---

Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157, I demand an additional hour of debate on the concurrent resolution.

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Boucher): Thirty minutes of debate will be added on the concurrent resolution to each side.

Hour of Meeting on Tomorrow

Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on this legislative day, it adjourn to meet at 8 a.m. tomorrow.

The Speaker pro tempore: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection.

Legislative Program

Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, continuing on my unanimous consent, I would tell the Members that we do not intend to have any 1-minutes tomorrow, so that we will begin debate at 8 a.m. on this resolution.

Debate, of course, will conclude tonight at 1 a.m. so that the staff can get at least some sleep; not much, but some. And we will have continuing communications with the minority with reference to the balance of the schedule for Friday.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Mahoney of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I normally rise to speak on behalf of the people of Florida's 16th Congressional District. Today I rise to begin a conversation not only with my colleagues, but with my constituents.

This week, this legislative body, the people's House, is engaged in a great debate over the President's decision to stay the course in Iraq by escalating the number of troops. I have, over the past few days, heard many arguments as to the wisdom of the President's decision to do so. But the one message that all who have spoken agree with, Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, is that our brave men and women in uniform have done a magnificent job fighting in Iraq and around the world to protect our lives, our culture, and our country.

I have heard my colleagues argue that the mere act of debating the President's decision to escalate the war sends the wrong message to our troops and the wrong message to our enemies. To these colleagues I say do not underestimate the power of democracy, the power of freedom of speech, the very powers we are fighting to give the people of Iraq. Debate sends the message of strength, resolve, and commitment. This debate is about finding the best way for America to win the war on terror.

I agree with the President that the world is a dangerous place and we need to take the war to the terrorists and those who support terror. But I disagree with the President that by sending more troops to police a civil war in Iraq, America is any closer to winning the war on terror. I come to this conclusion as a result of consultations with our military leaders, our diplomats, and those in the White House responsible for executing the President's policies. I come to this conclusion from talking to our men and women in uniform who have served with distinction.

Democracy can only happen when a people want it. We have seen time and again that a people who yearn for democracy will break the yoke of tyranny and liberate themselves from their oppressors. America has invested lives of over 3,000 of its best young men and women, sustained over 20,000 casualties, and spent nearly $400 billion on the Iraq war. We have rid the Iraqi people of a cruel tyrant and have given them the opportunity to live in a democracy. American men and women securing a street corner in Sadr City will not change the hearts of the Sunni or Shia. Additional troops will not secure democracy. Only the men and women of Iraq can do that. Now is the time for the Iraqi people to stand and demand democracy.

It is time for America to move forward in our fight against terror. It is time to focus on eliminating terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever they are harbored. It is time to bring Osama bin Laden to justice for the crimes he perpetrated on 9/11.

We need to gather our strength and send a clear message to our enemies that their continued efforts to support terror and engage in activity against America or her allies will result in certain and swift justice.

This President needs to do what his father did in the first gulf war and what President Clinton did in the Balkans, and that is to demonstrate leadership by engaging in diplomacy. This President needs to listen to the sage advice of the Baker-Hamilton Commission and use America's power and prestige to bring the world together in support of the Iraqi people. The world needs to know that America will provide a democratic Iraq, and those who support her, with political, economic, and military support.

I want my friends in Stuart, Okeechobee, Sebring, LaBelle, and Punta Gorda to know that I am here today because democracy requires us to speak up and speak out and you deserve to have a voice in this debate. In speaking out, I am supporting our President by letting him know that we are committed to winning the war on terror, but that we will not support his strategy to increase escalation of the troops in Iraq and that America will not quit until we have vanquished all who use terror to achieve political gain.

We want the Iraqi people to know that this is their moment to grasp democracy; and should they choose to do so, the American people will continue to support them and their efforts to build a better life for their children.

Tomorrow, my colleagues and I will take the important first step in showing the President that we support our troops, but do not support his plan to invest more American lives to mediate a civil war.

Make no mistake, this vote is binding, as it binds me and my colleagues to our constituents by forcing us to take a stand.

Mr. Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mrs. Biggert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this nonbinding resolution. I cannot support it for it neither supports our troops nor offers an alternative plan. It is symbolic, it is partisan, it is cynical, and it is meaningless.

The leadership of this body is taking the easy route: criticize the other guy's plan but don't offer your own. Call up your own nonbinding resolution, but don't allow votes on resolutions that actually have substance. Position yourselves for the next elections but not for the next wave of terrorism attacks. Win the White House, but lose the war on terror.

There is no doubt that the voters spoke in the last election. They are not happy with the war. Few, if any of us, are satisfied with the progress made in Iraq. I know I am not. Neither are my constituents. Their patience and that of all Americans has run thin.

For too long we pursued an open-ended commitment without well-defined goals and clear benchmarks for success. We also pursued a strategy that placed too heavy a burden on our troops and too light an expectation of the Iraqi Government. But I want to remind my colleagues that the voters will speak again if we don't get this right. And I say "we" because it is all of us. If we don't put aside the partisan positioning and work together for the good of this country, we all will lose more than just our seats in this body.

It is not enough to point the finger and say that the President is wrong, and wait for the returns to come in. It is not enough to disapprove and criticize and say It is not my job. He is the Commander in Chief. And it is not enough to turn around and through this resolution say you support troops that have been or are serving in Iraq, but not those who may go in as replacements, rotations, or as part of the new temporary deployment. This is why we should be using this opportunity, not to take a symbolic vote of no confidence in our Commander in Chief, but to discuss real options for the way forward in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I have been there several times. I have been to the red zone, visited the convention center where the Iraqi Parliament meets, and was there as Prime Minister Maliki presented his reconciliation plan. I met with our military commanders. I have listened to our soldiers who patrol the streets in Baghdad, and I have talked with democratically elected Iraqi leaders about their hopes for the future. The one thing that was very clear to me is that only the Iraqi Government can take the tough steps that will achieve reconciliation and an end to sectarian violence.

So now Prime Minister Maliki has stepped forward and asked our President for specific assistance in securing Baghdad. In response, President Bush's commanders have drawn up a plan. The President proposed a new commander on the ground, General Petraeus, who was confirmed by the other body in a bipartisan, unanimous vote of 81-0.

We urged the creation of a bipartisan Iraqi Study Group comprised of our country's most distinguished and seasoned experts and asked their advice. Among the key items they supported was a temporary surge in troop strength if called for by the commanders on the ground. "As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq," they pointed out.

These are all steps in the right direction. But what would approving this resolution signal to the world? That we tell the Iraqi people to take the tough steps, but then we deny them the support they need to do so? That we urge the creation of a bipartisan commission to give us guidance and then reject its advice? That we unanimously confirm a new general on the ground and then we deny him his plan? That we support our troops, but not their replacements?

These are not the messages that I want to send. We owe it to our troops and to those who have given their lives to give the Iraqis one last chance to show that they are willing to fight for and take responsibility for the future of their own country. But we have to exercise our constitutional powers and hold them to it, and we have to stop signaling that the best Congress can offer is a big, nonbinding "no" to someone else's plan.

So today I am cosponsoring legislation, H.R. 1062, that will do just that: hold the administration, and the Iraqi Government, accountable in achieving clear benchmarks. It requires the President to report to Congress every 30 days on the extent to which the government of Iraq is moving forward on more than a dozen fronts, from troop training and security to rebuilding, reconciliation, international cooperation, and enforcing the rule of law. It also requires progress reports on the implementation of strategies that will prevent Iraqi territory from becoming a safe haven for terrorist activities.

Most significantly, H.R. 1062 exercises the full constitutional powers of this body, not through a symbolic expression of discontent, but through vigorous oversight and true accountability.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1062 and reject the resolution before us.

Mr. Reyes: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to a breath of fresh air from Arizona, my good friend Mr. Harry Mitchell.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that regardless of any differences of opinion over military strategy in Iraq, we all agree that the outcome in Iraq will affect our national security and the security and stability of the Middle East for generations to come.

I was not a Member of this distinguished body in October of 2002 when many of my colleagues were faced with the decision of whether to authorize the President to go to war in Iraq. But 4 years later, I was elected by the people of my district who asked me and this Congress to set a new course in Iraq because it is clear to them that the administration's course is not working.

That is not to say there has not been some success. Our troops have performed bravely and succeeded in their mission to end Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. The Iraqi people exercised their new-found right to vote, and those who murdered innocent Iraqis have been given fair trials and justice has been served.

But since the initial military victory, political, diplomatic, and economic failure has become widespread. Today, sectarian violence is at an all-time high, and American troops are now caught in the middle of a civil war.

Now the administration is engaging in a military escalation of the war. They tried this strategy before and it didn't work. It didn't work because we need more than a military strategy. We need political and economic solutions too. We need a strategy that employs all of the elements of national power to ultimately put the Iraqis in charge of their own security and stability.

So far a military strategy has not solved the problems we have in Iraq. So far a military strategy has not brought Sunnis and Shiites together to maintain a unified government and a peaceful political environment. We know that a military strategy alone cannot create commerce and jobs for the Iraqi people. A military strategy alone cannot rebuild the basic infrastructure that has been destroyed over the past 4 years. A military strategy must be combined with sufficient political, diplomatic, and economic components. But that is not happening here.

I disagree with many of my colleagues in this Chamber who support the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. We have heard from too many generals, including those who have spoken out against this escalation, about the dangers of even more violence and instability in the Middle East if we simply withdraw. I do believe American troops have a role in Iraq, a supporting role. They should continue to train Iraqi soldiers, and their mission must ultimately be to put the Iraqis in charge of their own security and stability. But let me be clear: American troops have no place in the middle of a civil war.

This resolution reaffirms this body's support for the men and women of the United States military. Many of our troops have given their lives or suffered serious injury so that one day the people of Iraq may enjoy the same freedoms we have here in the United States. Their service and their sacrifice make me even more proud to be an American.

I hope and pray that we can have all of our brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan return safely to their families. But while they are in harm's way, we must honor their service by ensuring that the burden of success or failure is not left to them alone. We have a responsibility to utilize every political, diplomatic, and economic tool at our disposal to ensure success in Iraq.

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

Mr. Smith of Texas: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, this nonbinding resolution is really a nonsensical political statement. It would deprive our troops of the reinforcements they desperately need. Let us trust their judgment and give them the reinforcements they want.

How would you feel if you were an American soldier in Iraq and Congress passed this resolution? It is like telling you to fight with one arm behind your back, and that is no way to defeat a terrorist.

It is our responsibility to assist our troops, not discourage them by ignoring their needs. This political resolution shortchanges our generals and their troops. Instead, we should support those who are sacrificing their lives to protect ours.

Our men and women in uniform desire only to serve their country with honor. Rather than deny them what they want, we should give them the resources they deserve.

Unfortunately, many terrorists hate our country, our citizens, our freedoms and our way of life. The global war on terror is fierce; this is no time to appear weak. London, Moscow, Madrid and six other cities around the world have suffered terrorist attacks since 9/11, but there is a reason no terrorist attack has occurred in America since 2001. It is not because some would second-guess our military; it is because our troops want to win, and we should give them that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and send the troops this message: We are here to help you.

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

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

Mr. Levin: Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution before the House.

We need to send a clear bipartisan message to the White House. There is little support in this Congress for deepening our open-ended military commitment in Iraq by sending an additional 21,000 troops into this conflict.

The debate we are having today is about the future of our Nation's policy in Iraq, so my main focus will not be to catalog the litany of the administration's past grave mistakes and misstatements over the last 4 years. At the same time, as a lesson for the future, it is important to remember that the war in Iraq was the first application of the Bush Doctrine. This policy was unveiled by the President in his commencement speech at West Point in June 2002 and made policy a few months later in the administration's 2002 National Security Strategy.

The administration's doctrine stressed preemptive attack, U.S. military superiority, and U.S. unilateral action. This flawed policy has proven to be disastrous. It has destabilized Iraq, and threatens to undermine the stability of the entire region. It blinded the administration to the Pandora's box it was opening when it invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist and 9/11 terrorists that were not there.

Far from strengthening U.S. security, this misguided doctrine has put our Nation's vital interests at greater risk. The elevation of unilateralism has helped erode our Nation's standing in the world. The released NIE Estimate for Iraq underscores just how flawed the administration's doctrine has been. Among the key judgment, I quote, "Iraqi society's growing polarization, the persistent weakening of the security forces and of the state in general." And again I quote, "Extremists continue to act as a very effective accelerator for what has become a self-sustaining intersectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis." And now I quote again. "The Intelligence Community judges that the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq."

The judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate reinforce the view that a military solution in Iraq is not possible. The administration has attempted troop surges in the past. They haven't worked. Adding another 21,000 American troops will not put an end to violence and instability in Iraq. The only chance to do that is for Iraq's leaders and factions to come together and begin the difficult process of political compromise and reconciliation.

I believe that announcing the orderly redeployment of U.S. forces is the best way to put pressure on the factions in Iraq to come together and make these difficult choices.

This resolution is straightforward. It states clearly and unambiguously that Congress does not support the President's plan. It supports our military personnel but not a further military escalation.

Some have said it is not serious because it is nonbinding. Others have said the resolution emboldens our enemies and hurts the troops. How does it embolden our enemies or hurt the troops for this Congress to disapprove continuing a strategy that is not working?

The resolution we are debating today is nonbinding, but is not nonconsequential. I hope the administration will hear the clear bipartisan message we are sending and change course.

The question today before the House is whether or not we agree with the President's plan to send 21,000 additional troops to Iraq to referee a growing civil war. I do not agree with this escalation. I urge all my colleagues to join in calling on the President to change course in Iraq

Mr. Hunter: Madam Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mrs. Musgrave: I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this nonbinding resolution. This is not even an honest debate that we are holding here; we didn't have an open rule. This is the wrong resolution; it sends the wrong message to our troops, to our enemies and to our allies.

Today, like many Members of Congress do on a regular basis, I visited Walter Reed. While I was there today, I visited with a young man from my district. He had severe injuries. As I sat and talked to him, his empty eye socket teared. He had damage to his face. He had horrific damage to his arm that he used to protect his face. He was in a Humvee when an IED exploded, and he actually turned the Humvee towards the IED to protect the other men in the Humvee. His sacrifice is incredible.

I talked to another young man from Pennsylvania who had been on three tours in Iraq, and on his third tour, while training, he lost his hand.

I also spoke to a young man from Texas, only 20 years old; and this young man had severe injuries, specifically to his arm.

So we all know that the cost of war is very high. Many of us Members of Congress have also attended funerals and wept with mothers and fathers, families. People in my age group look at these young soldiers and they are the age of our kids. It touches our hearts, and we know the sacrifices that are made are incredible. These people need to feel the gratitude from the entire Nation, gratitude and respect. And I believe that this resolution, again, sends the wrong message.

What is not being considered adequately in this country is the cost of failure in Iraq. When we think about our enemies being emboldened, when we think about the vast resources that our enemies will have access to acquire biological and nuclear weapons, the horrific effects are just almost immeasurable.

As I think about this cost of failure in Iraq, and indeed, on the global war on terror, I think about how we Americans make an assumption. We assume, most of us, when we go to bed at night that when we wake up, tomorrow is going to be like today, that things are going to go on like they have gone on and we will have the liberties and the freedoms that we enjoy. But I would say this wonderful thing that we have in the United States of America, these freedoms and liberties, are very fragile. They are very fragile when we face radical jihadists that would murder us, thinking that it will take them straight to paradise.

We have to fight this war on terror. We have to win in Iraq. I talked to a retired general yesterday, and I believe he said it all. He said, "You're down there debating, aren't you? You're talking about the united-we-quit resolution." I believe that we have a choice: United we stand or united we quit, and our choice will echo down the halls of history.

Mr. Reyes: Madam Speaker, now it is my privilege to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Ellison: Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it, the change that took place in this body over the course of November 7 is directly related to this war in Iraq. And the presence of a number of people who are here now is directly related to the will of the American people to end this war, which never should have been started.

The fact is, the strategy to escalate the troops is not new, it has been tried at least four other times. It won't work this time, it didn't work those times. The thing to do now is to engage diplomatically and politically. That is what this situation calls for and that is the only thing that will bring success in this conflict at this time.

Support the troops? Of course. Of course, support the troops. Always we support the troops. But there comes a time when you cannot get the success that you seek at the barrel of a gun, you have to talk it out, you have to engage diplomatically, you have to engage politically. There is no substitute for that.

Support the troops, but bring them home. Support the troops, redeploy them, and allow the Iraqi people to seize and protect their country at this time.

I carry a message here today on behalf of people like Phil Steger and the Friends For a Nonviolent World, on behalf of Chapter 27 of Veterans For Peace, on behalf of every patriot who stands for peace, in the frigid cold, every Wednesday night on Lake Street Bridge in Minneapolis.

On behalf of the 3,100 Americans killed, including Minnesotans, I carry that message. On behalf of 24,000 scarred and wounded young Americans, including 372 Minnesotans, I carry the message. On behalf of the families and the loved ones of the damaged and deceased, I carry the message that the American soldier has done what has been asked, and it is time for politicians to step forward and do their job, which is to seek a political and diplomatic solution to this conflict, something that this latest escalation cannot do.

On behalf of the $8 billion we send to Iraq each month, hard-working American tax dollars that could be used to enrich the lives of the 86,000 uninsured children of Minnesota, or for nearly the 700,000 Minnesota Medicare patients, I carry the message that we need peace. We need to pursue it vigorously, unwaveringly, and urgently.

On behalf of the Americans who purposefully misled repeatedly, including the administration as related to these weapons of mass destruction where none existed, on behalf of the people who claim falsely of the collusion between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein where none existed, on behalf of the people who said that regime change would be welcomed with flowers instead of IEDs, I say stop the deception, start telling the truth.

On behalf of the people who say that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for this war instead of draining the American Treasury of over $400 billion, I say stop the deception, start telling the truth.

On behalf of those Americans who told us, repeatedly, facts which got us into this war in the first place, and which they are trying to sustain us in this war now, I say stop the deception. Stop the killing. Stop the carnage. Support our troops, do not support this escalation. Send a clear signal to the President that this is the wrong way to go.

For 6 years now, while the deception has deepened, we were told to shut up, bite your tongues, you are not as patriotic as me, you don't love America as much as I do. None of that is true. We have to stop this polarizing language and really focus on the best way out of this.

Even people who support the escalation can't claim that we are going to be in Iraq forever. What is your plan for eventually getting out of this thing? We say let's start the withdrawal now, let's start the diplomatic solution now, let's start the political solution now.

I want to say, on behalf of those who really thirst for peace, who believe that peace really is the answer, that we need to look at the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., when he spoke out against the Vietnam War. He said, "There comes a time when silence is betrayal." And so it is.

And so, in keeping in line with the legacy of Dr. King, I want to talk about peace today. To those people who believe in the principles of peace and that peaceful dissent that guided Dr. King, those people should know that for you to raise your voice on behalf of peace is a patriotic act, it is a good thing.

To those people who say they believe in peace and believe peace is the right way to go, let me wrap up my remarks by just reminding you that Marine General Peter Pace, somebody who knows a little bit about warfare, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just last week said, There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy, period. He added, Potential enemies of the United States, they may take comfort in rancor, but they do not know anything about how democracy works. The fact is that peace is patriotic. Dissenting from an ill-fated policy of the President is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is our obligation.

So please continue to stand up for peace and never forget that peace is the answer, and peace is going to prevail.

Mr. Hunter: Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to give some information that my great friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), commented on.

I made a comment a few minutes ago that I had understood that the Democrat leadership or a member of that leadership had stated that they would use DOD management policies to cut off the sending of either reinforcements or supplies to the warfighting theater and that I would oppose that very strongly.

My friend Mr. Reyes expressed doubt that that had happened. He said he had not heard about it.

I just wanted to inform him I have the Reuters report here, and it quotes our colleague Mr. Murtha: "A leading congressional opponent of the war in Iraq on Thursday said his plans for placing conditions on how President George W. Bush can spend $93.4 billion in new combat funds would effectively stop an American troop buildup." This is quoting Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Murtha says: "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training, and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind."

That is the statement upon which I based my remarks a few minutes ago. It appears that statement has been made.

Mr. Reyes: Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Hunter: I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Reyes: Did I hear you say that you spoke with Mr. Murtha?

Mr. Hunter: What is my friend's statement?

Mr. Reyes: I would just say that many times, my good friend and I have discussed not to quote members of the media because most of the time they get it wrong. So I would wait until we talk to Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Hunter: Let me just say to my friend that I hope that this is a misquote; but, certainly, there was a press conference, and these are the quotes that are reported in the transcript by the press. So let us hope that that is not accurate. If it is not accurate, I will be very happy. If it is accurate, that will receive enormous opposition from this Member of Congress.

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

Mr. Whitfield: Madam Speaker, I believe that the American people welcome this debate on Iraq, certainly one of the most important issues facing the American people, and I believe we will all benefit from open, constructive, and sincere debate.

It goes without saying that no one Member of Congress or political party has a clear-cut solution to the complex problems our Nation faces in Iraq.

I expect that every Member of Congress will share their thoughts on whether we should approve or disapprove this 100-word resolution; and like every other Member of Congress, I offer and convey my respect, gratitude and thanks for the exemplary service and heart-rendering sacrifice made by our young men and women in the military. As so many have said, they have performed in an exemplary way, and they have accomplished every task we have asked them to do.

I have had the great privilege of representing Ft. Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne Division and the 5th Special Forces group who have served many times in Iraq.

Throughout this debate many speakers have quoted generals and other experts who have disagreed emphatically with many aspects of the military decisions and strategic decisions about Iraq. We know there have been and continue to be strong disagreements among those who have been intimately involved in this issue.

We have as a Nation endured so much. As has been said, over 3,000 American soldiers have died, and 23,417 have been wounded during the past 4 years in Iraq.

While I understand the arguments of those who support this resolution, I would like to briefly explain why I believe we should vote against this resolution.

Neither President Bush, Speaker Pelosi or any Member of Congress will have as much opportunity to maximize the possibility of success in Iraq as our new military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. He is responsible, with the men and women serving, for implementing the increased security for Baghdad. He was confirmed for this new responsibility by a vote of 81-0 in the U.S. Senate on January 26, 2007, a mere 20 days ago.

At his confirmation hearing, among other statements, General Petraeus said, "Some of the members of this committee have observed that there is no military solution to the problem of Iraq." And he said, "They are correct."

Ultimate success in Iraq will be determined by actions in the Iraqi political and economic arenas on central issues as governance, the amount of power devolved to the provinces, the distribution of oil revenue, national reconciliation, and resolution of sectarian differences.

And then he went on to say, and this is key, It is, however, exceedingly difficult for the Iraqi Government to come to grips with the tough issues it must resolve while mere survival is the primary concern of so many in Iraq's capital.

For this reason, military action to improve security, while not wholly sufficient to solve Iraq's problems, is certainly necessary, and that is why additional U.S. and Iraqi forces are needed in Baghdad. They do have a role.

General Petraeus and our military have been asked to implement this additional security. He was confirmed to do this, as I said, just 20 days ago. Are we going to turn our backs and abandon General Petraeus and his soldiers this early? Are we going to say "no" without an adequate opportunity for the new strategy to work?

In truth, no one can predict the impact of a failed Iraqi state on regional stability, the international economy, the global war on terror, American security, stability in the Middle East and the lives of the Iraqi people. Twenty days is simply not enough time.

I would also like to remind the Members that on page 23 of the Iraq Study Group it says quite clearly, "We could support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad," and that is what we are trying to do.

In my view, it is premature to vote "yes" on this resolution, only 20 days after confirming a new general to go to Iraq to provide additional security in Baghdad so that the Iraqi Government will have a reasonable opportunity to succeed

Mr. Reyes: Madam Speaker, now it is my privilege to yield 5½ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Ms. Eshoo: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, it has been a long and painful 4-year journey for the people of our country since this administration acted preemptively and unilaterally to invade and occupy Iraq, policies which I believe then and I still believe today would not and could not stand because they simply are not in our national character.

We were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. None were found.

We were told there was yellow cake. It was a falsehood.

We were told that there were trailers containing the evidence of deadly chemicals.

We were told the mission was accomplished.

We endured national and international shame when the horrific pictures depicting Abu Ghraib appeared.

We learned that our troops were not sufficiently equipped.

We mourned with our constituents as the death toll of American troops mounted and continued to mount. Just think, 137 casualties in November of 2004, then the deadliest month overall. Today, over 3,000 precious U.S. lives have been lost, with thousands maimed and injured and God knows how many innocent Iraqi lives lost.

We witnessed the world community's total support on 9/11, and we have witnessed the diminishment of America's credibility around the world because of the Iraq war.

We have heard the President and the Vice President talk about victory and insurgency in its last throes.

We have learned of manipulated intelligence and endured a no- oversight Congress.

Preemptive war, unilateralism, invasion, occupation, no post-war plan, an insurgency born of our blunders, and arrogance instead of reality.

Meanwhile, military experts, Generals Abizaid, Odom, Powell, and distinguished civilian leaders have called for change, a new strategy, and the urgency of diplomatic and political engagement, all to no avail.

One of the central findings of the recent NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, highlighted the lack of effective Iraqi leadership as a main component driving sectarian and communal violence.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, appointed by the President, reported the utter urgency of action by the administration.

Retired General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan and member of the National Security Council under President Carter, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post on February 11.

I would ask that it be made part of the Record

He identified the shortcomings of the administration's Iraq policy and presented some of the clearest and most prescient thinking on the issue to date.

He places in stark relief what many of our colleagues refuse to accept, that the preemptive, unilateral course set by the President is not a strategy for success in Iraq.

He says: "The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain.

"Second," he says, "we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East.

"Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening `regime change,' using the hysterical rhetoric of the `global war on terrorism' all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East.

"Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability."

So many experts, so many respected leaders, so many voices of patriots, and their critical analysis ignored.

Madam Speaker, in the preamble to our Constitution, three magnificent words lead the document: "We, the people." The people of our Nation made the clearest and most important solemn judgment on Iraq in last November's election. They said, in overwhelming numbers, to change the direction of this war, to de-escalate, not escalate.

That is exactly what this debate is about. We pay tribute to and support our troops who honor our country with their service. We say, as the American people have said, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Herger: Madam Speaker, I hope we all can recognize the profound importance of our mission in Iraq. History surely will. The mission in Iraq will impact our national security for decades to come.

The United States seeks a region of stability and peace to create a more secure world for our children and grandchildren. Al Qaeda seeks a region of terror and bloodshed.

The President believes victory in Iraq is key to victory on the war on terror. Al Qaeda believes our defeat in Iraq is key to its vision of violent Islamic rule. Our security is clearly at risk.

Americans are frustrated by the current situation in Iraq. We have witnessed the removal of a historic dictator, yet our men and women in uniform remain at risk. We have witnessed historic democratic elections, yet those elected have not yet brought security. We have been told about the progress we have experienced in training Iraqi security forces, yet violence continues to rage.

With growing uneasiness, we have watched a back and forth tug of war between progress and setback, and we mourn the loss of every single brave American who has fallen during this mission.

Madam Speaker, I share this frustration and sorrow. Yet I believe we must not allow our frustrations to blind us to the need for victory over radical jihadists. This House must work together in addressing the challenges in Iraq, because the outcome will be closely linked to our own national security for years to come.

Regrettably, the resolution before us does nothing to enhance this security. It does not offer a solution to the challenges in Iraq. It does not recognize the magnitude of the failure. And it does not recognize the nature of our enemies. For these reasons I strongly oppose it.

Madam Speaker, we know terrorists friendly to bin Laden are among the enemy in Iraq. Even before the fall of Saddam's regime, the terrorist mastermind Zarqawi had sought refuge in Iraq. His network of terror grew rapidly. Bin Laden's top deputy applauded his actions and counseled him on achieving dominance in the region. Although Zarqawi himself can no longer do harm, al Qaeda in Iraq remains a threat to our security.

An American defeat in Iraq would embolden the terrorists like no event before, bolstering bin Laden's view that America is weak. Al Qaeda would enjoy more than just a morale boost; they would have a new operational base to plot attacks against Americans and train new recruits. An American defeat in Iraq would almost certainly bring forth a government that turns a blind eye towards terrorism. This, Madam Speaker, would be catastrophic to our national security.

An American defeat in Iraq would also generate unspeakable chaos in the Middle East. The dangerous regime in Iran is already seeking to capitalize on what it perceives as our weakness. Iran is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons, and its fanatical president has publicly said that he wishes to destroy America and Israel. Syria would also take advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq, further destabilizing the Middle East. What is good for hostile regimes like Iran and Syria can be devastating for America's security.

In closing, Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism, and its future will greatly influence our future security. An American victory would foster stability in a volatile region and provide a resounding defeat for terror.

For these reasons, we must give the President's new plan in Iraq a chance to succeed. Our resolve must override our frustrations. Our support for the remarkable members of our Armed Forces must be unwavering. And our determination in fighting radical jihadists who want to kill us and our families must never run dry. Madam Speaker, that determination must never run dry

Mr. Reyes: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Ruppersberger: I thank you, Chairman Reyes, of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, this resolution before the House today is very clear: Congress and the American people support our troops who serve bravely in Iraq, and Congress disapproves of President Bush's decision to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq.

There is not a Member of this body who does not pray for our Nation's success in Iraq and in the global war on terror. Our brave servicemen and women have performed in Iraq with valor and honor. They have done everything that a grateful Nation has asked of them since the beginning of the war.

Whether you are for or against the war, we must support our troops. This resolution does that.

The only people sacrificing in this war are the troops and their families. Many military personnel have served two and three tours of duty. It has been difficult on their families here at home. More than 3,100 of our finest sons and daughters have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country. More than 25,000 troops have been wounded.

I do not believe we need new troops in Iraq. I believe we need a new strategy in Iraq. The current strategy is clearly not working.

We have increased the number of American troops in the past, and it has not done anything to calm the violence. In fact, in certain circumstances the violence has increased. Even General Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East has stated, "More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." I completely agree with him.

I serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; I have been to Iraq four times and have met with America's top generals, U.S. and Iraqi troops, and Iraqi elected officials. We must give the Iraqis more responsibility to take control of their own country. We must cut the apron strings and let the Iraqis patrol their own streets. American troops will guard the perimeter areas and back up the Iraqis in an emergency. I call this the Perimeter Plan.

Redeploying troops to perimeter areas, the Green Zone, and lowering the profile of American forces will break the dependency the Iraqi military has on U.S. forces.

The Iraqis will gain more confidence in their own ability to secure their own country, and we will begin bringing our men and women home.

It has been said by my friends on the other side of the aisle that the Democrats don't have a plan. That is not true. Other Members of our party have a plan and I have a plan. In fact, I shared the Perimeter Plan with the President and members of his Cabinet on two occasions at the White House. I also gave a copy of the Perimeter Plan to the Iraqi Study Group that reviewed it before issuing its recommendations that have been largely ignored by the President. This is not cut and run like some on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe. It is a way to force the Iraqis to take more control of their country, while also allowing the U.S. military to do what it does best.

We have some of the best operations forces, Marines and Rangers, and the best technology in the world. These forces can focus on backing up the Iraqi military.

As Thomas Payne insisted during the American Revolution: "We need to let those who want independence test their will and try their soul." More American troops hinder the Iraqi democracy from testing its soul, and hurt the world in the global war on terror. More than $400 billion has been spent on this war by American taxpayers with little or no oversight by Congress. From the invasion of Iraq and the start of the war, a Republican House and Republican Senate have given the President almost whatever he wanted both in money and strategic resources. The days of the blank check are over. The stakes are too high to allow this money and resources to be spent unchecked.

In the first 6 weeks of this new Congress, the Democrats have held 52 House and Senate hearings on Iraq. We are conducting oversight and holding the administration accountable.

Iraq was not a hotbed for terrorists before the war, but it is now. The country has become a magnet for those who want to harm Americans and Iraqis and disrupt a new democracy. Terrorists have used Iraq against us to recruit and spread their twisted ideology worldwide.

But the global war on terror is much more than Iraq. While we are spending much of our precious resources in Iraq, we are not focused on fighting terrorism worldwide. We are taking our eye off the ball. We must refocus our efforts on other parts of the Middle East, Asia, South America, Africa, and other parts of the world. Good intelligence is the best defense against terrorism. This takes resources. We must prioritize where we put our money. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is about all Americans and keeping this country safe for our children and our grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, this is a critical moment in the war in Iraq. More troops will not help Iraq. A new strategy will.

Democracy is rooted in independence and self-sustainment. By implementing the Perimeter Plan, we encourage the Iraqis to take control of their own country. This strategy will allow us to be successful in Iraq and win the war on terror. This is why we must vote for this resolution. I urge Members to support it

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

Mr. Porter: Madam Speaker, the Iraq war is the single greatest issue facing the American people today, and we must get the job done. Which is why I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63.

My prayers go out to Nevada's 26 families who have lost loved ones in this war and the other over-3,000 American citizens that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. I continue to pray for those who are in the war zone today around the world and for the families here at home.

Yes, a lot of mistakes have been made, but it is easy on Monday morning to look back and criticize. This war on terrorism is not in the textbooks. It is a war that must continually be reassessed, realigned, and restructured, because war is not perfect.

I want to bring the troops home just as soon as possible, as soon as the region is secured. There are no guarantees, but I believe the quickest way to bring our sons and daughters home is to send additional troops for a short period of time.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution for three major reasons:

Number one, the impact on troops' morale.

Number two, there are no solutions today. This resolution sticks with staying the course.

And, number three, I believe this resolution puts us in the pathway of cutting off funds desperately needed for our troops.

First, on the morale: I have had the honor to be in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan on three occasions, I believe more times than anyone in our delegation from Nevada. I have looked in the eyes of these young men and women of all ages in the deserts of Iraq, in Bethesda, and in Walter Reed Army Hospital.

To a person, morale is at an all-time high. But what I do hear consistently from these folks is they are afraid that Washington has looked the other way. They don't want to be the last man killed, and they are afraid the funds are going to be reduced and cut off.

And, you know, I even disagree with Secretary Gates and his perspective, and certainly with the Democrats with their approach that this debate does not send the wrong message. I believe that you are wrong. It does.

I received this e-mail just this week from a soldier I spent Christmas Eve with in Baghdad this past Christmas. And he said, "Congressman, every day we are burdened with stories in the media of the American people wanting to cut and run, with slanted coverage of atrocities and the argument that it is possible to support the troops but not the war. I disagree, Congressman. Someone that supports me by extension supports my efforts to accomplish my mission."

Madam Speaker, I hope this Congress heeds his words.

Another young man from Nevada visited the Capitol last year, wanted a tour of the Capitol, is proud of his uniform, because he was a soldier serving in the Middle East. But he was afraid he would be scorned, not unlike our family and friends that were scorned when they returned from Vietnam.

Through this resolution we are going to continue to send the wrong message to those who humbly protect our Nation.

The second reason, there are no solutions in this resolution. My father taught me a long time ago that before you complain you need to have a solution to the problem.

The Democrats have not presented the American people with a solution, only a resolution that endorses stay the course, which, as we saw in November, is unacceptable to the American people. This is not about leadership. This is unacceptable. I am open for ideas and suggestions as we fight this war on terror, but we must, we must win this war.

The third reason, this resolution opens the door to cutting funds desperately needed by our troops. The Democrats have said it time and time again. They are talking about cutting funds for body armor, for food, for military equipment and supplies.

This resolution, and their assertion this resolution simultaneously offers support for soldiers but not the President's plan, is disingenuous. I am deeply concerned that this resolution merely opens the door for Congress to move forward cutting off funds for our troops. We have heard it this week, and simply had the Democrats allowed the Republicans to add one sentence that we would guarantee we would not reduce the funds, would have changed the whole outcome of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity, but this resolution is a resolution of hypocrisy. The American people spoke in November and said we must not stay the course. I cannot support this resolution, and I don't believe the American people do.

Mr. Reyes: Madam Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Ms. Roybal-Allard: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the resolution and to express my opposition to the President's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. While I rise as a Member of this House who opposed authorization of the Iraq war, I also rise as a member of the new Congressional majority, representing millions of Americans who voted for a new direction in Iraq, and I rise representing my own 34th congressional district of California, whose constituents overwhelmingly oppose this escalation.

Perhaps, most importantly, I rise as the proud stepmother of a U.S. Army serviceman who served in Iraq, and a proud wife of a marine who saw two tours of duty in Vietnam. While I will never personally experience war on the ground, I can speak from a wife and mother's perspective about what it means to have a loved one sent into harm's way.

Over 4 years ago, I spoke from that very perspective when I, with many of my colleagues, urged the President to exhaust all diplomatic efforts, give the U.N. weapons inspectors a chance to finish their job and, if necessary, establish a multilateral coalition force to confront Saddam before invading Iraq. These steps would have made it possible to say to my stepson and to all our Nation's sons and daughters, your country did everything in its power to keep you from harm's way.

Regrettably, the President did not do everything in his power to keep them from harm's way. We know now that decisions to invade Iraq were based on, at best, faulty intelligence, and, at worst, intelligence viewed to favor a specific policy outcome. It is breathtaking now to consider how incomplete, simplistic, or just plain wrong our intelligence and projections were about the need to invade Iraq.

It is breathtaking to consider the cost to our Nation of this ill- conceived and mismanaged war in which billions of dollars have been spent without significant and appropriate oversight of the war effort, the occupation, or the plan for reconstruction and withdrawal from Iraq. Even more tragic is the huge price that has been paid in American and Iraqi lives and in our esteem around the world.

I share the commitment of my husband and stepson and that of all Americans to defend this Nation against all enemies. I believe, even as a peaceful Nation, we must be resolute in our determination to defend our country against hostile interests.

But the bar to war must be set high, and information on which we base our entry into war or escalate our involvement must be clear, compelling, and as unfiltered as possible. The President did not, in good faith, make the case to preemptively and unilaterally go to war in Iraq, and he has not made the case for this escalation. He has not explained to the American people why, after four failed escalations, this one will succeed. Even many of his generals and military advisors oppose this plan. To give approval to this administration, to continue its failed strategy, and put into jeopardy the lives of an additional 20,000 troops defies common sense.

Madam Speaker, we will all forever be grateful to the brave men and women in uniform who have done everything they have been asked to do valiantly and courageously.

Therefore, I continue to hope that the debate over this resolution will be absent the charges that we undermine their mission and their morale, for this is nonsense. There is not a Member in this body that does not respect and honor their service or support their efforts. Our message is to the Commander in Chief, not the brave troops who serve our Nation.

Four years ago, I asked myself whether we were doing everything in our power to keep our Nation's sons and daughters out of harm's way. Four years later, I stand here to oppose this escalation and ask that we begin the process of doing everything in our power to take our sons and daughters out of harm's way and bring them safely home

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5½ minutes to my colleague from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

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

Mr. Reynolds: I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

Madam Speaker, we have heard many speeches this week talking about the honorable men and women of our Armed Forces. We all have constituents who have served bravely in Iraq and some have paid the ultimate price for this service, and we are forever grateful for that. We are grateful because these men and women put our freedoms and our country before themselves. It is this freedom that affords us the ability to undertake the debate on this shallow, shortsighted resolution.

If the purpose of this resolution is scoring political points and playing political games, then bravo to the Democratic majority, they have succeeded. But if the purpose of this resolution is for a new direction in Iraq that will secure victory and secure the second democracy in the Middle East, then this resolution comes up woefully short.

I am not prepared to look our soldiers and their families in their eyes and say I voted for this resolution, because while I support you, I do not support your mission.

We debate a resolution this week that represents a cavalier attitude about the mission our troops are carrying out, day in and day out, without fear, and without knowing whether some in the halls of this Congress still support them in this war on terror.

While we debate this resolution, let me be clear that, like my constituents, my patience is limited in Iraq. We must see more progress sooner rather than later. We must see the Iraqis play a larger role and take control of their country. The Iraqis need to recognize their failure to take control has consequences, the consequences of fulfilling bin Laden's wish to see Iraq become a new central base for terrorists, the consequences of destabilizing the Middle East and endangering Israel, our strongest democratic ally in the Middle East.

The consequence is of involving our enemies like Iran and other rogue states to develop weapons of mass destruction without the fear of repercussions. Ultimately in Iraq, it is Iraqis who will decide if democracy or tyranny rule the day, and whether they avoid the consequences of their failure.

But while my patience is limited, and I want to see progress, I will not play politics with our troops, which is what this resolution does.

Like Majority Leader Hoyer said yesterday, no one should hide behind the troops. I agree, but equally important, Members of this body should not be hiding behind this resolution if their true aim is to cut off funding for our troops. Because while this resolution will indeed score a few political points for some debating in this Chamber today, this resolution also sends a message far beyond this Chamber.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, this nonbinding resolution, while lacking any bite in terms of strategy, and not changing anything on the ground in Baghdad, will send a message loud and clear to our troops: We are consigning your mission to failure before you even have a chance to execute it.

As I listened to Sam Johnson today, as he recounted the unspeakable damage antiwar efforts back home did to our soldiers in Vietnam, I wondered whether our brave men and women are listening to the taunts of America's enemies at this very moment as we debate not just this resolution but their mission. Sam Johnson is not alone in questioning the damage to the morale we may be doing to those fighting forces.

One of my constituents, a highly decorated Iraq war veteran, David Bellavia wrote, "Each day . . . move(s) us closer to losing a winnable war and abandoning a worthy ally."

Madam Speaker, for Congress to support this resolution gives encouragement to the jihadists and cuts the morale of our troops. In our global war on terror, we cannot show a lack of resolve because, as we know, after decades of attacks by these jihadists on our citizens, the World Trade Center in 1993, our embassies and the USS Cole, we know what a lack of resolve has meant. That lack of resolve hit us all when the jihadists attacked us again on the morning of September 11, 2001. That fateful Tuesday brought devastation to this country not seen since Pearl Harbor and, God willing, that we will never experience again.

The skies were thick with smoke, debris piled so high it brought to a standstill the city that never sleeps. Just days after the attacks, I stood at Ground Zero amidst the rubble, in anguish. I knew this was bigger than any political party, bigger than any one country. It is a global war on Islamic jihadism, and that war, as the jihadists have said, is now set in Iraq.

The question raised by this resolution is, will we yield? As Winston Churchill said, reflecting on the darkest days of the global war of his time, one that pitted the hopes of freedom against the ideology of hatred, "Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty;

"Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

Madam Speaker, in the daunting challenge of our time, we must not waver, and we must not yield.

Mr. Reyes: Madam Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

I rise to express my strong support for our Nation's military and for the resolution before the House today. I am a proud veteran. I know what it is like to say good-bye to loved ones and be gone for a year, or 13 months, as in my case when I served in Vietnam.

I voted against authorizing the use of force against Iraq because I did not believe that the evidence provided by the administration, particularly the intelligence data, were sufficient to justify putting our troops in harm's way. Combat should be the last option. I know; I have been there.

Over 3,000 American lives later, and tens of thousands suffering debilitating injuries, yet we are no closer to our goal of a secure and stable Iraq, and the situation there continues to deteriorate.

Our military families are paying a high price. There were a couple of articles in today's paper that talked about our inability to find common ground.

Well, I disagree. I think we find common ground because we care about not just our troops, but their families, our military families.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record an e-mail from Sergeant Matthew Baeza:

I want to read the e-mail that I got from Sergeant Baeza, a soldier who is from El Paso, not assigned to El Paso, but is from El Paso:

"Hello, sir, my name is Sergeant Matthew Baeza. Currently I am deployed in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am an El Paso native, and I have not been too big on politics, although I did my fair share of Democratic rallies with my father, Luis Baeza, when I was in high school. I have met you on several occasions through my father, as well as when we met on the steps of the Senate when I was on a high school trip to D.C. in 1999.

"My concerns are brought forward wholehearted. They do not concern El Paso, but it does concern El Pasoens all over the country who serve in the military and who are deployed in the theatre of operations.

"Many of us in the military believe in what we do and feel our mission here is warranted. The issues are not against our deployments, but rather the length of our deployments. You see, the Army is the only branch that will always deploy with a full 12-month rotation in its deployments. Other branches have been cut to 6 months or even 3 months. I do realize there are certain elements in other branches that serve a 12-month rotation like the Army. Nonetheless, the Army uses a 12-month rotation.

"The issue I have is that 12 months is not that difficult to pull the first time. But into your second and third deployments, some soldiers serving with me back to back four times, it starts to break the backs of even the strongest of families. Children are seeking counseling as young as 3- or 4-years-old due to the absence of their parents.

"And if a marriage survives, most end up seeking help from chaplains or marriage counselors. Is that how we want our servicemembers and their families to live? Out of a 5-year marriage, I will have been absent 3 years and will only have known my son for 9 months when I return in a few days for his third birthday.

"My marriage, along with hundreds of other servicemembers are quickly ending due to the amount of time absent from home. I am not sure if surveys have been performed, but I can almost guarantee you the percentage of divorces has multiplied at an exponential rate.

"But yet talks of cutting down deployments have been in the works for years, but no progress have we seen. The vast majority of armed services members are proud every day to put on our uniform and help others who cannot help themselves, but at what cost? At the cost of losing the ones we love, and at the end of it all we cannot place blame on our spouses. For they have been holding on longer than most could ever imagine. Our spouses run multiple lives, as my wife does. As a professional reporter for the local newspaper, a mother who is raising a family on her own, as a military spouse, as my wife, she has a lot to deal with. Bills, care for our child, her work, and dealing with my calls from home, whether they be happy or sad. It is simply too much to ask from any one person.

"My wife is as strong as they come, but with the last 3 years, her patience has worn extremely thin. With us being away from home, many wives end up leaving their husbands, searching for a better life, or long-needed affection without a phone, or even to become their own person again.

"My wife told me something the other day that really hit me." And he quotes his wife: " `No one knows who you are. They know Megan and they know Dominic, and the guy that keeps calling on the phone.' That is who we have become to our families, just a voice on the phone.

"I am not asking to get out of this conflict. We are doing well here. Plus the friends I have lost here would have died in vain. I cannot have that on my conscience. We are accomplishing here, but we are losing our families over it. We don't try to save the world, at least I don't. That is too much to ask of one person.

"But rather try for the ones closest to us, my son, and my wife, but when they are gone who is it for? Every day I am here I tell myself I do this for them. And others feel the same way. I am not asking you to change the way things are, but rather voice your opinion and raise the flag for those of us that cannot, with your reputation and your influence, in helping us cut our deployments to shorter periods.

"We are not asking to leave Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather to cut time away from home. When you start stacking deployments on top of each other, families get broken. When that happens you get servicemembers who cannot perform.

"At what cost when your life is falling apart?

"Signed, Sergeant Baeza."

Madam Speaker, that is what we are doing to our military families. That is what this resolution is about. It is about having the Iraqis accept responsibility for their own country and for their own responsibility and taking care of themselves. That is why we are doing this.