---

Mr. Saxton: Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from York, PA (Mr. Platts).

Mr. Platts: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I want to first take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude and deep respect for our troops and civilians serving in harm's way. I have had the privilege of visiting our troops in Iraq on four occasions and Afghanistan twice, and they and their families are truly the heroes in America.

I rise today in opposition to this resolution, a resolution that seeks to maintain the status quo, in essence, to stay the course, a scenario that everyone agrees is unacceptable. This resolution offers no alternative strategy.

As we consider the challenges in Iraq, we need to remember and learn from the lessons of Afghanistan. In the 1980s, we supported the people of Afghanistan in defeating the Soviets, helping throw the Soviets out of that country. In 1989, when that happened, what did we do? We walked away. We did not finish the job. We did not help the people of Afghanistan to stand up a secure and stable government. Instead, we walked away. Who filled the vacuum? The Taliban, and ultimately al Qaeda, a safe haven for them to plan attacks against America and its interests.

In 1989, I imagine that few Americans believed that what went on in the mountains of Afghanistan would impact the lives of Americans here at home. On September 11, 2001, in a tragic fashion we learned that that was the case, that what went on in Afghanistan mattered here at home. We cannot afford to make the same mistake now in Iraq, to allow Iraq to become a safe haven for al Qaeda and other enemies of our Nation and our citizens.

The Iraq Study Group offered a comprehensive approach to the challenges of Iraq. It included political, diplomatic, and military options. As part of the military proposal, it dismissed increasing our troop levels by 100,000 to 200,000 troops, saying it was not feasible and would lend to the argument of an occupation.

However, the Iraq Study Group did support more limited troop reinforcements. And I quote from the Iraq Study Group report: "We could, however, support a short-term deployment or a surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the United States commander in Iraq determined that such steps would be effective."

The report goes on to dismiss the idea of an immediate withdrawal. Well, our commander in Iraq today, General Petraeus, an individual confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate, is on record supporting the need for these additional reinforcements.

Ultimately, the key to long-term success in Iraq is the Iraqi people themselves. They need to show the ability and the will to stand up and secure their emerging democracy. Having liberated Iraq from a regime of terror and torture, our role today is to assist the Iraqis in achieving a stable and secure nation. This reinforcement effort is part of that effort, along with regional diplomatic efforts and internal Iraqi political reconciliation efforts. We are now in the role of helping the Iraqis help themselves. We cannot forget the lessons of Afghanistan and walk away.

I urge a "no" vote

Mr. Engel: Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to another great new freshman, Representative Zack Space of Ohio.

Mr. Space: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you my belief that we, as a people, are at a crossroads unlike any in our history. We have seen our manufacturing-based economy assaulted by the forces of globalization, the challenges of the ensuing revolution and energy production squarely upon us, and we are at the dawning of a new understanding, the fragileness of our environment. All of these things are, in their own right, seminal concerns of a profound scale, but in spite of the gravity and import of these issues, there is perhaps no more compelling matter before us than that of the war in Iraq.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are distressed by the tragic turns that this war has taken. I do not, at this moment, nor do my colleagues, I presume, wish to draw upon the motivations or lack of candor exhibited by our President in letting slip the dogs of war. But I do long for leadership, leadership seasoned and honest enough to admit when a mistake has been made, leadership that has a vision for the future, leadership able to meld the inherent wisdom of man with the realities of the modern world.

Under our form of government, it is the President who is singularly endowed with this leadership; yet at this critical historical moment, our call for leadership and inspiration has been unmet. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I today voice my opposition to the President's plan to deploy additional troops to Iraq.

The crisis that Iraq has become will not be resolved merely with more, more, more, more troops, more tours and deployment extensions, more injuries, more deaths. Simply providing more without a blueprint is not enough. Without a clear plan and a clear objective, a troop increase will not help our Iraq policy. In fact, it will only deepen the disaster that Iraq has become.

I do not utter these thoughts lightly. I share these sentiments, knowing that all of the people that I represent will not necessarily agree with me. I fear that my remarks will be misconstrued as reflecting something less than a full commitment to the brave men and women who have served or are serving their country in uniform, or to those heroes who have given their very lives for this cause.

Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, I have at the very heart of my motivation for these remarks a sincere appreciation for the sacrifice of our brothers and sisters who have been dispatched to fight this war. They, and their families by extension, have been called into action under trying circumstances, and I am profoundly moved by their sense of courage and dedication to country. In fact, it is my admiration and respect for our brave warriors that motivate my decision to express my dissatisfaction with the President's plan to subject more of them to the ravages of war.

To date, over 3,000 Americans have fallen in this war. All of them loved their country enough to place themselves in harm's way in her defense. All of them left behind their families, who will never stop grieving. All of them have been deprived of the pleasures and privileges of a full life, just as we who remain have been deprived of the contributions to our society that each would have given.

Fifteen young men from Ohio's district have died in this war, all of them were loved dearly. They are fathers, sons, brothers, and husbands. Ohio's 18th is exclusively rural in makeup, dotted by one small town and village after another. Our people are decent, hardworking, and imbued with a strong sense of personal responsibility. Our community is close knit and supportive. The death of each one of these brave soldiers was met with a deep sense of communal grief.

This resolution stresses a message that many believed in. We support our troops, we support their commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation, we support their families and those of the fallen in their silent and eternal heartache. We cannot fully understand their pain, but perhaps we can learn from it.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a troop surge without real answers as to how it will bring success in Iraq. I cannot support escalation without regard to diplomacy, without regard to the political realities of the region, and without regard to the underlying dynamics of this conflict.

There is an unspoken pledge between a soldier of war and the mechanisms of power. That warrior unquestioningly serves, defends and, if need be, dies. In consideration, he expects his government to only place him in harm's way when need be, and only through a painstakingly thought-out plan for victory.

Our troops have fulfilled their pledge to our country. It is time that our country fulfill its pledge to our troops.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. Heller of Nevada: Thank you for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the issue before us, the war in Iraq.

In this past year, the American people clearly demanded change. I am new to this body, but I know Nevadans wanted me to help institute changes in the direction of this country.

As we debate this resolution, I really have to wonder if we have heard the American people. This resolution brought forth by the majority says two conflicting things: we are opposed to the war in Iraq, but we are for staying the course. These two positions are irreconcilable.

As I watch this debate, I have not seen any proposals for change. What we are debating today is the same as what has been debated in the past. We stand here in this body controlled by a new majority who campaigned on instituting change, claimed to be the party of change, and has control of the gavel in both Houses of Congress. Instead of offering a path to victory, they are playing politics.

My question is, what does this vote actually accomplish? Does it implement new ideas to win the war in Iraq? Will our country be safer because of this resolution? Does it enable our troops to fight more effectively by giving them the supplies that they need? The answer to these questions is a simple "no."

As a newly elected Member, I came here to find solutions to our country's problems. To that end, I am supporting legislation to institute benchmarks. I am supporting legislation that will make our troops and their needs fully funded. I support diplomacy and making the Iraqi Government more accountable.

The message that I want to send on our troop is, I am with you, and you can count on me.

Because, really, we are counting on them.

Mr. Speaker, why can't we be for something today, an actual alternative, instead of debating a nonbinding resolution that tells our soldiers we don't support your mission? Our enemies believe America is weak and their propaganda says the United States is losing the war against terrorism.

Osama bin Laden's deputy and terrorist network have stated that Iraq is the central front in their fight against American and Western ideals. Iraq is the central front to push their radical ideology of hate and intolerance. These are the real bad guys. These are the people we should be focusing our attention on, not tearing down our leaders, commanders and brave soldiers in the field. The reality is the terrorists are determined to kill Americans, wherever we may be. Therefore, we must take the fight to them.

The fact is, this resolution only strengthens our enemies and does nothing to solve or address any of the national security issues facing our country. The stakes are high in Iraq. Nothing less than our very safety and survival is at issue. Nothing less than the lives of the courageous members of our armed services are on the line. It is critical that we have a real debate on the issues and address these points.

Let's, instead, together look for a new way forward, for a path to victory and for the best way to support our brave men and women overseas who are fighting to keep us safe. Let's instead focus on what we need to win this vital conflict, not a meaningless resolution, which is what we are offered here today.

To paraphrase the late Charlie Norwood, a decorated war veteran, "The choice before us today is clear: either America or al Qaeda."

Mr. Engel: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a great new Member, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Hodes: Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to voice support for our troops, without reservation, and to oppose the administration's proposed escalation in Iraq.

We are at a turning point in American history. This Congress will shortly vote on a bold, clear resolution, repudiating the administration's failed policy in Iraq, a fiasco which has weakened our security, threatened our military readiness, cost thousands of lives and wasted billions of dollars.

I was elected to Congress from the great State of New Hampshire, promising return of congressional accountability and oversight. For the past 6 years, while Congress was under Republican control, only 12 hearings were held on the Iraq war, but in the past 6 weeks this Congress has held 52 hearings.

The evidence is clear that the American people and Congress were misled into the war in Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction, no links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, no imminent threat to our national security. Our resources, effort and attention were recklessly diverted from the war in Afghanistan, which I supported, and which continues to require our vigilance and commitment.

This administration has now lost its credibility with the American people and with the world. To succeed in the Middle East, we must regain our moral compass and embrace a new direction in Iraq. The administration's stubborn arrogance and incompetence has magnified the chaos in Iraq.

Our brave troops have done everything asked of them, but the administration's failures in planning postconflict reconstruction and its shocking incompetence in management have opened the Pandora's box of sectarian violence and civil war.

Escalation has been tried before and it has failed before. The administration claims this escalation is different. The administration says there are benchmarks for the Iraqis, but what I have concluded from our hearings and briefings is that no firm benchmarks for the Iraqis have been set.

Clearly, the administration intends to escalate, whether or not the Iraqis step up. And today it is reported that they plan to send our troops off to Iraq without up-armored Humvees. This is deja vu all over again, a lack of planning, combined with a lack of candor.

Relying on a military force alone as a strategy continues the administration's one-legged-stool approach to foreign policy. Absent an Iraqi Government committed to forging a political solution to the country's woes and absent the infrastructure for jobs and reconstruction programs, the one-legged stool cannot stand. We have already lost billions in U.S. and Iraqi dollars to fraud, waste and abuse.

Baghdad is a city of some 7 million people. In a city that size, an injection of 20,000 troops is too little too late. The administration talks of victory in Iraq. The word is meant to stir our patriotic fervor. But in this matter, it has, unfortunately, a sad and hollow ring.

As a result of the administration's ineptitude, we are left making the best out of a bad situation. We owe it to our troops, the American people, and the Iraqis to act wisely and strategically. The administration talks tough. We must be tough, smart and fearless. That means a new direction in Iraq.

Our first order should be to address the missing second leg of the stool. Replace the military surge with a diplomatic surge, convene a high-level team of special envoys, send them to the region, and send them there until the job is done.

The third leg of the stool is economic. We need a real economic reconstruction program, but only on strict conditions that the Iraqi Government step up to quell the violence and engage in reconciliation and oil revenue-sharing.

It is past time to remove our troops from the middle of this civil war, redeploy them strategically in the region to give pause to our foes and send the troops we need to Afghanistan where they can support the government and deal with the resurgent Taliban. Dealing with Iran is, of course, challenging; but harsh rhetoric and saber-rattling are counterproductive in the complex, destabilized Middle East.

The true test of leadership is facing reality and having the good judgment and wisdom to adapt to the reality. By passing this resolution, we are sending the administration an unambiguous message: No more blank checks. We have had enough. It is time to face the reality in Iraq and develop a responsible and comprehensive strategy to protect American security in the region.

Much has been asked of this country in the past, and the future will inevitably require sacrifice, but it does not require sending 20,000 more American troops to Iraq. It does not require an escalation of this war. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I oppose the administration's escalation of the war in Iraq.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Cape Girardeau, Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mrs. Emerson: Mr. Speaker, it literally breaks my heart to be here today. Young Americans from my district have gone to Iraq and we have lost some of our best, brightest soldiers. One of the finest men I ever met, who I had the privilege of appointing to West Point, lost his life in Iraq just last September. I feel responsible in part. We all are, in part.

Very little has been asked of most Americans in this war, but too much has been asked of a very few.

If anything comes from this debate, Mr. Speaker, I hope it is a consensus for our responsibilities in this conflict. This House is about different points of view, speech and debate, in an institution that belongs to the people.

Our Nation is protected by the bravest of the brave, who leave their homes and families to stand guard on foreign shores. Some of them are the first in their families to wear the uniform of our country. Others have done so for generations.

These young men and women hold dear connections to every town in America. We are wrapping the fallen in our flag. They deserve the best planning, the clearest execution, the utmost care in their deployments, and heroes' welcomes when they return.

But it is not enough to give them parades. It is not enough to give amputees the best VA care. Nor is it enough to bury them well. We cannot allow their service to be undermined.

Congress and the administration have been locked in a struggle to show the proper support very nearly from the beginning of this war. Personnel armor, communications equipment, vehicle kits, the things these Americans need, not for comfort but to preserve their lives amid danger, have in some cases been supplied by soldiers' families and others because the Department of Defense, which received $500 billion last year, has run out. Supply-chain issues abound. Training has been incomplete or insufficient for the new demands on our troops. I still cannot discern a clear articulation of the mission of these men and women in the field. I loathe revisiting these failures, but responsible representation demands we do so.

Every American knows that America cannot do the work of Iraq's natural allies. We cannot supplant Iraq's neighbors who depend on the nation's viability for their own stability. We can be many things in Iraq, but we cannot be all things to Iraq.

We can make good on our commitment to American troops serving in Iraq, and here is how: We can offer them the support of a robust American Diplomatic Corps to do jobs our soldiers should not have to do and to avoid conflicts and enemies they should not have to engage.

We can secure funds for Iraq that guarantee our soldiers have the gear and training they need to stay safe, and that means more than writing the taxpayers' check. That means diligent, scrutinizing oversight of how our money is spent.

We can assure that the deployment of American troops is deliberate in every way.

We can offset the engagement of American troops far from home with the engagement of Iraqi troops in their own cities and towns. We can speed this transition by immediately securing Iraq's borders, by providing aggressive training to Iraqi units and by lending our expertise to building Iraqi institutions in addition to building the Iraqi army. We can do these things, and we must.

We can do much more than debate a nonbinding resolution, one that allows politics to creep into the question of support for our troops at a time when our support must be complete and it must be unquestioned.

The liberation of Iraq means more than words and more than weapons. Liberation needs diplomacy, libraries, schools and economic stability, steady work and clean water, safe streets, as well as safe passage. The measures of this progress must be widely known and the planners of this war must be completely accountable.

Every day we do not define the terms of progress, we lay a grave transgression at the feet of the mothers of the fallen, of the brothers of the killed, of the soldiers who were just far enough away from the IED that, when it exploded, they lost their limbs but not their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot lend my support to this resolution. It sets too poor a precedent in this Congress when our standards for action must be high. Words cannot replace deeds in support of our American troops.

Mr. Engel: Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how much pleasure it gives me to introduce our next speaker, who represents a district adjacent to mine. I am so delighted to have him in Congress, and I know his constituents are as well.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Hall of New York: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with the other members of my freshman class to support this important resolution. My election and those of my fellow freshman colleagues were an unmistakable signal from the American people. They believe the President's path in Iraq is wrong and they want new voices to produce change.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of those voices, and today I rise to speak with the American people to oppose the President's escalation.

The United States requires a new path in Iraq, a path that will deploy our troops out of Iraq; a path that will force the Iraqi Government to plan for its own defense; a path that will engage countries throughout the region and around the world to help stabilize and protect Iraq; and a path that will allow the United States military to rebuild and refocus on the important mission of destroying al Qaeda and defending America from the threat of international terrorism.

Sadly, the escalation proposed by the President does none of these things. The President's plan continues down the same path we have traveled for the last 4 years. These years have taught us that U.S. military power alone is not sufficient to stabilize Iraq, yet it is the only tool this President employs.

From the outset, this administration has been wrong. The administration led us into a war with flawed intelligence. That is one wrong. The administration went to war without a plan to win the peace. Two wrongs. This administration chose to protect Iraqi oil fields before securing the ammunition dumps throughout the country. Three wrongs. This administration sent our troops into harm's way without enough body armor or armored vehicles. Four wrongs. This administration gave no-bid contracts to its friends and political allies. That is five wrongs.

Years ago now, President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln before a banner declaring mission accomplished and said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." That is six wrongs.

Now, this administration wants us to blindly place our faith and the lives of 20,000 more of our troops in an Iraqi Government that has failed to meet every security obligation it has pledged. Sadly, once again, this President is wrong, and no amount of wrongs is going to make the President's policy towards Iraq right.

It is time for a new kind of escalation on the diplomatic front. A stable Iraq is in the United States' interests and in the interests of Iraq's neighbors. However, the President has done next to nothing to gain the assistance of regional partners.

Inside Iraq, the government must meet its promises to reach out beyond its base of support and unite the Iraqi people. Sending more troops into Iraq does nothing to push the Iraqi Government towards greater self-reliance. At a time when it is incumbent upon the Iraqi Government to step up and do more, why should we give them the opportunity to do less?

This resolution is an important first step that voices loud and clear the message America sent last November, and it puts the President on notice that the Congress will no longer stand by and allow him to recklessly endanger American lives and security. If the President refuses to change course, this Congress will be forced to act.

We will no longer allow him to send underequipped and underprepared units into combat. We will demand appropriate accounting standards and no longer allow billions of taxpayer dollars to disappear unaccounted for into the rabbit hole of Iraq. And we must not let our National Guard continue to be decimated by repeated and extended activation.

I recently met a young man from my district who has been accepted at West Point and who will soon serve as a future leader in the United States Army. I want to ensure that when he graduates from West Point and accepts his commission, the Army he joins will not be decimated by the mistakes in Iraq.

I also want to talk about the veterans of this war and the unique challenges they will face. I am proud and honored to be on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I am proud that one of my first votes in Congress was to provide an increase in VA health care funding.

Currently, there is a backlog of nearly 600,000 pending veterans claims at the VA. We must reduce this number so that all veterans can be better served. We must provide funding to better diagnose and treat post-traumatic stress disorder. I am appalled that during this time of war the administration would cut funding for research on prosthetic technologies that will let our wounded veterans lead more normal lives.

My district is the home of West Point Military Academy and, as such, has a unique perspective on the war. The leaders that emerge from the halls of that institution are an invaluable resource for our Nation. Sadly, we have lost over 50 West Point graduates in Iraq and others in the services and throughout my district.

My brother-in-law is a lieutenant colonel who works at West Point. My nephew is a cadet. The courage, devotion and conscientiousness of the men and women of the United States Military Academy embody the best of America.

In the words of the sheriff of Putnam County, a retired brigadier general, one should never send our Armed Forces to do a job which is not militarily achievable.

I support this resolution

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. Young of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate on both sides of the aisle for the last 2 days, the third day in fact, and probably will listen to it tomorrow.

I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63, and I would like to make a quote: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged," Abraham Lincoln, who had the same problem this President had with a very unpopular war. The same problem with people trying to redirect the Commander in Chief; the same problem, if they had been successful, we would not have had the freedom of the people in this country.

What I say today is for my daughters, my Joanie, my Dawn; my grandkids, Wyatt, Guy, James Duffy, Katie, Jessie, Don, Niky, Dougy and Don, Eric and all the rest of them I missed and I apologize, because what we are about to do tomorrow in voting for this resolution is beginning a slippery slope down the slide of not being able to provide the freedom and the position in this world this country has done for the last 90 years, beginning in 1916, 1917, in World War I, which my father fought in; in World War II, where five of my cousins were shot numerous times for freedom of the people and freedom of this country; and, yes, the Korean War, the time in which I was drafted.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I did not serve, but my colleagues did. Each time we went there to make freedom, never once did the Congress in that role undermine the military or the Commander in Chief.

Then we came to Vietnam, and we began to fight a war by the media, a war without allowing the troops to do the job they should have done, and in fact, we lost that war. And immediately after withdrawing, we saw what happened. Khymer Rouge killed 2 million people. People forget that. Two million heads were laying around, lolling around Cambodia. And then we had Grenada, which was very short and very sweet, and of the course, the Gulf War was 110 days. And now we come to the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war.

I suggest to you this resolution will undermine and cause a morale disruption to our troops. Nowhere can you be in the field and understand the Congress of the United States now is not going to support them when they say they do, when they say they are going to cut their funding in the future.

It is a slippery slope down this slide of not being the leaders of this Nation for freedom, and this is what I thought this country is about, freedom for each individual in this world and in our country. And to have this occur tomorrow on the 16th is a disservice to the future generations, the generations of Americans who will not have the opportunity to be in the greatest country in the world because of the action of this Congress.

I urge a very, very strong "no" on H. Con. Res. 63.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).

Mr. Carney: Mr. Speaker, I stand today as a proud veteran in support of this bipartisan resolution which states that Congress and the American people support our men and women in uniform, but do not support deploying over 21,000 additional troops to Iraq.

I fear that President Bush's plan to increase troop levels is a mistake. Sending more troops will not reduce the violence. Indeed, in the past 2 years, we have had three surges to Iraq, only to see dramatic increases in violence. Why would we think a fourth surge will be different?

Mr. Speaker, 21,000 troop is far less than a half measure of what is truly needed to secure Iraq, but the unfortunate reality is that we no longer have the troops available to do the job properly. Indeed, the Army's strategic reserve is used up. They told us so. We are now less able to respond in other trouble spots around the globe because of this failed policy.

Why are we not matching our military surge with a diplomatic surge? Why are we not engaging every nation in the region to end this civil war?

A superpower at war uses all means at its disposal to win, including diplomacy. Diplomacy is the only way for us to succeed now, and I urge the administration to launch a diplomatic offensive in the region.

Our enemies are encouraged and emboldened by the successes that they have enjoyed already. We do not need to send 21,000 troops additional to reinforce this. Instead, we should be changing our focus. Rather than sending more American troops into combat, we should be training Iraqis to handle the job for themselves. For every Iraqi battalion we train, we need to bring an American battalion home.

My district in northeastern and central Pennsylvania has many of its bravest men and women in harm's way. I am very proud of them, so are their families and their communities. Our district, sadly, has lost 22 men in this war, brave troops who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country. I rise today to honor them and also to stand up for the troops currently in combat.

The stories I hear from soldiers who return home leave me concerned that the administration has not done enough to protect them. One of my own former students, a member of a Pennsylvania National Guard unit, told me how his unit had to scrounge through Iraqi junkyards for scrap metal to weld on to their trucks for more protection.

Junkyards? Scrap metal? Where is the outrage that this administration has not given the troops the protection that they need? Where is the outrage that our fine men and women, whose job it is to protect our Nation, are scrounging through foreign junkyards for that protection?

The troops have won the war, but the administration has failed to secure the peace. We must now pursue policies worthy of our troops and their sacrifices.

Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to serve and protect my country. That is why I rise in support of this resolution.

In the Navy, when we run a ship aground, we change the course. It is now time to change the course in Iraq, not needlessly send more American troops in harm's way.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mobile, Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues and certainly the people from my home in south Alabama know, I do not often come to this floor, either to hear my own voice or to offer some prophetic words of wisdom on whatever the topic of the day happens to be.

My father often taught me that you learn a lot more from listening than you do from talking. So in many ways, that is what I have been doing the past few days, listening to my colleagues and thinking about the consequences of the words that we are debating.

After a lot of listening to a lot of words, however, I find myself compelled to come and say in the most direct way I know that I am opposed to this nonbinding resolution. Let me say that again for that is, after all, what we are talking about. This is a nonbinding resolution. It is nothing more than a few words on a piece of paper, and yet they are powerful words that have the potential of being demoralizing and possibly even destructive.

Make no mistake that the resolution we are debating today does not have the force of law behind it. So for those of you who are watching at home, let us be clear. At a time when the President recognizes that the situation in Iraq is unacceptable and it is clear that we need to change our strategy, this resolution will not stop the deployment of a single soldier or marine to Iraq, nor will it bring a single soldier or marine home to their families or loved ones.

More importantly, this resolution does not offer any alternative strategy. Nothing. Zip. It is silent with regard to our country's ongoing efforts in fighting the global war on terror. Instead, it is simply and unfortunately a method by which the House Democratic majority is seeking to send a message to the President of the United States.

But let us not kid ourselves. The words spoken in this Chamber this week will travel much farther than the distance between this building, the Capitol, and where the President lives, the White House. In reality, these words will travel far beyond our shores, across the globe to the 140,000 men and women who are currently deployed in Iraq and engaged in but one part, admittedly an important part, of the global war on terror and the Islamic militant extremists we are fighting.

I know we have heard Democrat after Democrat and a few Republicans, to be fair, come to this floor and say, we support our troops and we support this resolution; but with all due respect, I find it totally inconsistent to say you support our troops and at the same time you support this resolution.

How can we really expect our soldiers to have the will to succeed when this body as a whole does not have the resolve to stand by them and their mission? Do we think our troops do not listen to what is being said here in Washington and around the country? During my visits to Iraq, I found just the opposite to be the case.

So while the underlying message of this resolution is intended for the President, it is only logical to ask who else might be listening. What about the families of these soldiers who are anxiously awaiting their safe return home. Make no mistake, they will hear this message loud and clear.

And then there is the very real chance that the families of the thousands of Alabama National Guard members who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the families of all active and Reserve forces, will read the glaring subtext of this resolution and hear the people's House signaling that we will not be able to prevail in Iraq, the cause is lost, and their loved one's sacrifice is for naught.

Unfortunately, the words of this resolution will also travel to the ears of our enemies. And what could be better news for our enemies than that America is divided, an America that does not have the will to succeed.

On this topic, let's look to the man who knows the enemy in Iraq better than anyone, General David Petraeus. You remember General Petraeus; he just received an overwhelming vote of confidence when he was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to command our forces in Iraq. At his confirmation hearing, General Petraeus was asked if a congressional resolution disapproving the deployment of additional troops would encourage the enemy. His response was direct and unequivocal. "That is correct, sir."

Let me say that again. General Petraeus, our commander in the ground on Iraq, believes that a resolution disapproving the deployment of additional troops, which is what we are debating today, will encourage our enemy.

He went on to say that this is a test of wills, and at the end of the day a commander in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel that there is no hope. But instead of saying there is no hope to the enemy, we are saying there is no hope to the American soldier and the American people.

Let's not forget that our words as well as our actions do have consequences. Vote "no" on this resolution.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Klein of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63 which opposes the President's decision to deploy 21,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

I am also here to specifically honor the Broward County Veterans Council, who recently adopted a resolution concerning the war in Iraq. The Broward County Veterans Council represents a host of veterans groups throughout Broward County, Florida, including the Broward chapters of the American Legion, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Fleet Reserve, Gold Star Mothers, Italian American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Marine Corps League, Navy League Council, The Order of the Purple Heart, The Paralyzed Veterans Association, Reserved Officers Association, Retired Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and World War I Barracks.

The Broward County Veterans Council led by its Chairman, Bill Kling, adopted this resolution unanimously on January 16, 2007. And the spirit of this resolution is as follows:

Veterans groups, along with families across my district, are very concerned about the direction this war has taken and are demanding a change in strategy.

To President Bush their message is loud and clear: This war has been mismanaged, the strategies for success have failed; our national and personal security interests, most importantly, are not being enhanced and in fact may be undermined. And, therefore, they overwhelmingly oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Traveling through my district, people in South Florida are demanding that Congress ask the tough questions concerning our policy in Iraq. Well, we have asked these tough questions, and I along with many of my fellow Members of this House, both Democrats and Republicans, have come to the same conclusion: The President's plan to increase troops is wrong.

The administration has based this plan in part on the readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces to stand up and take control. I have heard nothing from our military experts that would indicate that the Iraqi troops are anywhere near prepared to bring order to this troubled country.

General Colin Powell recently told the associated press, and I quote, "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad, for the purposes of suppressing this violence, this civil war, will work."

And four-star General Barry McCaffrey called the President's surge plan last month, "a fool's errand."

These are some of the experts we should be listening to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, as the civil war in Iraq spirals out of control, as Iraqi Security Forces continue to be ill-prepared, and as we continue to alienate our allies around the world, what warrants this administration to continue on the same path in Iraq and add more troops? So far, nothing.

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops in the middle of a growing civil war. We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops when, as it is, our military is already stretched too thin. And because our military is already dangerously pushed to the limit, we have put ourselves in the precarious position of dealing with real threats like Iran, while at the same time protecting our allies like Israel and some other Middle Eastern friends.

For these reasons, I am advocating for a plan, as others are, devised by our military experts that supports a phased withdrawal of our troops. But while our brave men and women in uniform are serving, it is critical that we provide them nothing less than the best protection and support. We have more than a responsibility to support our troops; we have a solemn obligation, and that obligation extends to asking the tough questions and getting our policy right.

In honor of the Broward County Veterans Council and the veterans living in Palm Beach County, in recognition of their heroism and commitment to our country, I support this resolution

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of H.R. 63, which opposes the President's decision to deploy 21,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

I am also here today to specifically honor the Broward County Veterans Council, who recently adopted a resolution concerning the war in Iraq.

The Broward County Veterans Council represents a host of veteran groups throughout Broward County, FL, including the Broward chapters of the American Legion, Am Vets, the Disabled American Veterans, the Fleet Reserve, the Gold Star Mothers, the Italian American Veterans, the Jewish War Veterans, the Marine Corps League, the Navy League Council, the Order of the Purple Heart, the Paralyzed Veterans Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the Retired Officers Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the World War I Barracks.

The Broward County Veterans Council, led by its chairman, Bill Kling, adopted this resolution unanimously on January 16, 2007.

The spirit of their resolution is as follows:

Veterans groups, along with families across my district, are very concerned about the direction this war has taken and are demanding a change in strategy.

To President Bush, their message is loud and clear: This war has been mismanaged, and the strategies for success have failed; our national and personal security interests are not being enhanced and in fact, may be undermined. Therefore, they overwhelmingly oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Traveling through my district, people in south Florida are demanding that Congress ask the tough questions concerning our policy in Iraq.

Well, we have asked those tough questions and I, along with many of my fellow Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have come to the same conclusion: The President's plan to increase troops in Iraq is wrong.

This administration has based this plan in part on the readiness of the Iraq security forces to stand up and take control. I have heard nothing from our military experts that would indicate that the Iraqi troops are anywhere near prepared to bring order to this troubled country.

GEN Colin Powell recently told the Associated Press: "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work."

And four-star GEN Barry McCaffrey called the President's surge plan last month "a fools errand."

These are the experts we should be listening to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you--as a civil war in Iraq spirals out of control, as Iraqi security forces continue to be ill-prepared and as we continue to alienate our allies across the world--What warrants this administration to continue on the same path in Iraq and add more troops?

So far, nothing

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops into the middle of a growing civil war.

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops to Iraq when as it is, our military is already stretched too thin.

And because our military is already dangerously pushed to the limit, we have put ourselves in a precarious position dealing with real threats like Iran, while at the same time, protecting our allies like Israel and other Middle East countries.

For these reasons, I am advocating for a plan, devised by our military experts, that supports a phased withdrawl of our troops.

But while our brave men and women in uniform are serving, it is critical that we provide them nothing less than the best protection and support. We have more than a responsibility to support our troops--we have a solemn obligation. And that obligation extends to asking the tough questions and getting our policy right.

In honor of the Broward County Veterans Council and the veterans living in Palm Beach County, in recognition of their heroism and commitment to our country, I support this resolution.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Crenshaw: I thank the gentleman for the time, and I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution which says Congress disapproves of a war plan.

There are a lot of reasons to disapprove of this resolution, one of which is I believe that war should not be waged from the floor of this House. That is why we have one Commander in Chief, that is why we have military leaders on the ground. They are in charge of conducting the war. And they have said we have made a mistake and we need a new direction, we need a new plan. And they have proposed that plan, and it is broad and it is comprehensive. It involves political considerations, it involves economic situations, diplomatic considerations, and, yes, it entails additional troops to go to Iraq. Yes, additional troops.

But it is a plan. And you can be skeptical and you can say it may be too little, it may be too late. Maybe it is a good plan but it won't be executed properly. But it is going to give us hope and it is going to give the Iraqi people hope. And, if anything, we ought to be here today trying to make that plan better, not debating a resolution that is nonbinding, that is symbolic, that means nothing, that says nothing, that does nothing. In fact, it has no useful purpose whatsoever, unless maybe it is to undermine the President or perhaps to demoralize our troops by saying to them, "We have a new mission for you to undertake. Go to Iraq and try to execute this mission. But, by the way, the United States Congress doesn't believe in the mission, and we think it is doomed to failure." You tell me that that is not going to have a negative impact on our American soldiers.

Now, I know there are people in this Chamber that think the plan is doomed from the very beginning. You don't think it will work. And if that is your belief, you ought to do more than introduce a symbolic resolution and then stand here and pound the podium and hem and haw and make speeches and leap in front of the television cameras. You ought to do something that really means something. You ought to propose a resolution that says we believe it was doomed from the very beginning and we are going to do everything we possibly can to stop this plan. That is what you should do.

And if you don't think the plan is going to work, if you think it is doomed to failure, and you don't have a viable alternative strategy and you don't want to find a viable alternative strategy for winning, then you ought to go even further and you ought to stand up and say, "We admit defeat. It didn't work. We are not going to fund the war altogether anymore. We are going to withdraw."

I will tell you one thing, the plan is there. It may not be perfect and, quite frankly, it may not work. I have got reservations myself. But it is there, and every American, Democrats and Republicans alike, ought to hope that this plan succeeds because it may very well be our last best chance to prevent a catastrophic failure in Iraq. And if that happens, the disastrous effect won't just be felt in Iraq, won't just be felt by the people of the Middle East, but quite possibly will be felt by all Americans alike.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to a valued member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

Mrs. Boyda of Kansas: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the most critical issue this Congress, indeed our Nation, is facing. The U.S. military is the best fighting force in the world, and it is vitally important that we keep it that way. I am concerned that the President's planned escalation is too little, too late, and it will further deplete our military's readiness.

My life changed in the late spring of 2002 when my husband Steve casually said he thought we would be at war with Iraq by Christmas. And I said certainly that wouldn't be the case; the terrorists were from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Certainly we will continue to hunt down Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. We wouldn't take resources away from fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan. But that isn't what happened.

That fall, every time I heard that we were going to be greeted as liberators in Iraq, I cringed. We were going into the most unstable part of the world, a region that has been at war for centuries, and we were going in with dangerously naive plans. We were going after a hornet's nest with a baseball bat.

As the mother of two and stepmother of five, I felt my family's very safety was being threatened by this diversion of resources. Like a mother bear who senses, no, who knows that her cubs are being threatened, I could not remain silent.

Diverting resources from Afghanistan and invading Iraq may be one of the most dangerous decisions this country has ever made. Our Nation's civilian leadership took their eye off the ball. Instead of securing more resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden, instead of engaging in diplomacy, they put resources into what has become a civil war and have depleted our Nation's strategic readiness.

Please, please understand me. Our military has not failed. What has failed is our civilian leadership. Our military and their families have repeatedly stepped up and done what our Nation has asked of them. And now, Mr. Speaker, President Bush proposes to send more than 20,000 more troops to this civil war. He asks us to trust him with our soldiers' lives, even after trust has been broken time and time again.

Not only is the goal of this escalation unclear, but its effect would be to redirect precious military resources instead of preparing for potential future conflicts. In a recent hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, I asked General Peter Pace whether he was satisfied with the readiness levels of our troops. His response? "No, ma'am, I'm not." General Peter Schoomaker and General Steven Blum have echoed his concerns.

America lives in an unstable world; we face threats from a nuclear- armed North Korea, from a belligerent Iran, and from the al Qaeda terrorists who considered September 11 as only the first act in their sinister play. In these dangerous times we are not safer if we devote so many of our resources to a civil war in Iraq. And I as a mother, I cannot support this escalation. It is withdrawing precious resources from a fighting force that is already stretched too thin.

America's strategic readiness is not a political question; it is a question of national security, and it is a critical question about the safety of all our families.

The U.S. military is the best fighting force in the world, and it is vitally important that we keep it that way.

Mr. Speaker, as a mother, stepmother, wife, citizen, and, yes, as a U.S. Congresswoman, I cannot support further escalation of the war in Iraq.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to note that one of the previous speakers talked about veterans who support this resolution. As a matter of fact, yesterday I was able to announce that the national commander of the VFW said that he opposed this resolution or had grave concerns about it, and I have just been notified that the national commander of the American Legion, Paul A. Moran, announced strong support for the President's new initiative, which includes deploying 21,500 troops. And, in so doing, he said these words:

We will not separate the war from the warrior. Debating the new strategy is an American way, but let this be a warning that precipitous action by the Congress could lower troop morale and hinder the mission.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Bloomfield Township, Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Knollenberg: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement that mistakes have been made in Iraq. The status quo is not acceptable. We need to chart a new course. But we also need to acknowledge that some positive things have happened in Iraq, thanks to the courage and dedication of our troops. These accomplishments often get just lost in all the politics that surround this debate.

Toppling one of the most brutal dictators in history was a good thing. Saddam Hussein's regime was responsible for the senseless murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. Under his rule, most Iraqis lived in fear of the day Hussein or one of his cronies would come for their mother, their father, their sister or brother.

Hussein was also a direct threat to our friend and ally, Israel. He was a menace, and it is good that he is gone. Furthermore, turning Iraq's sovereignty over to the Iraqis and providing assistance as they forged a democratically elected government is a big deal. Fostering democracy in the heart of the Middle East was important and was also a very historic moment.

As we debate the current strategy in Iraq, let us not forget that our soldiers have provided a tremendous opportunity to the Iraqi people. They have provided an opportunity for them to grab the benefits of freedom. Now it is up to the Iraqis to seize it.

Before us today, we have a nonbinding resolution that doesn't even mention the accomplishments I just spoke of. We can all agree that the war has taken a wrong turn, but instead of debating nonbinding resolutions that have no bearing on whether additional troops go to Iraq, we should work together to find a solution that results in our soldiers coming home in victory, not defeat.

Mr. Speaker, I have offered my conditional support for the President's plan for additional troops in Iraq. My support is conditional, not carte blanche. I want to see the benchmarks met and progress made within the next 90 to 120 days. It is time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate and assume responsibility for the security of their nation.

If the Iraqis do not step up to this challenge in the coming months, then it will be time to reevaluate. The resolution before us doesn't even speak to these issues. It does nothing in the way of bringing out or bringing our troops home quickly and in victory. It is just pure politics.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together with the President to ensure a quick return of our troops. We all know that Congress is not going to cut funding for President Bush's new Iraq plan. If we know this to be true, why are we wasting our time on nonbinding resolutions that lead us nowhere?

Let's put our troops first. Let's end the political gamesmanship, and let's work together to find a solution in Iraq. That is what the American people want, and that is what our soldiers and their families deserve.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Ms. Hirono: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this resolution. The Iraq war has lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II and has cost the Nation hundreds of billions of dollars. We have lost over 3,000 of our finest men and women. Thousands more have been maimed and too many lives have been shattered.

As Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos said, this "resolution will establish the first marker," the first step toward ending this nightmare.

The war in Iraq is the moral issue of the day, and like all great moral issues, there are heartfelt disagreements on both sides of the aisle. But every second, minute, and hour that passes, lives are being lost in Iraq and devastation continues with no end in sight.

We owe it to all the brave men and women who have already sacrificed so much, over 3,000 of them who have made the ultimate sacrifice, to steer our country on a course that will bring our troops home safely, take care of them and their families when they return and end this war.

Despite 4 years and deadly losses, according to Foreign Policy Magazine's recent survey of over 100 top national security experts, 86 percent say the world is more dangerous for the U.S., and, most troubling, 87 percent believe that the war in Iraq has had a negative impact on the war on terror. Other surveys have reached similar conclusions.

Yet the President now wants another $235 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan to add to the $427 billion for the war already approved. In this debate, we should listen in particular to the words of Americans who actually served in the war. I am honored to serve in this Congress with new Members Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Patrick Murphy, also of Pennsylvania, all veterans of the Iraq war. Their eloquent and strong voices of firsthand experience add immeasurably to this debate.

There are also people like Captain Lisa Blackman, a clinical psychologist who cared for soldiers in Qatar. As we become increasingly aware of the thousands of soldiers to emerge from firefights or attacks physically unscathed but with substantial emotional damage, Captain Blackman's experience in regularly tending to these soldiers provides further troubling insights into this devastating war.

In a message chronicled in the book Operation Homecoming, Dr. Blackburn wrote of how her patients responded to questions she asked them about their symptoms. She didn't get the expected reactions. They were unexpressive. But when she asked them, "Have you ever been in combat?" they became unglued and burst into tears.

As she described it, "[W]hen I say burst, I mean splatter, tears running . . . sobbing for minutes on end, unable to speak, flat-out grief . . . " She observed, "No one ever feels like they are doing enough. If you are in a safe location, you feel guilty that your friends are getting shot at and you aren't. If you are getting shot at, you feel guilty if your buddy gets hit and you don't. If you get shot at but don't die, you feel guilty that you lived, and more guilty if you get to go home and your friends have to stay behind. I have not seen one person out here who didn't [check off] `increased guilt' on our intake form."

Indeed, every soldier who saw combat or the results of combat has likely suffered hidden but disturbing psychological harm to some extent. In spite of this, the Veterans Administration has been deprived of the critical funds necessary for the rehabilitation of these brave troops. The President, who continues to send more and more troops into the war on the one hand, has sought to reduce spending for medical services for these same troops on the other. His budget reduces spending for VA over the next 3 years.

Our troops are not the only ones suffering from the policies of this administration. All Americans who now oppose the war 2-1 are impacted by the massive cuts in or complete elimination of important social, health, education and environmental programs.

The cost of this war keeps going up, adding to our national debt. The interest on our debt alone is more than we devote to the education of our children, care of our veterans, and for the administration of justice combined. This body must go on record in united and solid opposition to the escalation of the war and in complete support of our soldiers and veterans. We must be resolute in our efforts to bring an end to this quagmire.

As Speaker Pelosi said, "Friday's vote will signal whether the House has heard the American people. No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq.'

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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

Mr. Regula: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans I am frustrated and dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. I did not take my vote lightly when Congress authorized the President to use force. Every day I think about the patriotism and sacrifice of our brave men and women who are serving courageously in harm's way.

Mistakes and the complexity of events along the way have led us to the place we are today. Sectarian violence has increased, and Iraq is mired in a civil war, making it difficult for the new government to take hold.

While our role in this conflict has become a divisive issue, there is no denying the significant consequences Iraq's future will have for national and international security and stability.

So I must ask, how do we move forward in a way that honors the commitment and tremendous sacrifices our Nation and its troops have made? We can do so neither by cutting off funding for the troops nor by providing the President with a blank check.

Instead of political posturing, we must insist on a surge in diplomacy. I believe we need to follow closely the recommendations made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to bring about the best possible outcome. The Iraq Study Group report states, and I quote:

The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region.

This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors. Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.

By doing so, it would help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and interests, and improve America's global image. States included within the diplomatic offensives can play a major role in reinforcing national reconciliation efforts between Iraq, Iraqi Sunnis and Shia. Such reinforcement would contribute substantially to legitimatizing of the political process in Iraq.

Iraq's leaders may not be able to come together unless they receive the necessary signals and support from abroad. This backing will not materialize of its own accord, and it must be encouraged urgently by the United States. We should make it clear to the Iraqi leadership that the additional troops are solely for the purpose of achieving stability, and that this deployment is a precursor to our leading the future of this Nation to the Iraqi people. And I would emphasize this is the important process.

Troop increases alone will not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq if its government is not committed to a national reconciliation process.

However, as we lead a surge in diplomacy, and the Iraqi Government accelerates its efforts at national reconciliation, the Iraq Study Group report makes clear, and I quote, "The United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, embedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat forces out of Iraq."

Denying additional troops, as requested by our military leadership, could put our troops that are there at greater risk and delay their return to their loved ones. I hear from my constituents who want our troops home immediately and from those who want us to remain there so we don't have to fight the terrorists on our own soil.

What I do know is that the challenges in Iraq are complex, and the consequences of immediate withdrawal would be devastating. The Iraq Study Group report goes on to say "The global standing of the United States could be diminished." Our Nation has sacrificed far too much to allow our credibility and values to be weakened.

I cannot, in good faith, support this nonbinding resolution. We also support the troops, and we all want to bring the troops home as quickly as possible.

Let us instead urge the President to increase diplomatic efforts and to follow the recommendations made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to work on many fronts to solve the challenges in Iraq.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, as an Army veteran myself, I know that the backbone of our Army is its noncommissioned officers. Now it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to a former noncommissioned officer who retired after over 2 decades of service in the Army, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Walz of Minnesota: Thank you to my colleague

Mr. Speaker, no debate in this House is longer overdue. This debate has been going on for nearly 4 years in houses, in grocery stores, in workplaces, in houses of worship all across America. No greater responsibility rests with us, the people's Representatives, than debating the decisions involved in waging a war. The decision to send our brave men and women into combat is not the end of our responsibility, it is the beginning. This body has a sacred duty to protect this Nation, our citizens, and especially those we send into combat in our name.

Constant vigilance, questioning, and adjustments to courses of action are our number one priority, and this newly elected Congress intends to do just that.

Some have said that this debate sends a message to our enemies. I would agree. The message our enemies are hearing this week is that democracy in America is alive and well. The message that our enemy is hearing this week is that this Nation will not live in fear of its own shadow and blindly give away those precious liberties that make this the greatest Nation the world has ever known.

The message our enemy is hearing this week is this Nation is able and willing to adjust our tactics to focus on the true threats to our security, which come from al Qaeda, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and by securing our ports and borders.

The message they are hearing is that this Nation is no longer willing to wage a war based on political ideology and failed policy. We will wage it on facts and reality. Many of my colleagues have spoken of the need to support our troops. You will get no debate from me nor any other American. By implying that some do not support the troops based on nothing more than political posturing is cynical and divisive.

For more than two decades, I served with soldiers, airmen, marines, and not once did I ever see these brave men and women as anything other than patriots. I never saw them as a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent or a Libertarian; nor did they see me as anything but a fellow soldier.

The issue that we are debating this week is the execution of this war and the failure of this administration to provide a realistic plan for success. From the start of this war up to this recent plan to send more Americans into Baghdad, this administration has miscalculated, poorly planned, shifted blame and failed to couple our military policies with diplomatic, economic and long-range strategic planning that would have given the soldiers a chance to succeed.

Had the previous Congress done its constitutional duty of oversight and accountability, there is a strong likelihood we would be in much better shape today. Even as foreign policy experts, military experts, the Congress and the American public show an overwhelming desire to change course and oppose this escalation, this administration ignores all evidence and stumbles on. This debate marks the new beginning of this Congress's acceptance of our duty to provide the oversight and bring about policy changes based in reality and facts and long-range security needs of this Nation.

I have taken two oaths in my life. The first one was as a young man of 17 when I swore my allegiance to the Armed Forces of this country. The second was a month ago when I became a United States Congressman. In both cases I solemnly swore my allegiance to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

I swore alliance to no man. I swore no alliance to a political ideology. I swore only to uphold the laws of this great land and protect with my life, if necessary, the liberties and freedoms we so dearly cherish. This debate today is exactly about that oath.

Previous Congresses gave this President the authority to conduct this war in Iraq, which is right, but not the authority to disregard the expert advice, not the authority to take civil liberties from American citizens, and not the authority to disregard our constitutional right in this body as a coequal branch of government.

I, like all Americans, wish nothing more than this President had made good decisions and that the situation in Iraq were better. Unfortunately, wishful thinking does not make good foreign policy. But, fortunately, the genius of the Founders of this Nation are on display right now. This Congress, by taking this first step of oversight and accountability, and passing this resolution, will begin to right the ship of state and take this country on a path that will lead to greater security and begin to return our brave men and women back to their families.

A few short months ago, I was teaching high school. Call me optimistic and naive, but I do not see where casting a vote in this sacred room is anything but binding. Call me naive again when I hear this is nothing but words on paper. How does that differ from the U.S. Constitution?

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit with two soldiers from my old unit, the proud 34th Red Bull Division. Those two young men are out at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Both John and Tony are being fitted with their prosthetic limbs for the other ones they left behind in Iraq.

We spoke of everything from how they were injured, to football, to how to get ready to ski again. I do not know and I do not care about their political ideology. I only care that this Nation honors its commitment by providing everything possible to these brave Americans. Today is the day that I tell Tony and John, we will always support you. We will provide true security to this Nation

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, now the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Hunter: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to say to my colleague who just spoke that I saw also two young men in Walter Reed a couple of days ago, and I would recommend that he talk with them also if he thinks that everybody that is over there supports this resolution.

I would also say to my friend that if you think that the message that is going to go across thousands of Web sites and communications the day after this vote is taken on terrorist Web sites is, our message is that democracy is alive and well in the United States, I am willing to take a bet on that. I do not think you will see that. I think you will see something else.

You will see the message that they think that this resolution, if it is passed, is the first note of retreat in the war against terror by the United States. That is what you will see and I will be happy to take a bet on that one.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I heard just a couple of hours ago, as many of us have, that the Democratic leadership of the House intends to use management policies in the Department of Defense over the next year or so to keep either troops or supplies from moving to the battlefield.

Now, using management policies that will prohibit people from moving in the Marines or the United States Army if they haven't spent enough time back in CONUS before they go, I can say this to you, that is a very, very dangerous policy.

Our ability to project power around the world and to deter people who wish us ill is the ability to move men and equipment very quickly around the world. And any type of an inhibition of that capability is going to be extremely dangerous to the United States. And I will fight with every fiber of my being any attempt by this Congress through management policies by the Democratic leadership, through management policies of DOD to keep either reinforcement or supplies from reaching our troops around the world.

I will simply say once more, I said when we started this debate yesterday, that this resolution will be looked at by America's friends, by America's enemies, and I think also by America's troops; and I think they will interpret it, no matter the good faith of people in this Chamber, they will interpret it as the first notes of retreat in the war against terror, just as they interpreted actions by the Spanish Government after the domestic strike in Spain and the terrorist hit in Spain and in other countries.

They will look at what we have done, and I will be happy to stand with any of my colleagues and analyze those messages as they come off the terrorist boards after this vote is taken. This resolution, if it passes tomorrow, and it probably will, will be taken as the first note of retreat in the war against terror.

Any attempt by the Democrat leadership to cut off supplies or reinforcement by management policies in DOD, personnel policies, will be interpreted as the second note of retreat in the war against terror, and I for one will oppose them very strongly

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, let me reassure my friend I have heard nothing at all about the statement he just made. Those are the kinds of statements, frankly, that confuse people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Yarmuth: Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago I was just like most other Americans, trying to evaluate the President's plan to invade Iraq. Unlike most Americans, I was writing a newspaper column and was expected to take a public position on such a national policy. But like most Americans, I was unburdened by the classified and faulty intelligence provided to Members of Congress.

I concluded and wrote that the claims made to justify the American invasion of Iraq were baseless, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States, that Saddam Hussein was not in any way connected to the 9/11 attacks, and finally that Iraq was not a safe harbor for al Qaeda.

I also concluded and wrote that we were rushing into Iraq with no idea of what we would do after the Iraqi regime fell, and also that we had no plan for getting out. The point of all of this reminiscing is not to show that I was so smart, nor is it to say that I told you so.

Four years later, as our men and women are still dying in Iraq, the American people know everything there is to know about the situation there. We know as much if not more than the President of the United States. And our ideas about the conflict are just as valid.

That is why this resolution is so important and this debate so significant. Tomorrow we will be voting on what may be only a nonbinding resolution, but it is a resounding and unequivocal expression of the National will. This is not simply a group of Congressmen and women explaining their votes. It is the echo of an overwhelming majority of Americans who are demanding a new direction in Iraq.

It is the sound of scores of people like me who were sent here by citizens to turn the ship of state around. During this momentous debate, we have heard from some on the other side of the aisle that this resolution and the discussion we are having somehow undermine our national interest.

I believe they are selling this institution short. We are displaying for the world what a government of the people, by the people and for the people truly looks like. What we are doing here this week speaks far more clearly and loudly than our bullets and our rockets and even our dollars. When the United States Government so clearly and dramatically reflects the will of its citizens, we may not shock the world, but we make it watch in awe.

James Madison wrote that the role of Congress is to expand and refine the public view. He accurately perceived that on most issues Americans assume that their representatives will consider their opinions and work out the details. In the present situation, I believe the American people are shouting at us that it is time to get our men and women out of harm's way in Iraq.

I will cast my vote not simply to oppose the President's escalation, but as a statement that this Congress will no longer abdicate its responsibility to expand and refine the public view.

Mr. Speaker, today I am as confident about my position as I was 4 years ago. I am confident because I have listened to those who oppose this resolution. I hear only disingenuous rhetoric. The other side accuses us of trying to micromanage the Iraqi conflict, then says we should have our own plan.

They say that we are dishonoring our fallen heroes, but then offer no strategy for honoring them other than to simply send more brave soldiers in their place. They continue to talk about victory and defeat, while virtually everyone agrees that we could never identify or define either.

They say this resolution is an empty political gesture, and then say it is tantamount to surrender. What they do not give us, and more importantly what the President of the United States has not given us, are any reasons to believe that we are succeeding in Iraq, that the current plans increase the odds of our success, that we are any closer to eliminating the threat of terrorism, or finally that the United States is enhancing its image around the world as the beacon of freedom.

We who support this resolution honor and respect our troops. We care deeply about the international reputation of our country. We are unequivocally committed to our Nation's security, and we desperately want America to succeed. By supporting this resolution, we undeniably succeed, because we honor our Nation and its citizens who have entrusted us with the simple, but grave, responsibility to listen to them.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Petri: Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote for this resolution, but to surge or not to surge, that is the wrong question. Just saying "no" is simple obstructionism. What we need is a new way forward to replace the old way that is not getting us anywhere. It has become clear that trying to establish a multiethnic Iraqi democracy, while laudable, simply cannot be accomplished by non-Iraqis.

The fact is, Iraq has never been a unified country with enough common interest to foster the give and take of democracy. During the First World War, Britain seized the Mesopotamian region from the collapsing Ottoman Empire. Iraq was created out of three separate provinces to keep the Turks out while allowing the British access to the local oil.

Captain Arnold Wilson, the British civil commissioner in Baghdad, argued that the creation of the new state was a recipe for disaster. He warned that the deep differences among the three main communities, the Sunni, Shia and Kurds, ensured the new country could only be run by what he called the antithesis of democratic government.

After a rebellion in 1920, which resulted in the deaths of some 2,000 British soldiers and 8,000 Iraqis, the British, through the leadership of Secretary of War Winston Churchill, largely extricated themselves by choosing a Sunni to be king and strongman.

In light of this history, we should seriously consider that we have two basic options:

First, choose a faction to stabilize and rule the country through force, much as all of Iraq's previous regimes did, and that is hardly an attractive option.

Or, second, bring about a partition of the country, to form a loose confederation where the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds can each govern themselves while leaving the others alone.

Our enterprise in Iraq has been carried out with the best of intentions, and our men and women in the Armed Forces have performed with great heroism, skill, and honor. But we have to accept reality. We have a responsibility to help stabilize the situation, and doing so is in our national interest.

But I don't think it is fair to ask our sons and daughters to be policemen in a civil war. Sadly, it seems that most Iraqis do not embrace democratic government unless it is dominated exclusively by their own individual groups.

The Sunnis, the Shia and the Kurds are willing and able to establish law and order within their own ethnically homogenous areas. The efforts to push out other areas currently underway in Iraq are deplorable, but it is surely not unexpected given Iraq's history and desperate situation.

The sectarian militias have popular support because they have easily understood plans to establish security within their spheres for their own people. Instead of fighting the militias, we need to co-opt them. We need to help acceptable local tribal leaders, government leaders and religious authorities establish authority over their areas.

We also need to seek the positive involvement of Iraq's neighbors. Some of them may be meddling, or may be tempted to meddle, but at the end of the day, instability in Iraq means instability for everybody in the region.

Let's set about the task of helping Iraq's three main groups to regroup and stabilize their own territories so that we can withdraw to our bases and ultimately get out all together.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio, Representative Betty Sutton.

Ms. Sutton: Mr. Speaker, throughout the course of history, when our Nation has faced its most significant debates over matters of war, there comes a time when voices of pundits and politicians must drop away and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

Our troops are brave and capable. They have fought heroically and this resolution makes it unequivocally clear that those of us who feel it incumbent to oppose the President's escalation nonetheless support our troops. All of us, and all Americans, support our troops.

But Congress also has an oversight responsibility to ensure that they are provided a mission based on a realistic assessment and an achievable goal before we ask them to risk life and limb to implement it.

The President has asked Congress to support his escalation plan to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq.

This war is now almost 4 years long. Congress has not spoken as loudly and as clearly as its responsibility requires. As the Representative of the 13th District of Ohio, I cannot sit silent. I oppose the President's plan for escalation and I fully support this resolution.

The President's own military commanders have advised against this course of action, and in November, my constituents and the American people voted for a change of direction in Iraq. Escalation is directly contradictory to that call for change. It takes us further down the wrong path, deeper and deeper, with a policy that asks our military to perform a nonmilitary mission of creating a unified government in Iraq.

But unity in Iraq has to be determined by the people who live there. It is neither fair nor just to ask our troops to fix a sectarian civil war.

Our Nation has paid a high price: the lives of 3,000 American troops lost; $379 billion spent, with another $8 billion every month of this war.

These lives cannot be retrieved; 139 brave men and women from Ohio have been killed, 14 from my district. I have a responsibility to every one of those casualties and to every one that might lie ahead, to represent their voices, especially those that can no longer be heard.

In early August 2005, Lance Corporal Edward "Augie" Schroeder II was killed in Iraq. Augie and 13 other young lives from Northeast Ohio were lost that day. In January 2006, Augie's father, Paul Schroeder, shared his thoughts and feelings in a letter to the Washington Post entitled, "A Life Wasted." He said, "Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths as if it is too dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places like Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in `the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices.' "

Wiping the clinical talk away, Paul Schroeder went on to share the painful reality that he and his family face, a reality that cannot be understood when sanitized by clinical terms. He said, "Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune we received a book of his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone, using CPR as a First Aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time."

Mr. Speaker, the growing opposition to the war in Iraq must not be whispered, hands covering mouths as if it is too dangerous to speak too loudly. Accountability and oversight require more. This resolution rings loud and clear. We support our troops and we oppose the President's plan to escalate in Iraq.

Will the President hear our collective voice? If he does not, it will not be because we sat silent

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)

Mr. Ehlers: Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in opposition to this resolution. I say "reluctantly" because I had hoped to be able to vote in favor of something positive, a fresh perspective, a new idea, a new pathway to success, anything to encourage and foster a positive outcome in the Iraq conflict. But this resolution offers none of these things. It is a simple, almost meaningless, nonbinding statement of disapproval that provides no constructive resolve on this daunting, yet critical mission.

My opposition is both procedural and substantive. I am extremely disappointed that we only have this one simplistic, inadequate statement before us for consideration. No alternatives, no other ideas, no solutions. The situation in Iraq is complicated, and the American people deserve far more from Congress than a resolution that essentially calls for the status quo.

The resolution opposes the troop surge called for by the Commander in Chief, but fails to offer or even allow for consideration of any alternatives aimed at achieving success in Iraq, nor does it offer an alternative aimed at a reduction of troops.

Note: transcript is now from Congressional Record pg H1725 DOCID:cr15fe07-101

There are other ideas out there worthy of consideration and discussion, yet we are not debating those, including those suggested by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. For example, the study group concluded that there is no single action that the military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq. I agree with that assessment. Regardless of a troop surge, I believe a positive outcome in Iraq requires regional cooperation and positive engagement with all of Iraq's neighboring states.

A case can be made for a troop surge, but even more, we need a surge in diplomacy to create an environment conducive for a lasting peace throughout the Middle East. The history of the region is too diverse, too complex, and too tumultuous to expect progress without an integrated diplomatic effort and multinational support. Of course, this simple resolution before us offers no perspective on these matters.

In a few weeks, this body will have the opportunity to vote on funding for ongoing operations in Iraq. Forget today's resolution; the vote on the supplemental funding bill is where the real debate will occur, and the policies will be laid forth. Make no mistake, a cutoff of funds and a premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq will produce even greater sectarian violence, further deterioration of security conditions, and would foment a terrorist breeding ground for radical Islamists. We, the Members of Congress, must give our troops the resources they need to carry out their critical mission to a successful conclusion.

In closing, let me say that we all unequivocally support the troops who are serving and who have served in Iraq, and we all deeply appreciate their efforts to carry out their duties. Every day I think about the 3,000-plus American troops who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I pray for their families, as well as for our troops that are there now. I think about the thousands more who have been injured, and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens who have been killed or injured as a result of this conflict. We must do all we can to ensure that those casualties were not suffered in vain. Above all, we must seek to end this conflict and stop the casualties.

Simply put, the resolution we are debating offers no path to success, and that is why I oppose it.