mocking him out of the other.

We have heard it said that this resolution calls for a new direction in Iraq. But I defy those who say this, to say what that new direction is. It is certainly not apparent in this resolution. This resolution is only an empty opposition to the Commander in Chief's plan to deploy the Armed Forces as the generals on the field see fit.

This two-sentence resolution, sense of Congress, is not a new plan for victory. In fact, it is not even a new plan for bringing the troops home now, but to leave them in the field with under-manpower. It is little more than a gift to our enemies who have been patiently awaiting the American naysayers to erode the American confidence in our mission.

Our enemies do not lack morale, and we fuel their exuberance with this drive for success every time they hear us speculate on withdrawal. Our enemies are fighting us, against us and our servicemen and our allies, with the belief that each headline brings them closer to victory.

Our brave men and women in uniform are up to the task. But they need our support, not empty proposals that doubt their ability to secure the peace.

Millions of peaceful Iraqis are struggling to rebuild their Nation after the cruel reign of Saddam. They want an opportunity to build a better future for their children, and they ask for our help to secure that peace.

Will we now stand aside while al Qaeda and Iran support factions that would enslave them once again? You know, it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who knew the repercussions of failing to support those nations that are struggling for liberty, when he said, and I quote: "Enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom."

FDR also declared that we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere. We cannot have peace in Iraq by handing over those who have worked to build a Nation based on freedom and justice and peace, turn it over to those violent brethren who seek only destruction of those principles. Make no mistake about it: If we stay the course, as this resolution would have us do, it will not be long before this war returns to our shores

I would like to end with the words of two individuals. The paths they have traveled to now and the paths they desire to take in the future could not be any more different. But, they are equally strong in the passion they bring to their beliefs. And, their words should be instructive to us in this debate.

First are the words of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. He says: "We have drunk blood in the past, and we find no blood sweeter than that of the Christians. Know that offense is the best form of defense, and be careful not to lay down your weapons before the war is over." While we quibble over words here on the floor of the House of Representatives, our enemies speak with frightening clarity of conviction. Can there be any doubt that this resolution solidifies the resolve of the jihadists he leads and inspires?

In stark contrast are the words of one of my constituents, Ron Griffin, who 45 months ago lost his son, Kyle, an Airborne Infantryman serving in Iraq. "We never felt lost or alone for we were literally carried through our sorrow by the resolute, soothing and comforting hands of countless human beings whom I only hope can truly understand how they made life worth living. . . . What I see [now] is a people pummeled into acquiescence. The loss of these wondrous warriors is of itself a weight that is almost unbearable to struggle under, but when accompanied by the din of negativity it becomes to most people a burden."

Can there be any doubt that this resolution does nothing more than add to the din of negativity of which Mr. Griffin speaks?

I have faith that we can stand strong. I oppose this empty resolution to stay the course. I stand up for an America that is just and free and a friend to those who seek liberty and peace.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the Chair of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, the distinguished gentlelady from California, Representative Grace Napolitano.

Mrs. Napolitano: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in total opposition to the President's plan, a plan that escalates the number of our young men and women, American troops, being sent to Iraq. But what are we talking about? What are the words in this resolution? It says, Resolved by the House of Representatives that, one, Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and, secondly, Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. That is what we speak to.

I did not vote for the war resolution, and I do not believe that sending more young Americans to Iraq and putting their lives at risk will change the situation. Since the beginning of the Iraq conflict, our valiant men and women in uniform have not received the adequate training nor the proper life-protection equipment required to ensure their safety. I visited one of the armories where 2 years after the Iraq war had started. They were still making the doors for the Humvees to protect them from those bombs that were killing and maiming our men and women.

The President's proposal to put more troops in harm's way, into the middle of a civil war, whether you like it or not, it may be local, but it is a civil war, where neither side backs our continued occupation, further endangers our troops.

My constituents are not in favor of the escalation by a margin of 50 to 1. We have had phone calls, e-mails, messages. They want our young men and women back. They do not want to escalate it any more. Families have suffered enough already. There is no justification for causing more pain and adding to the suffering of the mothers and of the fathers and of the husbands and the wives and the sons and the daughters and other loved ones. We speak of the soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq in this war. We speak not of the thousands of injured and the suffering they and their families are being put through. The consequences of the war in Iraq extend far beyond the awful tally of the 3,100 killed and the 23,000 wounded.

The Nation's economic consequences of the escalation are profound. Point one: every portion of our budget has been cut and continues to be cut except for defense spending. The worst budget cuts are taking funding away from our veterans, the very men and women who put their lives on the line in Iraq and in other wars. We regularly receive letters and phone calls, e-mails, from constituents who ask me to fund vital, successful, necessary programs for their communities; but we cannot support our communities with the funds they truly need as they are instead being diverted to a war we did not seek. Vital social services, critical to the well-being of the people of my district and certainly of all other districts, are again being cut.

Other consequences of the war are the social consequences. These soldiers fortunate enough to return home alive and in good physical health suffer long-term mental health problems, Mr. Speaker, as a direct consequence of their deployment, not one, not two, but possibly three and more deployments in Iraq.

Yet our services to them and their families not only are sadly lacking and underfunded; they are being cut. We have not enough money to be able to deal with the devastation in the minds of not only these men and women but their families to be able to deal with the consequences when they return home and try to regain a normal life.

Families are being torn apart more so by this war than any other war. There are suicides. There is divorce. There is homelessness now. Their children are forced to grow up without their father or their mother. Parents are losing children. No mother should have to bury a son or a daughter.

I urge the President to work with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to ensure other countries' commitments to Iraq's security situation, the training of Iraqi troops and police, and, of course, financial support. Escalation is certainly not the answer and I cannot and will not support such a policy.

I certainly want to say thank you to our brave men and women in uniform for your bravery and your service. Our prayers are with you and your families

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Todd Akin from Missouri.

Mr. Akin: Mr. Speaker, we rise today to discuss this resolution that is in two parts before us. The first part says that we support our troops. The second part says that we are not going to send them reinforcements. This seems to be kind of a curious proposition, almost a nonsensical proposition. How do you say you support and then say, but we don't want to send them any reinforcing troops? Certainly we say that we want to give them body armor, we want to give them up-armored Humvees, we want to send them tanks; but the most important thing that you need sometimes as troops is some other troops to support you. So we are saying, oh, we want support, but we don't want to support you.

Picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo. He has his back to the wall. Santa Ana has got thousands of troops. So he gets his BlackBerry out. He checks with Congress. Congress says, Hey, Davy, we really support you but we're not going to send you any troops. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Now, as I said, this resolution has two parts. It says, We support you but we're not really going to send any troops over.

The third part is what concerns me the most. As Congressmen, we have the responsibility to listen, to pay attention. If somebody has a better idea, that is just fine. Send your better idea forward. We are ready to be taught or to learn. If there is a better way to approach Iraq and the situation there, good. But this proposal has no positive suggestion whatsoever. It just says we support and we don't support. All that does is to encourage our enemies. And without any positive recommendation, this can only be viewed as something which strengthens our opponents' hands. They say, Goody, we've got the Americans all confused. They're saying support and don't support at the same time, with no positive recommendations whatsoever.

Now, I have heard people say that this is a civil war. It is not really a civil war yet. If we pull all the troops out immediately, it will turn into a civil war, no doubt about that. But what we do have is, we do know this, that the terrorists have been involved in setting one group of people against another. They blow up a holy place of the Shias and the Shias start fighting the Sunnis. And so, yes, they have sparked a whole lot of unrest, particularly in Baghdad. It is not a civil war yet. But do we think that the terrorists aren't going to do the same thing in other countries where you have the one leadership with a majority of people in the other tribe.

So I don't think it is much of an escape to say, oh, well, this is a civil war. What it is, it is a war against terrorists. Regardless of how you want to speculate what might happen if we leave all of a sudden, at least I would respect the Democrats more if you would just simply say, we need to cut and run, or we need to stay where we are. But don't just leave a blank piece of paper and say we support and don't support. It doesn't make any sense. All it does is help the enemy.

It seems to me that we need to as Americans one more time as we have in the past take a good, serious gut check. I have a chance to speak to American audiences everywhere and lots of little kids and I always ask the same question. I ask the question, If you were to take America that you love and condense it down as to what do you really believe about this country, what is the heart and core of America? The answer that I almost always get is the word "freedom."

But freedom needs a little bit more definition. The Tiananmen Square Chinese students wanted freedom and they greased the tank treads with their bodies. But they didn't get freedom. Just because you want freedom doesn't mean you can have it.

So what is the heart of what we believe as Americans? Well, I will tell you. The first time we went to war we stated that and we had quite an argument and discussion about it. And it was put in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the job of government is to protect those basic, fundamental, God-given rights. That is what they believed and they had to decide: Are we going to fight the British or not? Those are the things that I taught to my children.

This is a picture of the Marine Club with my 9-year-old son standing here, saluting the flag as it is going up. We taught him that there are some things in this world that are worth dying for and that one of those things is the fact that God gives us basic inalienable rights. That little Marine Club kid has grown up.

There he is in Fallujah in 2005. That is the cache of terrorist weapons that they found in Fallujah. He has grown up. He understands the risk to his life. He almost died in Fallujah. He believes, as I do, that there are some things in this world that are worth defending. This is not a war about a civil war. This is head to head with terrorists.

And is it surprising that we find ourselves fighting terrorists? Terrorists believe, we blow up innocent people to make a political statement. We believe that the right to life comes from God, that it is an inalienable right. The terrorists terrorize people to compel you to take your liberty away and we believe that liberty is a gift that comes from God. We are going head to head with people that have always been the enemies of America, and I am concerned that if we do not stand up and show that we not only think that it is a nice idea in our Declaration but it is a conviction that we will defend with our lives, that we will be fighting the terrorists here.

Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Regulation, Health Care and Trade, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Charlie Gonzalez.

Mr. Gonzalaz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to establish a ground rule for all my colleagues, and that is, regardless of how you vote on this resolution, no one will question your patriotism. If we can just start with that benchmark, I think we will have a higher degree of debate and in good faith.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about duty and responsibility, the duty and responsibility that Congress owes to our men and women in uniform. Our first duty is to make wise and educated choices in identifying a threat, the necessity of action and the legitimacy of the goal before committing or continuing to commit more of our troops to the war.

When considering this resolution, which reflects that an escalation of the war is unwarranted and is not in the best interests of our Nation and our troops, each of us must ask one fundamental question: Is escalating and continuing the war in Iraq worth fighting and dying for? Because that, in the final analysis, is what we decide. We seek an answer to this question, but we must be ever mindful that the courage and bravery of our troops is never questioned. Our soldiers' valor and commitment are not diminished by the errors in judgment made by their civilian leaders. The question is whether the mission in Iraq is worth their sacrifice. As we move forward with this decision, we must recognize the lessons of history, or we are doomed to repeat its grave mistakes.

For example, "The public has been led into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, and incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than any that public knows. We are, today, not far from a disaster."

Now, the parallels are uncanny, and you are wondering who may have said that. The quote was 86 years ago, and it was a communication from T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, in August of 1920, from Baghdad.

Continuing. "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. In addition, there is significant underreporting of violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." More Lawrence of Arabia? More 1920? No. 2006, the Iraq Study Group report.

Let me continue. 1992, General Colin Powell. "The Gulf War was a limited objective war. If it had not been, we would be ruling Baghdad today, at unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost, and regional relationships."

Now, a year earlier there was an observation, "Once you got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that is there now, Saddam Hussein. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts towards the Baathists, or one that tilts towards the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it is set up by the United States military when it is there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government? And what happens to it once you leave?" That was 1991, spoken by then-Secretary of Defense and current Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney.

We remain a good and great Nation, but we have done all the good in Iraq that we are going to do. An escalation only delays the day that the Iraqis assume the responsibility of setting aside their sectarian differences and embrace the promise of democracy that we have delivered to them. We cannot do this for them, whether we send in 20,000 or 200,000 more troops. And we cannot ignore the lessons of history, the views of military experts and the will of the American people.

It is time for our troops to start coming home. And it is time for the Iraqis to start building a home. Vote "yes" on this resolution.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent, I recognize the gentleman from Arizona.

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

Mr. Pastor: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am proud that under our Speaker's leadership, Congress today is voicing the will of the American people in opposition to the Administration's deployment of more U.S. military personnel to Iraq. Voters made it clear in November that they do not support the administration's current strategy. It is time that Congress act to bring U.S. policy in line with reality.

I opposed the initial resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq, because I felt that the administration had failed to exhaust diplomatic remedies and allow the U.N. weapons inspectors to finish their job. Since the invasion, however, I have supported funding the war effort to ensure that our troops on the ground have the equipment and support that they needed. But increasing troop levels and failing to question the President's policy is a disservice to our courageous men and women in uniform. We cannot keep asking them to put their lives on the line every day for objectives that have become increasingly unclear.

The President declared "mission accomplished" in May 2003, and in a sense he was right. Saddam Hussein and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are no longer a threat to our nation. The Iraqi people have held free elections and drafted a constitution. The violence we see in Iraq today is based in sectarian conflict--it has become a civil war. The outcome depends not on the American will to stay in the fight, but on the will of the Iraqi people to forge their own future. We cannot do it for them.

Troop surges in the past have not worked. No number of American troops in Iraq can fix what is essentially a political problem. The only surge I support is a surge of diplomacy. It is time to bring our brave young men and women home from Iraq. Their job there is done, and their skills and dedication can be better used on the real fronts of the war on terrorism, both domestic and abroad.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3½minutes to my colleague from Michigan, Tim Walberg.

Mr. Walberg: Madam Speaker, throughout our Nation's rich history, we have reached moments where we arrive at what President Ronald Reagan described as a time for choosing. Today is such a day.

This week, the House is asking ourselves a simple question: Will we choose to go forward with the resolve and determination needed to win the war on terror by supporting our brave troops, or will we retreat and wait for the fight to return to American soil?

It was Winston Churchill who once said, "Never believe any war will be smooth or easy or that anyone who embarks on a strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter."

With this in mind, I acknowledge that the war in Iraq is not going as well as we all had hoped or wanted. Mistakes have been made. Thousands of precious lives have been lost, and there are likely more tough times to come.

My wife and I pray for the men and women in uniform and grieve for every loss of life and injuries inflicted on these heroes who proudly serve our Nation. I, as much as anyone else speaking today, want this war to be over. But this resolution essentially tells these soldiers to give up because the cause they have nobly served is no longer worth the courage and vigor necessary, and protecting the American people and keeping terrorists off American soil are no longer national priorities.

As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout history, when our troops have been in harm's way, America has supported them and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

In a cynical way, this resolution says America has already lost and the leaders of our country no longer believe our troops can achieve victory. It tells other nations that we are unreliable as an ally, and they can no longer count on us in times of distress.

My son proudly served in the Army. And during this time of service, I got to know many of his peers in uniform. I am not prepared to say to these men and women, nor to the young man fallen in battle, that I will go to right after this speech at Walter Reed Hospital, that I support you but I don't support the mission you serve, and the blood you shed on the battlefield was in vain.

I am not prepared to call for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that will leave the Nation ripe for terrorism and ultimately bring the war on terror back to American soil.

My neighbors in south central Michigan and across the country deserve to be protected from enemies of freedom. And they ought to have a Congress that doesn't shirk its responsibilities to soldiers and sailors and airmen sent into harm's way to ensure this war is fought off American soil.

So we come to this time of choosing today. Are we willing to abandon our troops as they implement the new strategy based on quantifiable goals and measurable results? I hope not.

I challenge my colleagues to honor America's brave men and women serving in the name of freedom and oppose this resolution of retreat.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Financial Services, Oversight and Government Reform Committees, and chair of the House Task Force on Anti-Terrorism Funding, Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Lynch: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63, which opposes the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. I do so because I am in total agreement with Generals Casey and Abizaid, who have said that what is needed in Iraq is a political solution and not a military one, and that additional troops are not recommended.

I have had a chance to travel to Iraq five times now, and based on my own observations in places like Fallujah and Tikrit and Al Qaim out on the Syrian border, I firmly believe that it is the Iraqi people who must ultimately decide whether they are committed to building a better life for their children through democracy, or whether they are more committed to an all-or-nothing sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia.

Madam Speaker, I believe that packing more troops into the narrow streets of Baghdad would be a disaster. As our daily briefings indicate, the dominant conflict now on the ground in Iraq is no longer Coalition forces against al Qaeda and supporters of the Baathist regime. As the daily body counts of tortured and executed Iraqis indicate, the prevailing conflict on the ground in Iraq now is a brutal civil war between the Sunni and Shia militias, with our troops in the middle.

In fact, in a recent hearing here in Washington, it was entitled, "Iraq: What Will it Take to Achieve National Reconciliation?"

Basically, as this hearing pointed out, the key mission that we have given to our troops is to somehow now reconcile the differences between Sunni and Shia in Iraq. Just to be clear on this, Madam Speaker, the Sunni and Shia have been in frequent conflict since the year 632 A.D., following the death of the prophet Mohammed. That is what we have asked our troops to do, in essence, to convince the Iraqis now to stop killing each other and to embrace democracy instead.

The President has now asked our brave sons and daughters to take up a police action or essentially a civil affairs action, going door to door in Baghdad. The mission in Iraq has changed.

I have to wonder, how many votes would the President and Vice President have gotten initially if they had been honest and said, We want to send our sons and/or daughters to Iraq in order to reconcile the differences between the Sunni and the Shia who have been fighting for almost 1,400 years. Not many, I think. But that is where we now find ourselves and our troops. While the mission in Iraq has changed, the President is staying the course. What's more, he has decided to push even harder in the wrong direction.

Now is the time that the American people have fairly asked, What will Congress do? Many of my colleagues believe that this resolution doesn't go far enough; and in honesty, I tend to agree with that assessment. But I do believe that this resolution presents a solid and meaningful step in the right direction.

There will be a further debate in coming weeks on the funding on how to best protect our troops while transitioning to Iraqi control in Iraq, and we will have more opportunity to do that.

Lastly, I would like to address the argument that the continuing war in Iraq is necessary for fighting the global war on terrorism. As I have said before, I have been to Iraq five times now. One of the questions that I have repeatedly asked our people on the ground is, How much of this fight in Iraq is part of the global war on terror? How much of it is involving foreign fighters in al Qaeda? Unanimously, they have recommended that it is about 10 percent of the fight in Iraq.

So 90 percent of our cost, 90 percent of our sacrifice, is in a matter that has nothing to do with the global war on terror. In fact, the Defense Department now says that the Mahdi Army, the main Shia militia, has replaced al Qaeda as the most dangerous force in the increasing violence there.

If we are truly committed to the global war on terror, I might point out we have a situation in southeast Afghanistan and in Waziristan, where the Taliban, who actually did support al Qaeda and who actually did involve themselves in the attacks on September 11, are building support.

While we spend $350 billion in Iraq, Pakistan has meanwhile allowed a safe haven to be established for the Taliban. If we are indeed committed to protecting America and the global war on terror, I would suggest that there are smarter and better ways to do that.

Yes, the American people are waiting for this Congress to take a stand. It is time to step up. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. It is the first step in eventually bringing the troops home safely.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin): The Chair must remind all Members that it is not in order to engage in personalities toward the President or the Vice President

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

Mrs. Capito: I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today realizing the seriousness of this resolution and the importance of the debate on the war in Iraq.

As we continue this debate, I hope that all of us remember we have serious disagreements about what this resolution says or intends to do, but that we cannot and should not besmirch one another's opinions and the right to that opinion and belief.

I would also like to say how proud I am to be an American, to realize the bounty of our Nation, to appreciate the strength of our forefathers, and to stand in awe of our democracy.

As the daughter of a World War II Purple Heart veteran, I have a great understanding of the sacrifices that have been made in the past to allow us to live freely. I understand and fullly appreciate the men and women who have so bravely put themselves on the frontline to protect our country.

I have thought a great deal about what I want to say today and how I want to say it. When the President announced his plan for a troop surge last month, I expressed my disagreement. And as we debate this resolution today, I still harbor those grave concerns. While I have voiced a disagreement over tactics on how to achieve success in Iraq, the fact remains that I have not backed away from my belief that success in Iraq is vital, and that leaving Iraq prematurely would be disastrous for our Nation's security and the stability of the Middle East.

And let me stress that I will never back away from my commitment to the men and women who serve in our military, and I will not support anything that I believe endangers their safety while they serve in harm's way to protect our country.

So I rise today in opposition to this resolution. My opposition lies not in what this resolution says, but what it intends to do; and that is, to lay the foundation to begin cutting funding for our troops as they fight the radical jihadists who want to destroy our Nation. My fear is not based on wild assumptions or partisan politics, but what leaders are already saying they are planning to do.

The passage of this resolution has been called a baseline. And the Speaker of the House has called it a first step. And then she added that approval of this resolution will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which is set to come before the House.

Leaders have been tight lipped about the pending legislation. But we have learned that what they want to do is set the stage for legislation that will fence off and limit funding by tying the hands of our commanders on the ground, by presenting benchmarks that will be written so that certainly those funds cannot be spent. To be sure, such actions would restrict funds and tie the hands of our commanders in Iraq. I cannot and will not support any effort to systematically disassemble our greater effort, to defend our liberties and our way of life, and to provide our enemies with a breath of hope that we have lost our will.

Let me be very clear to my constituents and the men and women in uniform. I will never vote to cut funding for our troops, nor will I allow my vote on a symbolic resolution, one that has the force of politics and not the force of law, to be used as a baseline or a first step towards cutting funding for our troops.

I will assertively maintain my support for the troops in my words and my vote, and I will continue to analyze how I can best help achieve success in Iraq so that we may begin to bring our men and women home.

In that spirit I plan to vote against this resolution.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a classmate of mine and distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Neal of Massachusetts: Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Engel for yielding.

Last Saturday in my hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts, I spent the day welcoming back 150 brave American soldiers from the 181st Engineer Battalion of the National Guard who just completed a year-long deployment in Iraq. Their mission was to provide security for their fellow servicemembers and to protect military facilities. This group included members who possessed the Bronze Star, the Combat Action Badge, and the Purple Heart. Every Member of this House and Senate has participated in ceremonies similar to this across the country. We might have our differences about the war, but we find common ground in our steadfast support for these soldiers both in Iraq, on their way to Iraq, and around the world. And that is one of the reasons I intend to vote in favor of this bipartisan resolution today.

There is a reason that the framers of our constitutional system chose in Article I to establish that Congress is the first branch of the government, to oversee the Executive. One of the reasons that we are here today is because the majority at the time never asked a question of the Administration. Everything the Administration said, the Republican majority at that time in Congress went along with.

I am mindful of the thousands of soldiers who have died, more than 3,200. I am mindful of the 21,000 today who have been wounded. I am mindful of those who continue to serve our country bravely and honorably, and that the burden of this war has fallen on these troops and their families. There has been very little sacrifice asked of the American people.

But those who have sacrificed deserve a frank and honest debate about President Bush's policy. This is the debate we should have had 4 years ago.

You cannot edit history. We know today there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no enriched uranium from Niger. There was no connection to al Qaeda. We were not welcomed as liberators in war. And 3½years later, the mission has not been accomplished.

Madam Speaker, like the vast majority of the American people, I agree that the war in Iraq is going badly and getting worse. I attach great significance to the National Intelligence Estimate. The overall security situation in Iraq has deteriorated, as they have said, with 2006 being one of the deadliest years to date. The war has increased Islamic radicalism around the world and has helped to destabilize the entire Middle East. By any objective standard, Iraq has descended into something worse than a civil war, as noted by the Iraq Study Group, and our American troops are caught in the middle. And let us call it for what it is: a civil war.

Yet President Bush, nearly 3 years after declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq, is sending another 20,000 American troops into battle. And Vice President Cheney, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continues to declare that Iraq is a success.

As we debate this resolution today, it is clear that support for the war is at a tipping point. Our intelligence community, speaking collectively in the recent NIE, they believe that the future of Iraq is grim. And, most significantly, our distinguished military commanders believe it is time for a new direction. General Powell, General Zinni, General Batiste, General Gregory Newbold, and others have all expressed concern about the future of Iraq. These are individuals who were involved in the planning and execution of the war; and, obviously, they do not like what they see.

Even former director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, retired Lieutenant General William Odom, acknowledged on Sunday that "the President's policy in Iraq is based on illusions, not realities."

I do not believe that public opinion alone should shape public policy, but no one should underestimate the intelligence of the American people. They are convinced that "stay the course," as President Bush has suggested, has not succeeded.

Every Member of Congress wants our soldiers to succeed in Iraq. No elected representative in this institution would ever seek to undermine our servicemen and women. But the facts are clear. The war in Iraq is the most important issue facing America today, and our constituents are entitled to know where their representatives stand on the way forward. That is why this debate, finally, is so important. Just as the debate in 2002 led us into the war with Iraq, perhaps this conversation with the American people that we are having today will begin the process of bringing our troops back home.

More than 4 years ago, I came to the floor of the House with deep reservations about granting President Bush unlimited powers to authorize this invasion of a sovereign country. It is the best vote of opposition that I have offered in my 19 years in this House of Representatives

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4½minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jim Jordan.

Mr. Jordan of Ohio: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his amazing service to our country.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. There have been many good arguments made as to why this resolution is not in the best interest of our military, not in the best interest of our country. But I want to focus on one point, and that is just how real and how serious the threat of terrorism is, because that is what this struggle in Iraq is really about. And I am just going to read the list of terrorist attacks against Americans, and we have heard this list before, but I think it is important to refocus on this:

In 1979, 66 American hostages were taken in Iran. In 1983, 241 Marines were killed in Beirut. In 1988, 189 Americans were killed in the PanAm bombing. In 1993 in the first World Trade Center bombing, we lost six Americans. In 1996, 19 servicemembers were killed in the Khobar Towers bombing. In 2000, 17 American sailors lost their lives in the USS Cole. And, of course, in 2001, that date we all remember, 9/11, 2,973 Americans lost their lives in the World Trade Center bombing, in the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania.

When you think about the actions of these terrorists and how real and dangerous they are, I am reminded of last summer when the Pope made a statement in a speech about the radical element, small but radical element, within the Islamic faith and the violence associated with that element. And the reaction to the Pope's statement about violence among this radical, but small, element, the reaction to his statement about violence was violence. It was the destruction of churches, the destruction of buildings. It was the taking of a life of an innocent nun in Italy. That is what we are up against.

This Democratic resolution puts us on a path towards leaving Iraq before victory is attained. It puts us on a path that will cut funds to our brave men and women already in battle. It puts us on a path that is wrong for America. And, most importantly, I think, it puts us on the wrong path that will most assuredly embolden the very people who are responsible for the terrorist acts I just listed.

If you remember, shortly after 9/11 the President gave a series of speeches where he outlined a policy. He said if you are a country that harbors terrorists, if you are a country that provides financing to terrorists, if you are a country that trains terrorists, if you are a country that is producing weapons that are going to harm vast numbers of people, if you are doing those things, we are going to put you on notice that we are not going to tolerate it.

And if you remember, it was amazing how quickly Moammar Kadafi in Libya found the Lord and saw the light and how quickly he was willing to say, I am going to work now with the United States. He understood that when America says something, we mean it. If we just do what this Democratic resolutions puts us on the path to do, I am afraid of the message it sends to the Kadafis around the world and what that can mean for the future safety of Americans and for our military.

This is a great country. We have been able to overcome whatever challenges have presented themselves to us throughout our history. And it is important that we have the same resolve as we approach this challenge.

I am just a freshman Member of the Congress; and just a few weeks ago it was put on display about what is so great about America, as we said, in this Chamber during the State of the Union address. And during that speech, the President pointed up to the gallery, and he highlighted some great Americans, some American heroes. And the one that stuck out in my mind, and many of you may remember this, was Wesley Autrey, the subway man. And I thought it was so amazing to see what this man had done and how that contrasts with the actions of the terrorists. Wesley Autrey in the subway, willing to jump in front of a train on the track to save a complete stranger simply because he was a fellow human being. Contrast that action with the action of the terrorist who will jump into that same subway, blow himself up to kill as many innocent people as he can.

What is great about this country is the respect we place on human life, the preciousness and sacredness that Americans have for human life. That is the difference between us and the terrorists. That is why it is so important to confront these folks wherever they choose to fight us. Right now that place is Iraq. That is why this resolution is bad.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should not pass a resolution in which politicians second guess our military leaders in the field. We should not pass a resolution that will embolden our enemy. And, most importantly, we should not waver in our commitment to protect human life and to confront the evil that is among us.

I urge a "no" vote on the resolution

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my sister's Congressman, a gentleman who worked hard to become a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Pascrell: Madam Speaker, the Wall Street Journal accused us of trying to micromanage this war. Well, this President has not listened to the generals. He hasn't listened to the American people. And he hasn't listened to the Iraqi people. He has micromanaged this failure.

Four and a half years ago, Madam Speaker, on this floor I stood in this Chamber, along with 295 of my colleagues, to support the resolution authorizing the President to attack Iraq. I regret that vote deeply. And I told my constituents in my district 1½years ago that I made a mistake. Down the street they make no mistakes. They are infallible.

I did so because the premise on which we authorized this war was false, the military plan for victory has been weak, and more than 5 years later, this war has made our Nation less safe.

We stand ready to vote on a different resolution that could take a significant step towards remedying the historic mistake we made in October of 2002. The troop escalation advocated by President Bush will only widen our involvement in this conflict and put more brave American troops in the middle of a vicious civil war. Voting in favor of the President's escalation plan is an historic error, and I stress the historic nature of this debate because I am a firm believer that history is telling of the future.

The history of this war shows that this President cannot form the right policy for victory. He should have sent additional troops in 2003 when the generals asked him to do that, when it was possible to restore order in Baghdad, instead of now in 2007 when violence reigns supreme.

The history of Iraq shows it has been wracked by sectarian and ethnic division long before it was even a state, a fact conveniently ignored by this President and his supporters on their march to Baghdad.

Remember, Iran and Syria and others are possibly fighting a proxy war by supplying insurgents against an unpopular foreign occupier, the same role that we played in helping the Afghans to fight the Soviets 20 years ago; and we know how that conflict turned out.

In history I see the lessons, Madam Speaker. As I speak today, in 280 B.C. when King Pyrrhus of Greece defeated the Romans during the Pyrrhic War, his army suffered irreplaceable casualties in battle. And when he was congratulated on his victory, he replied: "Another such victory like that over the Romans and we are undone."

We have heard the word "success" and we have heard the word "victory" so many times that they are now as pyrrhic, empty, fleeting, hollow.

The lesson is clear. The President's escalation plan offers an illusion, when only the real hope is that it offers a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Our Armed Forces have been used, abused, refused and accused. They have been overstretched. They were ill-equipped from the very beginning. Don't tell us we don't support the troops, when you did not give what they deserved in the field of battle. Our military readiness to fight the ongoing war on terror is now in serious doubt because of this war. Don't question our patriotism. Don't question our support or the American people's. Listen.

By the way, Madam Speaker, have we asked the Iraqis what they feel? Well, 80 percent of them want us out. Don't they count? Can't we ask and listen to at least the very people whose country we occupy, this sovereign nation? This is unbelievable. It is illusionary at best. And what will we say to these Iraqi people? I want to hear the answer from the other side. What is your answer for them when they say, Don't stay here, and certainly don't escalate. I ask the loyal opposition to our resolution to tell the American people how much do the intentions of the Iraqi people really matter to you?

The epicenter of our fight against terror is on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of us have been there. Many of us have gone there. You have forgotten that part of the world, which many did not even know on September 11, 2001, where Afghanistan was in the first place.

The clear message we send to the Iraqi people and the American people is that we will bring freedom to Iraq, even if it takes the blood of every Iraqi and the lives of more American soldiers. That is not good enough. That is not acceptable.

You have heard the statistics from speaker after speaker. Previous escalations in this war have not worked. Why will this one work? Our ill-fated presence in Iraq is being used as a propaganda tool for the enemy, al Agenda, and other terrorists worldwide.

In the years since 9/11, more terrorists have been created through this President's policies than were captured or killed. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq in 2003, but there are now.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Mr. Peter Roskam from Illinois.

Mr. Roskam: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a House Concurrent Resolution, and the root verb of "resolution" is resolute. I just want to challenge the House today to consider the resolution of our enemies. I would like to read three quotes to you.

Resolved, by Samba bin Laden. The whole world is watching this war, and the two adversaries, the Islamic nation on the one hand and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.

Or how about this? Resolved, in the al Agenda charter: There will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet the enemy halfway, and there will be no room for dialogue with them.

Or how about this, and I am paraphrasing: Resolved, from Samba bin Ladens deputy, who said that the plan is to extend the jihad wave; to expel the Americans from Iraq and extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel and establish an Islamic authority.

Is there anybody among us who doubts the resolve and clarity with which our opponents are speaking? I don't.

I think what is lacking today in our conversation is the consequences of failure. The previous speaker used the words "victory" and "success." He had a very low view of them, and I understand his characterization of those words. He said we have heard those words before. That is what the gentleman from New Jersey said.

But, do you know what? We will hear the word "failure" when it is used in the context of this challenge that is before us.

There is no question that there has been great difficulty that has gone before us in this fight. There is no question that there have been great mistakes that have been made, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of us acting as a coequal branch of government and calling for benchmarks and demarcation and holding the administration accountable for its decisions.

But if we fail in this, if we pull out, if we retreat, if we yield, what will happen? Is there anybody really who thinks that Iran, for example, will be less provocative? Is there anybody who thinks that al Agenda will be less provocative?

If we fail, extremism in this world, will it be ascendant or will it be descendant?

Madam Speaker, I close with a simple question, and that is, we need to ask, What is it about this resolution that will do one of two things? Does this encourage our troops, or does this discourage our enemies? I would suggest that this resolution, while it is serious, oh, it is very serious, it is not substantive. This is the ultimate expression of legislative passive aggression. It offers no substantive alternative.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition, and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my dear friend in the adjoining district, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the Chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mrs. Lowey: Madam Speaker, a violent civil war is raging in Iraq, with atrocities against innocent civilians mounting every day. Our troops, our brave troops, are caught in the crossfire, dying and being maimed driving on local roads, patrolling neighborhoods and moving about by helicopter. What is their mission today? What is the strategic objective of the escalation proposed by the President?

President Bush's plan to deploy 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq is not a new strategy, and nothing I have seen or heard has convinced me that this escalation will make a positive difference in Iraq or hasten the safe return of U.S. troops. In fact, General Abizaid said that "more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking responsibility for their own future."

Four previous troop surges between December 2003 and October 2006 have not made a dent in the level of violence nor in the number of U.S. casualties. We have spent nearly $500 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet inexplicably our troops still do not have the protection they need. Throughout this war, many in Congress have addressed the lack of equipment and protection for our troops. Now, military leaders are saying there are not enough armor kits and vehicles to protect these additional five brigades the President plans to send to Iraq. It is unacceptable to send more soldiers to Iraq, but it is unconscionable to send them without proper armaments or an explanation from the administration about how our troops will be protected.

Madam Speaker, 3,132 Americans in uniform have died and 23,417 have been wounded since the start of the war in Iraq. I visited our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed, Bethesda Naval Hospital, and, most recently, at Landstuhl Military Hospital in Germany during my visit to Iraq with the Speaker.

I stood at the bedside of a 23-year old severely wounded soldier, a soldier who was holding the hand of his 21-year old brother, currently serving in Iraq, and the hand of his father, who had also served in the Armed Forces, a soldier who will likely never come home. These families are making the ultimate sacrifice for our family. I am humbled by their commitment, their professionalism and dedication. We have a responsibility to our Armed Forces, our citizens, and the constituents who have elected us to bring them home as quickly and safely as possible.

I am convinced that the thorough analysis and conclusions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group are correct. Iraqi leaders must take responsibility for the country's security and government and we must engage the international community to work towards stability in the region. There is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq, and we cannot send more brave men and women to police a civil war.

As I have said many times before, there are no good solutions to the quagmire in Iraq. This war was ill-conceived, poorly planned and incompetently executed. The best military minds must now focus their efforts on the safe and responsible redeployment of our troops rather than on this escalation. I cannot support sending more of our brave men and women in uniform on a last-ditch, misguided mission.

We best support our troops, my colleagues, and our national interests, by adopting this resolution, and by expressing clearly on behalf of the American people our firm determination to change course in Iraq.