---

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho, Bill Sali.

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

Mr. Sali: Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would first like to thank you for reminding the body of the need for decorum in our remarks

Madam Speaker, several points. First is, it is stunning to me that this body will consume over 36 hours of floor debate on a nonbinding resolution. This should be on the consent calendar. Irrespective of one's position on the war in Iraq, all taxpayers are right to be incensed at such waste in this Congress.

This legislation will not have the effect of law, will neither inspire nor impede military action in Iraq or elsewhere, will not encourage our troops on the ground nor foster victory over America's enemies that practice terror. It will have one effect: poking the President of the United States in the eye, diminishing his credibility among the international community and eroding his ability to lead here at home. It will also have the very genuine result of undermining and demoralizing our soldiers that are now in harm's way.

Second, equally stunning is the apparent preoccupation with demeaning President Bush while ignoring those who are our real enemies. Our enemies are not in the White House or the Defense Department. They are not people like David Petraeus or his staff. They are not the vast majority of Muslims throughout the world, who, like us, want simply to live peaceful and secure lives.

America's enemies are radical Islamists, less than 1 percent of all Muslims, whose faith requires that a pure Islamic state be established and that violence is the instrument by which to establish it. Their faith requires terrorist acts against the West and all Muslims who stand in the way of that agenda. That is why Osama bin Laden can say that he and his followers are "in love with death." Indiscriminate slaughter is, for these sick people, merely a tool in their arsenal of moral barbarity.

That is why his second-in-command has declared that Iraq and Afghanistan are "the two most crucial fields" in their war. That is why al Qaeda in Iraq has declared an Islamic state in Iraq's Anbar Province.

Third, how do America's enemies view us? For one thing, they fear George W. Bush and our military. That is why Libya's Mu'ammar Qadhafi 3 years ago surrendered his nuclear materials to the U.S. That is why Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraq's most powerful militia leader, just made a beeline for Iran; not for a sunny vacation from long, tiresome days of planning suicide bombings, but because he feared for his life.

But America's enemies view Congress quite differently. They see us as divided, irresolute, unwilling to face honestly their concerted plan for our destruction. Hence, this nonbinding resolution.

In light of this reality, I would ask my friends across the aisle, what is your binding plan for defeating America's enemies? America, our allies and our enemies are still waiting for your binding plan.

More than 3,000 Americans have died upholding the hope of defeating America's real enemies and bringing freedom to Iraq. We must not allow their deaths to become a pretext for the abandonment of that hope of victory or abandoning the Iraqi people. But rather, they must serve as the inspiration of a renewed commitment to hope of victory and security for Iraq. We owe to their heroism and sacrifice nothing less than one thing, victory over America's enemies in Iraq.

America is the last best hope of man on Earth. A victory in Iraq is our last best hope of defeat of America's most dangerous enemies and also the freedom and security in the Middle East. We must not fail.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5½minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am going to come here and speak from the heart. I do not want to read a speech because I think it is important to speak from the heart. I am not here to point fingers. I am not here to chastise anyone. I am not here to talk about what might have been.

I support our soldiers. I support the war against terror, but I rise in support of this resolution which is Congress' responsibility. We have to look, Madam Speaker, at the current situation in Iraq as it is, not as we might wish it to be, but as it is.

Several years ago, I voted to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq based on what we were told then. I must say that I regret that vote.

I regret it not only because no weapons of mass destruction were found or that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq at that time, even though we were told there was. There was obviously faulty intelligence. We will never quite know if we were misled or if our intelligence was bad. But one thing is very, very clear to me, that this war has been mishandled from the beginning.

The President is now talking about a surge of sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq. When we first went into Iraq, I am a big believer if you are going to do something, you do it right or you do not do it at all. We were told by General Shinseki that there were not enough troops in Iraq, not enough troops at that time several years ago to be able to protect the borders, to protect insurgents from coming in, to protect people that would do us ill from coming in.

And his statements were dismissed. Not only were his statements dismissed, but then he was dismissed; and now here it is 3 or 4 years later, we are being told that the solution is to send more troops again. It is obvious to me that this is too little too late.

The war in Iraq has morphed into a civil war. It is obvious to anybody who looks at the situation that the Shia and the Sunni are fighting each other, and our brave men and women are caught right in the middle of it. Eighty percent of the people of Iraq on both sides do not want us there, and more and more our people are becoming sitting ducks.

I grieve for the more than 3,200 brave Americans who have died and the countless thousands more who have been injured; but it is one thing, Madam Speaker, to die in fighting for the freedom of your country, defending your country. It is quite another to die in a senseless civil war that more and more we see we cannot control nor probably should we attempt to anymore.

From the minute we came into Iraq, unfortunately, not only did we have no troops, there was mistake after mistake. We fired the Ba'ath Party people. So we had people who were angry at us to begin with. We have not been able to give the Iraqis what we said we would give them. They find that their way of life is worse now than ever before. We were not greeted as liberators, but we were greeted as occupiers.

And when we look at what we supposedly are there to protect, we look at the leader of Iraq, Mr. Maliki. He is propped up by the al-Sadr brigade, viciously anti-American, viciously killing Iraqis. He cannot go after them. They are the base of his support, and we are to believe that somehow he is a great patriot and is fighting for democracy in Iraq.

We talk about al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is certainly a threat. I am a New Yorker. I will never ever forget September 11, 2001. And we have to go after al Qaeda and we have to fight terrorism, but I believe that the war in Iraq has now become a distraction against the war on terror.

So by staying in Iraq, are we fighting the war on terror, or are we making it more difficult? A troop surge will not work. There are other priorities that we have. Our young people are sitting ducks. This is more and more like Vietnam. You cannot leave and you cannot stay.

We support our troops. This surge will not work. Congress needs to send this message to the President and to Iraq and to the world.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mrs. Miller of Michigan: Madam Speaker, I am proud to be yielded time from a true American hero.

If at any time while I am in the Congress and I am asked to vote to authorize war, I will ask myself two fundamental questions, two caveats to such action. Number one, what are the United States' vital interests? How are our vital interests being advanced? Number two, what is the mission and how is the mission being defined?

I was not in the Congress when the vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq was taken, but as I remember the debate during that vote, it was heavily predicated on the fact that we thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and the mission seemed to be principally defined as finding WMDs. It is clear that he had them at one time because he used them on his own people.

However, since we have gone into Iraq, whether it is because they have transited the country or they were destroyed, or whatever the reason, we have not found them.

Then the mission was defined as toppling the oppressor, the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein. And we have done so. We let the Iraqi courts exercise their due diligence in a court of law, and he is dead now. Good riddance, and hanging was too good for him.

Then we defined the mission as providing a stable framework that would allow the Iraqis to build a democracy because we can all agree that having a democracy in an Arab country in the Middle East would be optimal for the entire world. They have had their elections. They have adopted a Constitution, and they have elected leadership that is in place.

Again, I ask about the United States' vital interests and how we are defining the mission because, Madam Speaker, the mission needs to be understood. It is important that those of us in Congress can understand it, of course. It is important that the American people can understand it. But most importantly, the brave men and women who wear the uniform and are in theater risking their lives and their limbs need to be able to understand the mission.

President Bush has said that the mission is to achieve stability in Iraq, to train the Iraqi forces so that they will be able to stand up so that we will be able to stand down. He says that the so-called surge is a necessary thing to do.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have listened to the testimony from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense as well, about how this surge will work, and in my mind, a surge is a quick, overwhelming show of force. However, as it has been explained to me, this action will have two of a total of five brigades begin to deploy to Baghdad and the Anbar province and then gradually the other three brigades will be deployed as an assessment can be made on how the first two are doing.

I will note that I have read that General Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, has said in a closed door hearing that he thought the surge had a 50-50 chance of success.

Madam Speaker, our troops have done everything that we have asked them to do and more, and you cannot blame America for the Iraqis' failure to stop killing one another in a religious frenzy.

I am a product of the Vietnam era. My husband was an Air Force pilot in Vietnam. My county has the largest chapter of Vietnam veterans in the entire Nation, and although I have resisted making any analogy from Iraq to Vietnam, I will make this one personal observation.

From the very beginning of the Iraq conflict, we should have allowed our troops to go in and use overwhelming force; but we were told, no, that we had enough. Those that suggested otherwise were dismissed, and so they micromanaged from the White House, and now I think they are doing the same with this surge. Our troops can win, but they are being held back. They are being micromanaged by our politicians. We are not letting them win, and this is the lesson that I learned from Vietnam.

In Vietnam, we used a graduated response. We held back our troops. We did not use overwhelming force, and after many died, we left the field and I cannot believe in my lifetime that once again we are repeating this mistake.

I support the troops and I support victory. I recognize how incredibly complex this situation is. I recognize that having our troops leave will probably result in a loss of human life that will be horrifying. I recognize that leaving will probably encourage the neighbors to move in to protect their own interests, and I recognize that the war on terror will follow us if we leave.

Yet, recognizing all of this, since the Iraqis will, for whatever reason, not stand up to ensure their own freedom, how can we ask Americans and for how long to continue to do so for them? Either use overwhelming force to win, or get out and do not continue to ask our troops to fight with one hand behind their backs.

Mistakes have been made, as they always are in war; but another lesson that I learned from Vietnam is that the only thing worse than micromanaging a war from the White House is micromanaging it from here in Congress. And this is a time when every Member in this House needs to dig down deep and vote their conscience, knowing that sending the right message to the administration has the very real consequence of sending the wrong message to the troops who so bravely and professionally fight for freedom and liberty and democracy.

Vote "no" on this resolution.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I yield 5½minutes to my fellow New Yorker (Mr. Bishop).

(Mr. Bishop of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Bishop of New York: Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which is a clear and concise response on behalf of the majority of Americans who share our opposition to the President's misguided plan to escalate the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

We can all agree upon and indeed must take this opportunity once again to affirm that our support for the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces is steadfast and unyielding.

As this resolution declares, our first priority must continue to be protecting the brave men and women in uniform who have served this Nation honorably and valiantly. The decision to invade Iraq is the single most devastating and misguided foreign policy decision our Nation has ever made, and the process of protecting our Nation from compounding this tragic error must begin this week under new leadership with a clear vision and a plan that finally acknowledges that we can no longer stay the course in Iraq.

After nearly 4 years of war, the sacrifice of more than 3,100 brave servicemen and -women, tens of thousands more injured, and over $600 billion spent on the war to date, President Bush's "mission accomplished" declaration certainly rings hollow.

We must not forget whose war and misguided strategy failed us, and we must ask who the President is listening to beyond the small circle of advisers who were the architects of this fiasco in the first place.

The only strategy this administration has proposed is to stay the course, augmented by four earlier surges, along with the most recent plan to deploy the additional 21,500 U.S. troops, likely to escalate further to 40,000 to 60,000 more troops before the year's end. This latest policy is stay the course writ large.

The President's plan operates under the assumption that somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary, there is a military path to success if only more forces are on the ground. Not only is this logic flawed, it flies in the face of the wisdom of his top generals in the field, such as the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, John Abizaid, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "more American troops right now is not the solution to the problem."

I agree. We cannot afford to inject more of America's best and bravest into the chaos, particularly without the armor and training to protect them. Shortchanging our heroes in the face of a relentless insurgency is unworthy of this Nation. If we can't supply our troops with what they need, how can we possibly contemplate an escalation?

Without a reduction to the violence against U.S. troops, without stability in the region, and without evidence of a correlation between the raging violence and the number of U.S. troops and the number of trained Iraqi troops, now is the time to reduce the U.S. combat presence in Iraq, not expand it.

The Republican mantra has been that the Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq other than cut and run, an assertion that is simply false. We do have a comprehensive plan for Iraq that includes implementing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a regional conference to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically, and seeking political solutions to the escalating turmoil in the region. But again I would ask, what evidence is there to suggest that this President will listen to anyone's plan other than his own?

This is simply not an insurgency that needs to be crushed. Confirmed by the President's most recent National Intelligence Estimate, Iraq is in a state of civil war, and thus political solutions are needed to address the real problem. Although al Qaeda remains active in Iraq, they have been surpassed by ethnic violence, the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to stability in Iraq.

Proponents of the war claim that those opposed to the surge aren't supporting the troops. I would ask them how we are supporting our troops while keeping them in a country where 70 percent of Iraqis believe it is acceptable to attack U.S. troops, where 78 percent believe that our troops provoke more violence than they prevent, where three-quarters of them would feel safer if American forces left Iraq.

By staying the course in Iraq, we are putting our troops in a situation that has no positive outcome. Aren't the lives of our troops more valuable than saving political face and trying to prove a point?

And while it is well known that the claims of weapons of mass destruction were based on faulty intelligence and there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, why are we committing our troops and resources towards refereeing a civil war in Iraq, thereby diverting resources required to win the global war on terror rather than fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, tracking down Osama bin Laden, and preventing another terrorist attack against America?

The President's earlier NIE made it very clear last September that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a global jihadist movement and a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and our allies can reduce the threat.

Opposition to this surge does not mean a lack of support for our troops; rather, it affirms what the American people made clear last November, that our policy in Iraq is not working and that we need a new direction. I will vote for this resolution, and I will continue to join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring our involvement in this misguided tragedy to an end

The NIE also indicates that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counter-terrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has diminished America's position, What additional evidence does the President need to prove that his policies in Iraq are only making matters worse for Iraqis and making the world decidedly less safe for America?

And to those who would argue that this resolution sends a signal to our enemies that we are weak and divided, you are wrong. This debate proves why democracy works, unites us, makes us stronger, more resolute, and why these strengths--that our enemies envy and seek to overcome--will ensure that we ultimately prevail over them.

Opposition to this surge does not mean a lack of support for our troops. Rather, it affirms what the American people made clear last November--that our policy in Iraq is not working and we need a new direction.

I will vote for this resolution, and I will continue to join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring our involvement in this misguided tragedy to an end. Voicing opposition to this war, to this President's policies, and to more of the same is our solemn responsibility, consistent with the objectives of this resolution, the hopes of the American people, and the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Majority leadership and the distinguished chairmen of the Armed Services and International Relations Committees for their hard work and making this debate a priority of this Congress.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Virginia, Virgil Goode.

Mr. Goode: Madam Speaker, it is an honor to receive time from someone who served our Nation in the finest way and who knows firsthand how hurtful a resolution such as this can be to those in theater.

We are in the middle of a 4-day marathon here. While I cannot say that I agree with all of the actions of the President in dealing with Iraq, I will not be supporting H. Con. Res. 63. The eyes of the world are upon this House, and there will be commentary from the Middle East to the streets of small-town America about what we do here over this 4- day period, even though this resolution does not carry the weight of law.

When the commentary begins in the Middle East, in no way do I want to comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country and who want to wipe the so-called infidels like myself and many of you from the face of the Earth. In no way do I want to aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the green flag of the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country. I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see "In God We Trust" stricken from our money and replaced with "In Mohammed We Trust."

I am not sure that reinforcing the existing troops by 20,000 will save us from the jihadists, and I am not sure it will prevent chaos in Iraq. I do hope that these additional forces will stabilize Baghdad and will lead to democracy and a tolerance of divergent views and religions in Iraq. Unfortunately, the history of that region does not bode well for such conclusions.

In my view, the United States by removing Saddam Hussein has provided a great opportunity for Iraq to be a showcase for tolerance and understanding. Perhaps one day Iraq may want to adopt something like the first amendment of our country. That may only be an optimistic hope.

I hope my fears and the fears of others about chaos and calamity prove false. If the Shiite and Sunni controversy escalates and the situation worsens, we could be faced with a clamor to admit thousands and perhaps millions into this country. I call on the President and our Secretary of State to not allow a mass immigration into this country with the dangers and pitfalls that it could bring to our safety and security. The terrorists would surely enter into this country in such a way as the 9/11 terrorists swam around in a sea of illegal immigration before we were struck on September 11.

Let us vote "no" and let us forestall, if not prevent, calamity.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to one of our freshmen, Representative Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, surely a rising star.

Mr. Altmire: Madam Speaker, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the President offered the American people many reasons why we should enter into this conflict. We were told unequivocally that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States. We have since learned that pre-war intelligence was completely inaccurate.

We were told that proceeds from Iraq's oil reserves would pay for the cost of the war. Instead, the American people have paid for the cost of the war. So far, $400 billion, with an additional supplemental request of $100 billion pending.

We were told that we would be greeted as liberators. Nothing could be further from the truth. More than 3,000 American troops have been killed, more than 23,000 injured, and violence in Iraq continues to escalate. There are over 900 weekly attacks on U.S. troops.

These predictions were in the past, but they are instructive as we consider the President's current predictions on how to achieve success in Iraq.

The American people have expressed their clear frustration with the conduct of the war. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group offered a comprehensive strategy to successfully move combat forces out of Iraq. High-level military leaders, including General John Abizaid, have expressed opposition to an escalation of troops. But the President continues to ignore public opinion, rejects sound advice, and stubbornly adhere to his failed go-it-alone policies.

He says he wants a bipartisanship study; but when his results are not to his liking, he dismisses it. He says he wants to hear from his advisers; but when they disagree with them, he dismisses them. He says he wants to hear from his generals on the ground; but when they tell him what he doesn't want to hear, they are reassigned.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq is not a new policy, just more of the same failed policy.

The solution in Iraq requires the Iraqis themselves to reach a political solution and take responsibility for their own government. The continued open-ended commitment of U.S. forces only deters the Iraqis from making the appropriate political decisions, training security forces, and enacting the reforms necessary to achieve stability.

The Iraq war resolution before us today is simple and straight forward. Let me explain what it does and what it doesn't do.

First and foremost, this resolution expresses our continued support for our military men and women who are serving bravely and honorably. It also expresses the sense of Congress that we disapprove of the decision made by the President to send additional troops to Iraq.

So make no mistake, this resolution is in support of our troops. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong. No Member of this House, Republican or Democrat, wants anything less than victory in Iraq and to support our troops.

This resolution does not affect the funding levels to carry out the war. And on that point, let me be clear. As long as we have troops in the field of battle and brave Americans in harm's way, I will never vote to withhold their funding.

I support this resolution because we have the duty as representatives of the American people to continue to voice their opinion that, with his policy of escalation, the President is heading down the wrong path.

The best way forward is for the President to work with Congress, to change course, and adopt a responsible strategy that protects American interests in Iraq, around the region, and at home.

I urge every Member of this House on both sides of the aisle to heed the call for change and vote for this resolution.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma, Mary Fallin.

Ms. Fallin: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by reviewing a little history. There have been a number of times in American history when wars didn't go as we had hoped or planned. That winter at Valley Forge was certainly difficult. During the War of 1812, the British occupied this very building, and the Civil War was far more costly and far longer than we hoped it would be.

In World War II, the North African campaign was something of a mess. And the bloody island campaigns of the South Pacific were not something we had foreseen.

In Korea and Vietnam, we brought limited force to bear, and we wound up settling for stalemate and ultimately defeat.

So some of our wars went well, but more often they look a lot simpler and cleaner in the history books than they really were in reality. And if there is one constant warning that runs throughout our history, it is this: Congress has a vital role to play in helping America win its wars. But it can also play a role that is unintended in losing them if it says or if it does the wrong thing at the wrong time. And that is what this resolution says and does, the wrong thing.

This is a nonbinding resolution, which is nothing more than a political game. But the war on terror is not a game. We have to consider what our enemies will read into this resolution. What if Congress during the Valley Forge winter had passed a resolution saying it is time to send our troops home, retire General Washington, and go ahead and pay the tax anyway? What if Congress in the spring of 1863 had looked at the results of Bull Run and said, We can't win this, it's a civil war. Forget the idealism about freeing the slaves.

What if Congress in 1942 or 1943 had told Franklin Roosevelt to pull out of North Africa and Italy and to give up those silly ideas of liberating France? What would our enemies have thought about America's lack of will? They would have assumed that we had lost our will to win, and they would have said America can't cut it.

Well, make no mistake, Iraq is just one battle in our overall war on terror. If this resolution passes, it is sending a very clear message of our weakness, and our enemies are watching today. Just listen to the words of Osama bin Laden. He said, 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 or glory, or it is either misery or humiliation.

We cannot be the Nation of humiliation. The terrorists know what is at stake, and it is time that we show them that we know as well, and that failure is not an option for our Nation. We have to ask ourselves, what is at risk for the future of our Nation? Will our Nation be safer from radical Islamic terrorists if we pull out before the new Iraqi democracy becomes stable and an ally in the war on terror? Ask yourself, what Islamic terrorist leader has said that if America leaves Iraq that he will be satisfied and the terrorists will end their attack? Has not been said.

We must take extraordinary precautions to protect our Nation from those who would do us harm, and someday our children and our grandchildren will look back on this decision this week, and they will reflect on their lives, and the question we have to ask ourselves today is will our children live in a safer America?

I urge the rejection of this resolution.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I am told we are rapidly running out of time, and I will not be able to yield additional time to anyone beyond the 5 minutes.

I now have the pleasure of calling on another new star in this Congress, Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Braley of Iowa: Madam Speaker, I grew up surrounded by heroes. My father, Byard Braley, got permission from his mother at the age of 17 to enlist in the Marine Corps, and 1 year later found himself landing on Iwo Jima, the same day the flags were raised on Mount Suribachi. Thirty thousand marines and Japanese soldiers lost their lives in 1 month on an island the same size as my hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa.

My father saw one of his best friends vaporized by a shell burst, and we did not learn that fact until 15 years after he died.

The same night that my father landed on Iwo Jima, another marine from my hometown of Brooklyn slept under those flags as Japanese bombs flew overhead. Harold Keller was the real deal. He was the second marine to reach the summit of Mount Suribachi, and he single-handedly fought off a Japanese counterattack and rescued the people you see depicted in Flags of Our Fathers.

When he came home to my hometown, he repaired milking equipment for area farmers. My uncle Gordon Braley served in the merchant marine, guarding allied shipping lanes in the North Atlantic.

My Uncle Bert Braley served in the Army Air Corps, and my Uncle Lyle Nesselroad served in the Navy. My cousin, Dick Braley, was a Marine Corps artillery officer at a firebase in Vietnam.

These ordinary men taught me that patriotism is not something you claim by putting down others who disagree with your viewpoints. It is something you earn by the way you live your life, the respect you have for the institutions that make the United States a great beacon of liberty, freedom and justice.

When I return to my hometown of Waterloo, Iowa, I am still surrounded by heroes. These heroes belong to the battalion of the Ironman Battalion of the Iowa National Guard. They are approximately 560 fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters from Waterloo, Dubuque, Oelwein and everywhere in between.

One of them, Ray Zirkelbach, is missing his second consecutive year in the Iowa House of Representatives, because their latest tour was recently extended. A flag is draped over his desk in the House chamber.

These heroes are the reason why I stand here today in opposition to the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. On November 7, 2006, the voters of this country went to the polls and clearly stated that it is time for a new direction in Iraq.

Soon after, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group presented President Bush with a desperately needed blueprint for change. They recognized that the deteriorating crisis in Iraq couldn't be solved by military action. Instead, it required a political solution between warring factions for a stable democracy to evolve.

The Iraq Study Group recognized that "stay the course" was a failed strategy, and that three prior troop surges had done little to stem the growing violence. They knew that the Iraqis would never get serious about standing up for their own country until they were confronted with a timetable for redeploying our forces.

After I was sworn in as a Member of Congress on January 4, I hoped that President Bush would listen to the advice of this bipartisan group whose recommendations he welcomed.

I hoped that he would move to fulfill the promise of the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, when this Congress stated that 2006 would be a period of significant transition in Iraq, with the Iraqi Security Forces taking the lead for their own security, so we could begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Instead, the President ignored the recommendations of the study group and chose to escalate the war in Iraq without charting a new course.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle who disagree with the resolution we are debating today, by all means vote your conscience. I will be voting my conscience and joining well-known Republicans who agree that the escalation is a mistake:

People like Senator Chuck Hagel of my neighboring State of Nebraska, who called the President's escalation plan the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it is carried out.

People like former Iowa Representative Jim Leach, who said that the President's policy in Iraq may go down as the greatest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history.

Well-respected military experts also oppose this escalation, including General Colin Powell, General George Casey and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The President truly stands alone with a strategy that his own generals, key Republicans, and the American people oppose. The time is long overdue for the people's House to reassert its rightful place in our constitutional system of checks and balances.

We have a duty to send a message that it is time for real change in Iraq, change characterized by accountability and redeployment of our troops. There will be no more blank checks. There will be tough questions in oversight, and I will work hard to make sure that this happens. I ask everyone to support the resolution

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Ms. Foxx: Thank you, a true patriot, Mr. Johnson.

Madam Speaker, I rise today not only in support of the brave men and women of the American Armed Forces, but also in support of the cause for which they fight. They heroically give of themselves every day to ensure the safety of our Nation and the freedom that we Americans enjoy.

Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want America's troops home as soon as possible, but disengaging at this time would invite the terrorists to follow us home. This resolution sends the wrong message and will have grave consequences. It will demoralize our troops and embolden our enemies. We are combating a global adversary who sees an enemy in any Nation that supports the ideals of freedom. In the interest of democracy, global safety and rural peace, victory in Iraq is absolutely crucial.

While some seem happy to complain about the war, they have offered nothing in the way of a solution to defeat the jihadists. It is fine to disagree, but your opinion holds little weight if you fail to offer a constructive alternative. Leadership takes strengths and courage to succeed in the face of adversity, although mistakes may be made along the way.

Many comments have been made by those who support this resolution, but one that deserves a response is the oft-repeated phrase that this is an impossible war to win. What a terrible attitude for Members of the United States Congress to have.

What if George Washington had succumbed to the critics of his day who said those things? What if Abraham Lincoln, FDR and President Truman had taken that attitude? Where would we be now? We are here today because people who came before us refused to listen to the naysayers and the defeatists.

The true leaders of this Nation have always focused on the possible and accomplished it. These people remind me of the attitude of the Carter administration in dealing with Iran.

Let me quote a recent article by Dinesh D'Souza. " . . . they are willing to risk the country falling into the hands of Islamic radicals. Little do the people waging 'the war against the war' know that in exchange for a temporary political advantage, they are gravely endangering America's security and well-being, ultimately even their own."

Let us band together as Americans, put aside political differences to show that we understand the need to defend freedom for the long and short terms. This is the decisive battle of our generation, and this is a defining moment of our time.

We cannot afford to lose and should vote "no" on this resolution

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to call on another one of our great new freshmen I have gotten to know, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Loebsack: Thank you, Mr. Engel, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, today with all my colleagues I stand here in support our brave men and women of the Armed Services, as well as their families. We should honor their great commitment and sacrifices without hesitation. I support this resolution because I believe the President's plan for escalation is the wrong approach to the conflicts in Iraq.

But this must not be the end of our efforts in Congress. For too long, Congress refused to stand up to the administration. Our actions today must mark the beginning of Congress' role, not the end. The time has come to tell President Bush enough is enough.

Last November, the American people spoke. They spoke loudly and clearly on a number of issues, but none more passionately and forcefully than the war in Iraq. The American people, long before this debate this week, decided that the misadventure in Iraq must end.

Our troops have performed valiantly in Iraq. In just a matter of a few weeks they removed from power a brutal dictator and began to provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to construct a new political order. Our troops have also contributed mightily to the reconstruction and development of the Iraqi economy and infrastructure.

But over the course of this conflict, the mission of our troops has been transformed, and now they find themselves in the middle of a civil war that involves not just two sides, but almost innumerable factions in conflict with one another.

What is worse is the continued presence of American troops in Iraq will likely only inflame the ongoing sectarian strife and create more, if not fewer, enemies of America. The bottom line is that a continued presence of American troops will only exacerbate the multiple conflicts in Iraq.

As a member of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, I have additional concerns regarding President Bush's proposed escalation. I believe such an escalation will further strain the limited resources available to our military. Already we know our readiness levels for our troops not yet deployed are inadequate.

A further escalation of troop levels in Iraq will only exacerbate this problem and put more servicemen and women in harm's way without the proper training or equipment. Our troops were not trained to be peacemakers in situations such as today's Iraq. Some have argued that we need to increase the number of troops, so that we can engage in an action similar to what our forces did in Bosnia.

Madam Speaker, this is at best a false analogy. Iraq today is not Bosnia of 1995. Today's Iraq is in the early stages of a series of conflicts that may indeed intensify, but this will occur irrespective of whether we insert another 21,500 troops. We simply cannot solve the sectarian conflicts militarily. While it was the Bush administration who initiated hostile actions in March of 2003, I believe it is now necessary for the Iraqi people to step up and assume responsibility for their future.

What is also needed now more than ever is for this administration to reach out to our traditional allies and those in the region who have a significant stake in the future of Iraq. The Bush administration must do something that it has been woefully reluctant to do. It must admit that it made a major strategic and foreign policy mistake when it invaded Iraq in the first place. And I am willing to wager that such an admission would go a distance towards at least beginning to repair our relations with the rest of the world, and the improvement of our relations with our traditional allies beyond the British is a prerequisite to securing their help on Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this resolution today, as the beginning of this Chamber's efforts to protect our troops and bring our country's involvement in this war to an end.

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Madam Speaker, in closing, we have heard a lot of excellent presentation points today. I might just clarify the fact that the study group did recommend a surge in one part, and the President has eliminated the rules of engagement that we had laid on our troops over there, so we have a way to make this thing really happen.

I really want to know, if the Democrats insist they are supporting our troops, why they would not let me introduce my measure that mandates that Congress would support and fully fund the men and women in uniform.

I am positive that Democrats will attempt to cut funding as soon as the spending bills come up this spring, and maybe earlier, because there was a press conference earlier today that indicated exactly that.

I fear what that means for our troops on the ground, for their morale. The reality is that President Bush realized he needed to change the course in Iraq, and that is why he worked with folks on the ground in Iraq to hear fresh ideas and came up with a new plan.

The President wants change and that is why he changed the rules of engagement, enabling our guys to shoot at any suspected terrorists. The President wants change. That is why he removed political protections of all insurgents, so all of the bad guys could be brought to justice regardless of who they knew or who they worked for.

These ideas are huge breakthroughs and real solutions. These ideas represent fresh starts and new plans. What is the Democratic plan to move forward and win? They do not have one. Thirty-six hours of political grandstanding, nonbinding resolutions and petty posturing, they are not proposing solutions. They are not even encouraging new ideas. In fact, they stop them like when they squashed my amendment.

Many hope that the troop surge is the beginning of the end. We should all want that if it gets the job done. Yet the Democrats just say no. You know, the time will come when you can put the money behind these nonbinding resolutions. You better believe we will be watching and calling for those funding cuts loud and clear. America needs to know, cutting funds for our troops in harm's way is not a remedy. It is a ruse.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and yield the balance of my time to the next moderator, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I now yield to another one of our rising freshman stars, the gentleman from Maryland, Representative John Sarbanes, 5 minutes.

Mr. Sarbanes: Madam Speaker, the resolution we are debating today is simple and direct. It declares strong support for our troops on the ground in Iraq and opposition to the President's decision to send an additional 21,000 men and women into harm's way. I wholeheartedly endorse the resolution and pray that the President will heed its call.

Most agree now that it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Hearings in the Senate and the House are stripping away the last thin veneers of justification for that fateful decision. They are offering compelling evidence that the administration sacrificed wisdom, judgment, and conscience in favor of shock and awe.

Many of us sense a similar impulse at work in this administration's dealings with Iran. Let us serve notice, this Congress will not allow the administration to pursue yet another ill-fated mission. Madam Speaker, bringing our troops home from Iraq is no longer a whispered prayer; it is now the clarion call of the American people.

One year ago those proposing a new direction in Iraq were labeled as unpatriotic and marginalized in the national discourse. But we have come a long way. Elections do matter. On November 7, the people in my district in Maryland and across the Nation sent a strong message.

The next day Secretary Rumsfeld resigned. Shortly thereafter the Iraq Study Group issued its report sharply criticizing the war. And in the next few days the United States House of Representatives will pass this resolution signaling stiff opposition to the administration's proposal for a troop surge in Iraq.

To those patriotic Americans who have been relentless in their call for an end to the war, know this: collective voice has been heard. In my home State of Maryland, nearly 400 men and woman have died or been wounded in Iraq.

Two days ago, one of my constituents reminded me that the war is no longer being measured in time, but in lives. To the families who have sacrificed so much and who have suffered the ultimate loss, do not fear for a moment that a change in our policy in Iraq, that the effort to stop the escalation and begin drawing down our troops in any way dilutes the value this country places on the service of your loved ones.

History will treat harshly those policymakers at the highest levels who let ideology trump sound and informed judgment. It will fairly criticize politicians who have exploited this war for partisan gain. But it will reserve only pride and lasting gratitude for the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform amidst this sad tale of bungled intelligence and ill-advised policy. They alone are untarnished.

Madam Speaker, I have never been to the war. Never kissed my wife and children goodbye, wondering whether I will ever see them again. Far from the harsh reality in Iraq, I am blessed with the sweet ebb and flow of life's daily routines.

But like many Americans who witness our soldiers dutifully pushing forward every day under impossible circumstances, I am ill at ease. I know that the current policy in Iraq will only lead to more pain for many families and for our country.

Madam Speaker, the American people are tired, they are tired of rhetoric, they are tired of promises to put politics and partisanship aside when all they see is bickering and recrimination. Let's give them hope. Let's send a powerful message contained in this resolution, but let's not stop there.

Let all of us, the President, the House, the Senate, have the decency and dignity of purpose to put differences aside and work every day, beginning this day, to bring our troops home to their families, to their communities, and to a Nation that stands humbled by their sacrifice

Mr. Saxton: Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Flake: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution before us. I wish I could do so with the type of certainty that seems to motivate many of my colleagues on the issue. But such resolute certainty escapes me. I do not have a military background. In fact, few of us debating this resolution do.

But each of us can find generals or former generals who will support virtually every option we wish to put on the table. In the end, as legislators, we are left with our own council. Hopefully, such council is informed by briefings, hearings, meetings, and visits to the region.

But we cannot and should not try to place ourselves in the position of Commander in Chief. Our system of government wisely gives that role to the Chief Executive.

This is not to say, however, that we should not be having this discussion. Some have said that simply debating this resolution emboldens our enemies. Perhaps they are right, but we would not suspend due process in this country because it might embolden criminals. It is a price we are willing to pay.

Likewise, debating the merits of war is what democratic nations do. My own thoughts on the situation in Iraq are as follows: I have little confidence that a surge in troop levels will change the situation in Iraq in any substantive fashion. It seems clear that the violence in Iraq is increasingly sectarian, and inserting more troops in this atmosphere is unlikely to improve matters very much.

Without a more sincere commitment to step up to the plate from the Iraqi Government, we are unlikely to make significant progress. But when all is said and done, we have a Commander in Chief whom we have authorized to go to war.

Inserting ourselves as legislators into the chain of command by passing a resolution, nonbinding though it may be, that questions the President's decision to conduct a mission that is clearly already under way strikes me as folly.

I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the resolution.

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to again introduce one of our freshman rising stars, Steve Kagen of Wisconsin. I yield 5 minutes to him.

Mr. Kagen: Madam Speaker, my name is Dr. Steve Kagen. I am from Appleton, Wisconsin, and during the past 30 years I have cared for thousands of military veterans as their physician.

The resolution under consideration today and voted on tomorrow will answer these questions: What kind of Nation are we? In which direction shall we move? During these past several days we have all benefited from listening to hundreds of points of view from our elected representatives from every region of this great country on our ongoing involvement in Iraq.

During these past several months, I have been listening to the people who sent me here from northeast Wisconsin, people a lot like you, fiscally responsible and socially progressive, the citizens of northeast Wisconsin.

People in Wisconsin, like many elsewhere, voted for a positive change and a new direction. The new congressional class of 2006 has given us hope again. We are indeed not just in name but in spirit America's hope, and I am proud to be associated with these talented individuals.

I rise today in support of our troops and their families and to encourage all of you to support this resolution. For it is the first step in bringing an end to our costly involvement in a senseless civil war between the Sunni and Shiite people.

Like every American, I strongly support our troops, but I cannot support the President's poor judgment in promoting violence instead of diplomacy. The President has been wrong in every decision he has made in Iraq.

Indeed, on four separate occasions, prior escalations have failed. And his current plan makes no sense even to the generals who understand it most.

The reality is this, it was poor judgment that took us to war in the first place. It is time to take a different course. For the path we are on now is morally unacceptable. And here are the facts: more than 650,000 Iraq civilians dead; over 3,000 American heroes gone forever; over 20,000 of our troops maimed for life, many with scars we will never see, at an economic cost that may rise above $2 trillion.

Make no mistake, we must do whatever it takes to defend America and keep hostilities from our shores. But what we need now is a tough and smart national defense policy. It is time now to get the smart part right.

This resolution has been criticized on both sides. Some say it is not enough; some say it is too tough. But I am convinced it offers us the opportunity to ask these questions again: What kind of Nation are we, when a President takes us to war based on lies and deceptions, when our energy policy is decided behind closed doors, and when in our free elections not everyone's vote is counted?

What kind of Nation will we be when all of our manufacturing jobs are taken overseas, when workers lose their rights to effective collective bargaining, and when our government closes its eyes to global warming? What kind of Nation are we and in which direction shall we move? Let's begin now to work together and take a different path, a path where people come first ahead of political parties, ahead of profit and loss statements, ahead of politics of fear. When we put people ahead of political calculations, we will begin to see a different world. We will see that we must begin to solve our differences by means other than going to war. After all, war is our greatest human failure.

This is not an idealistic sentiment, a realistic assessment of the chronicle of horrors witnessed every day in Iraq, and even our own experiences here at home, in New York City, in Virginia, in Pennsylvania, in Oklahoma City.

We must teach our children and our leaders alike that in the end diplomacy defeats violence. We must begin to think differently in America as we establish a new direction for hope in the world and a new beginning for our American era. By working together we will build a better future for all of us, beginning right here and right now.

Like the new congressional class of 2006, America's hope, I strongly support our troops, but not the President's failed policy. I encourage all of my colleagues to join the class of 2006 and vote "yes" on this important resolution. Join us. Be part of America's hope.

Mr. Saxton: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Nunes: Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this intellectually dishonest resolution. I do so in order to challenge the majority party to put their legislating where their mouths have been. The endless criticism to the war in Iraq is clouded by political opportunism and has done little or nothing to improve our chances of victory.

We need an honest debate. We need answers from those who support this resolution. What is next? What is your plan? It should come as no surprise that the resolution we are debating today says very little. There are less than 100 words. And while the rhetoric has been flying during the debate, it seems to me that the new Democratic majority is hoping to avoid debate in which they might have to defend their plan in Iraq.

What we have here is nothing more than a political exercise, a nonbinding resolution, words with no meaning. Make no mistake, their opposition to the President's plan is political. There is no constructive criticism here. Read their resolution.

Iraq is the battleground, Madam Speaker, a key battleground against extremism, terrorism and the expansionist goals of our enemies.

If we fail, Iraq will be a hotbed of radical Islamic activity, a pivotal safe haven, a base from which to plan and fund attacks against us.

Madam Speaker, how is the danger associated with defeat in Iraq not clear? I ask my colleagues, what evidence do you need? Have you listened to the words of our enemies? Must we have more casualties in American cities before you accept the nature of this global threat? How quickly we forget, Madam Speaker.

I urge my colleagues to listen carefully to the words of Osama bin Laden. Last year, bin Laden said, "Iraq is the focal point of the war on terror. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War. It is raging in Iraq. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." Another one, "Jihad against America will continue. Jihad against America will continue economically and militarily. By the grace of Allah, America is in retreat. But more attacks are required."

Madam Speaker, Osama bin Laden, as well as other Islamic extremists around the world, view the conflict in Iraq as the central battleground in their ideological struggle.

Make no mistake, we are at war, and it is about time that some of our members of our government figured it out.

Someday soon, the Representatives who are supporting this resolution will have to explain to the voters what they have done to make us safer at home and abroad. Since this resolution does nothing more than embolden our enemies, demoralize our troops, and send mixed messages to our allies, they will have a difficult task before them.

Today, unfortunately, we won't hear much about the Democrat plan for Iraq. We will, instead, hear a lot about failure and defeat. We might even hear a conspiracy theory or two. And, of course, we will hear a lot of political posturing.

But Madam Speaker, the American people deserve to know the truth. What happens next, Madam Speaker, to those who believe the President is wrong, to those who believe we rushed to war, to those who can't get beyond our national intelligence failures and, instead, persist on conspiracy theories? Tell us, what is next? What is your plan to protect the American people?

Madam Speaker, I demand answers from the authors of this resolution. The American people have a right to know. Is your plan to simply stand aside and allow an ideology of hate to consume the Middle East?

I implore my colleagues, if you won't heed the warnings of our military and intelligence organizations, listen to al Qaeda's own words. They are speaking directly to you.

This is from Deputy leader al-Zawahiri recently. "I wish to talk to the Democrats in America. You aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost; rather, the Mujahadin are the ones who won and the American forces and their allies lost."

I ask my colleagues, how can you offer this resolution, knowing the enemy we face? Do you really have nothing to offer the American people but this? Is this resolution the best effort of the new Democrat majority in response to our challenge in Iraq?

Madam Speaker, we should have an honest debate about Iraq. And my friends who are convinced that the war is wrong need to be accountable for failing to say what is right.

In closing, I want to say how proud I am of the men and women who are fighting for our freedom and security all over the world. They don't deserve what we are doing to them today. This resolution is a sham. It is nothing more than political grandstanding, and it is feeding the propaganda machine of our enemy.

I have been to Iraq. I have seen the efforts of our soldiers firsthand. They want to win. They have seen the face of the enemy and I can assure you they are committed to winning. If you are committed to winning, vote "no" on this resolution

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to Representative Mike Arcuri of New York, another rising star from my home State.

Mr. Arcuri: Madam Speaker, Americans are outraged with the present course in Iraq. Here we are more than 4 years later with 3,100 of our brave men and women killed, fighting a war that has cost our Nation $370 billion.

It has become overwhelmingly clear that the current strategy to secure the peace of Iraq is failing. And yet the administration contends that sending more combat troops into Iraq is somehow a silver bullet that is going to quell the ongoing violence. I couldn't disagree more.

The resolution before us today establishes two overwhelmingly clear and concise principles that are supported by a large majority of Americans, and I am confident will garner a great deal of support for many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

First and foremost, we support our brave service men and women. They have done everything that has been asked of them, bravely and honorably; and for that, we in Congress and the people all over America will be forever grateful.

Second, and simply, we oppose sending additional troops into Iraq.

Madam Speaker, during this debate some of my colleagues have used the term "victory" in their remarks. Victory. But no one, not one of my colleagues in this Chamber, nor anyone in this administration, has yet to clearly define what victory in Iraq really means.

At one point we were told victory meant getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. Then, of course, we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction. When that didn't work, we were told victory meant toppling a dictator, and that we would be greeted as heroes. We toppled the dictator, but of course we were never greeted as heroes. And yet, still no victory.

The administration then told us establishing elections would constitute victory. There have been several elections in Iraq, yet still no victory. And all the while, the casualties have continued to rise.

Earlier this week, I had an opportunity, for the first time, to visit with wounded soldiers recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital. Seeing firsthand the devastating injuries that some of our brave soldiers have endured has troubled me in a way that I have not known before. As an American who loves his country very much, and as a father of two teenagers, it became crystal clear to me right then and there what exactly victory in Iraq means. I think victory in Iraq means bringing as many of our troops home alive as possible, the way I would want to see my two children brought home, if they were in Iraq. That is what victory is about, is bringing as many Americans home alive as we possibly can.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had the better part of 3 years to use their position in the majority to change the course in Iraq. They did nothing. No resolutions; few, if any hearings; and no accountability. How many more American lives are worth risking to continue an ill-conceived and poorly planned strategy that is clearly not working?

The American people answered that question last November. They have had enough, enough political rhetoric, enough stay the course, and most importantly, enough of the loss of life.

Some of my colleagues are trying to mischaracterize this resolution. They say this resolution somehow demonstrates a failure to support our troops. That is ridiculous.

Let me be clear, perfectly clear. Everyone in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats alike, support our brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces. Simply because we believe the best way to support our troops is to bring them home does not mean that we don't stand behind them. In fact, I think it means a greater commitment of support to them.

Madam Speaker, I was not elected to blindly follow along. I was not elected to accept the status quo, and I was not elected to be a rubber stamp. I was, however, elected to stand up when necessary and say no, I disagree. And that is exactly what we are doing here today, we are standing and saying we disagree.

The American people have run out of hope. They are tired of the failed policies of this administration. It is time for a new approach. It is time for a new strategy, and it is time for a new direction

Mr. Saxton: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Roanoke, VA (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Goodlatte: Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the nonbinding resolution being offered by the majority which, despite the rhetoric, amounts to nothing more than a vote to maintain the status quo in Iraq.

This resolution offers no change from the recent course of events in Iraq. It does not take into consideration the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It does not require the Iraqi people and their elected leaders to step up and take responsibility for their own future. It certainly does not set any benchmark that must be met by the Iraqis. Most importantly, passage of this nonbinding resolution does not protect the funding of our troops in Iraq and, according to many Democrats, it is likely the first step in cutting off that funding altogether.

Madam Speaker, we have spent 3 days debating a resolution that does nothing more than serve as a vote of no confidence in the brave men and women who are fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq. Not only is this resolution discouraging to our commanders and forces, it will fuel the efforts of our enemies who are determined to spread terror and suppress freedom.

Despite numerous attacks by terrorists on U.S. military and diplomatic targets throughout the 1990s, Americans on September 11, 2001 awoke to the painful realization that we are engaged in a long- term global war with terrorists, an international campaign to combat an ideology that spreads hate and destruction.

Iraq is now the central front in this global war. Success in bringing about a stable and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is a goal that I believe we all share.

While the difficulties cannot be minimized, neither can the consequences of failure and withdrawal. If we fail, the resources now devoted by terrorist organizations and nations sponsoring terrorism in Iraq will be turned to spreading terror around the globe including, again, on American soil. Do not embolden them with this resolution.

The United States and our allies, in fact, all freedom-loving peoples, need to support the popularly elected Iraqi Government in establishing control over their country and providing a stable environment for the Iraqi people and our troops as they assist in this process. Together, we have made significant progress, despite numerous obstacles.

Iraqis made history when they turned out in record numbers, despite increased violence, to vote in the first free elections in over 50 years. Millions of Iraqis waved their purple-tipped fingers with pride as they came out of the voting stations, a message to the world that they chose freedom.

The President is the Commander in Chief and has the authority to make decisions about the best way to accomplish our goals in Iraq. He has initiated changes to our course in Iraq.

However, today we will not be voting for change. We will not be voting for a comprehensive review of our strategy in Iraq. It is too bad that when we all have concerns about how best to achieve success in Iraq, the Democratic leadership has brought this polarizing and political resolution to the floor to divide us, rather than unite us, on the most serious question facing the country today.

For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote against this nonbinding resolution, which lacks any substance. I remind my colleagues that a "no" vote on this resolution is certainly not a rubber stamp for the President's troop surge.

While I continue to support the mission in Iraq, I think it is clear that the administration's efforts to achieve the mission have not been flawless. But a vote against this resolution is a clear vote to support our commanders and troops and all those who have lost their lives spreading freedom to the people of Iraq.

I believe that more should be done to press the now established Iraqi Government and U.S.-trained Iraqi military to take the lead. I believe more can be done on the diplomatic front to engage the countries of the Middle East to help.

But unfortunately, no such resolution offering concrete evidence has been allowed, and this hollow process has resulted in a hollow resolution.

I urge my colleagues to vote "no."

Mr. Engel: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to a great new member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Albio Sires of New Jersey.

Mr. Sires: Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution on behalf of the 32,000 men and women from my State of New Jersey, and all the other servicemen and women that have been deployed since 9/11. I am so proud of their sacrifice and service to our Nation, and I will continue and always support them. After all, I am standing in front of you as a product of the sacrifices our soldiers have made in the name of liberty and freedom throughout the history of this country.

I also rise on behalf of my constituents, the people of New Jersey, and the people of this Nation whose tax dollars are paying for this war in Iraq. Since the beginning of the war, $379 billion has been appropriated. Another $235 billion is slated for the upcoming supplemental appropriations. We are currently spending $8 billion a month in Iraq, and the American people are footing the bill.

All this money could have been used to declare war on some of our domestic problems here at home such as poverty, improving our schools, ensuring access to health care and investing in affordable housing. This money could have been used to invest in our children, our family, our veterans, and especially our elderly. But it wasn't.

Instead, American taxpayers have also committed more than $38 billion to Iraq reconstruction. About 33 percent of this money is targeted for infrastructure projects like roads, sanitation, water, electric power and oil production. However, I am concerned that only 25 percent of the Iraqi population has access to drinkable water.

I am concerned that of the 136 sanitation and water projects, only 49 are said to be completed. I am concerned that the residents of Baghdad only have 4½hours of electricity per day. And I am concerned that the current oil production in Iraq is half of what it was prior to the war.

Since the reconstruction project started, the Coalition Provisional Authority can't account for almost $9 billion of the taxpayers' money. Every year, $4 billion has been lost because of lack of oversight.

There have also been many problems with poor project and quality management. For example, the Baghdad Police College cost $75 million, and it was built without the proper plumbing for waste water. It has become a health and a structural hazard. The Basrah Children's Hospital is running $48 million over budget and is a year behind schedule. And after spending $186 million, Parsons has only 6 of the 150 planned health care centers completed and only 14 more will be finished. The list goes on and on.

Madam Speaker, the Iraqi Government says $100 billion is needed over the next 4 years to rebuild the country's infrastructure. Madam Speaker, the Iraqi Government seems to think they have open access to U.S. dollars. The Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people must take responsibility and help rebuild their country. Our support is not open- ended, and neither are our tax dollars.

Madam Speaker, I support this resolution and this debate because our troops and our constituents can no longer afford to have this Congress support the administration's failed Iraqi policies. They failed to give us the necessary oversight for Iraq reconstruction efforts, they failed to listen to the advice of the military commanders, they failed to listen to the American people, and, as a result, they failed to provide a plan to success in Iraq.