---

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I yield 5½minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Brady of Texas: Madam Speaker, watching television late last night I was reminded of the vivid contrast between Congress and the war on terror. On the one channel I watched Members of the House theatrically debating this nonbinding, that means pretend, resolution, while the other channel showed an American chopper hit by a rocket- propelled grenade and billowing black smoke, falling in the death spiral to the ground, killing all American soldiers aboard.

Tonight our soldiers face real bullets and real explosive devices; we debate a pretend resolution. I wish I could say this is merely a waste of time, but it is far more damaging than that. As Lincoln warned, a house divided itself cannot stand. Yet today our Congress stands divided for all the world to see. Our enemies are smiling and our soldiers are sick at heart.

Don't take my word for it. Let me read you an e-mail I received this week from a decorated Army soldier who served in the gulf war and again in Iraq on this war on terror.

He writes: "The troops support the mission, support the President, and support the surge. We are moving the brigade out of here soon. I cannot be more adamant about the fact that partisan politics is hurting the mission and the morale. We want to win the war not the White House."

I fear that some see that in the other order. The troops want to complete this mission. Congress wanted a change in the strategy, they got a change, now they don't want to support the change. That is exactly why Vietnam vets complained about politicians not allowing them to win. And this is not Vietnam all over again, but the politicians are making the same mistakes they did back then.

Let the generals run the war; you guys handle immigration. Well, listening to this debate, perhaps we should just turn the running of the war over to Congress. Unbeknownst to America, apparently the most brilliant, articulate military strategists have to be here in Congress. But a word of caution to my fellow MacArthurs and Pattons. It is easy to run a war when you are 6,000 miles from Baghdad and hold a microphone for a gun.

There can be only one Commander in Chief. The moment Congress begins interfering in battlefield decisions is the moment we are assured of losing this war and that moment is dangerously near.

I support this surge. If our military leaders and the Commander in Chief need these extra soldiers, I am behind them 110 percent. Am I certain the surge will work? No. But I am certain the consequences of failing in Iraq will ultimately cost us many more innocent lives and a much darker future, not just for Iraq but for my family and yours.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we are in a battle of wills. Should America retreat, should we withdraw prematurely, we will not only cement our reputation as a Nation that talks big and acts boldly, but at the first sign of difficulty shows no will, no backbone, no strength to keep our word.

The world saw our lack of will in Vietnam, they watched us run from Somalia, and today they see our backbone disintegrate over Iraq. They watched us for a quarter of a century, we wished away the terrorist attacks in Khobar, the USS Cole, and the first World Trade Center bombing.

Finally it hit home and already some in Congress are flying the white flag. Think. Nations like Iraq and Afghanistan who oppose terrorism are faced with a choice. They can live with terrorists among them or live in a free society with the protection and the backing of the world's greatest democracy. That is us. With their lives and the future on the line who will they choose? Is it not sad that today the world has just about decided that America will not keep its word, America cannot be counted on?

Terrorists know that while they can never hope to defeat our military on the battleground, they are assured if they just hold out, they can defeat us in Congress one opinion poll at a time. This is a test of wills, and whether we got here for the reason you agree with or not, it is a test. I believe we are here for the right reasons, and it is incredibly naive to believe that all of the terrorist organizations in the world were conveniently gathered in Afghanistan, like a Rotary Club.

We are wrong to pursue terrorist safe havens other than those that harbored al Qaeda on the some wobbly theory we should not pursue drug cartels other than the ones we believe smuggled in the drug that destroyed your child.

Due to technology and financing, terrorists are not limited to states and regions, and we have to pursue them. But whether or not you agree with how we got here, we are there in Iraq. And the nation of Iraq and our Nation have everything riding on the line. Eliminating Iraq as a safe haven for financing, training terrorist groups in the Middle East is a mission we must complete for our sake.

Thomas Edison once observed many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. If we fail in Iraq, we sentence our children to a lifetime of fear, of fear of going to the mall safely, going to work each morning and returning home safely, the fear of going with friends to a sports stadium without being torn apart in an explosion.

If we believe the price of war is high, wait until we endure the price of terror here in America. Our soldiers are giving their blood, what are we giving them? A resolution.

Mr. Spratt: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan resolution that expresses disapproval of the President's escalation of troops in Iraq. In October of 2002, I stood on this floor in this House and voted against giving the President authority to wage war in Iraq. And I did so because I strongly believed that Congress should not abdicate its war powers and hand over to the President a blank check on the war.

I also recognized, having served on the Armed Services Committee and on the Terrorist Task Force prior to 9/11, that the evidence was not there. I may not agree with how this war has been handled, but I, along with everyone here and all of my colleagues on both sides, firmly stand by our troops. It is our servicemen and -women who are making a great sacrifice on the battlefield on behalf of all of us here in this Chamber and everyone across the United States.

And they, the troops, all deserve our unequivocal support. This war is creating a new generation of veterans and a new generation of needs for them. Today, over 25,000 both dead and wounded have been reported, while this body continues to appropriate billions of dollars to the administration for this war.

Let us remember our veterans and the cost to fulfill the promise that we have made to them for medical care. Today, the issue is not whether we were right or wrong to grant the President such broad authority in regards to this war in Iraq, but instead how he has exercised that power, what the results have been, and what his plans are for the future.

We have now entered the fifth year of this war. And I ask you, what progress have we made? What is our exit strategy? It is not a new question. It was a question that was raised from the very beginning when we went into this war, and when we raised it in the Armed Services Committee. This war and the reckless strategy behind it have cost us Americans some $532 billion, and over 3,100 American lives, as well as over 3,000 serious injuries.

It has resulted in increased sectarian violence and an uncertain future in Iraq. Madam Speaker, I think most of us here know that we need a new direction, and a new direction is justified. I can assure you that the American people want a new direction.

But what the President has offered to them is more of the same. The President is now asking for a massive escalation of over 20,000 troops. The escalation plan will not work, just like the previous troop surges that we have had have not worked. Madam Speaker, the American people have asked and have had enough. And with an up-and-down vote on this resolution, this Congress will not only send a message to the President regarding his misguided policy, but also send a message to the American people that their Congress is listening, it is here, and it is calling for a new direction.

I oppose this escalation plan because more troops in combat means more casualties and more loss of American lives. I have been to Walter Reed Medical Center, and I have seen our injured young men and women coming back from the battlefield. I have seen the sacrifice of what this war has done to our families and our loved ones.

Earlier this week, my office was visited by Mr. Jim Goodnow. He is a veteran from my district and an active member of the Veterans for Peace. Mr. Goodnow has traveled all over the country from his home base in Terlinqua, Texas, aboard his bus dubbed the Yellow Rose. He has been spreading the message of peace for many years.

Mr. Goodnow is not alone. And with this resolution we want to make it clear that this Congress and America and the American people have had enough. No more blank checks, no more violence, and no more escalation.

Madam Speaker, it is time that we stand by our country and stand up for our troops. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. McCaul of Texas: Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops and in support of victory in Iraq.

It is hard to ignore the inconvenient truth that this ill-timed measure will aid the terrorists and depress the morale of our soldiers who are fighting to defeat them. It also sends a wrong message to our troops at exactly the wrong time. They are carrying out their mission, as I speak, while we here in the Congress are condemning them.

It amazes me that at the same time General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate, this resolution was introduced condemning his counterinsurgency plan for victory.

Never in our history has this country sent a war leader into battle, while condemning the very mission that he and the Armed Forces will be leading.

Make no mistake, this resolution is the first step towards cutting off funding for our troops. As a consultant to the Iraq Study Group, I supported the findings that failure is not an option, and that a troop surge is necessary for security and stability. I also supported the recommendation that a political and diplomatic surge is essential for peace.

The time for evaluating the success or failure of this endeavor will come soon enough, but now is not the time to be sending a message to friend and foe alike that we no longer believe in the mission.

But many in this country and many in this Chamber insist it is in America's interest to surrender and retreat from our obligation to help Iraq build a stable democracy. They say that, knowing full well the consequences of an early American withdrawal.

And what are those consequences? Chaos, instability in the region, and, in al Qaeda's own words, a threat that America has never seen before.

Recently, the ambassadors from Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia told me that "if the U.S. fails here, it will be catastrophic. We are in this together. They will come after us and then they will come after you." And then they will come after you.

Recently, after meeting with them, I had to say to myself, how will history then judge us; that when we stood at the brink, we chose retreat over advancement, surrender over victory, and defeatism for our children and for future generations?

Let us remember the words of President Kennedy, when he said: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."

Where is the party of President Kennedy today? This resolution sends a clear message across the Islamic jihad world that we will not bear any burden, that we will not oppose any foe, that we have lost our will, that they have won, and that they can come and they can get us.

I believe Abraham Lincoln summed it up best by saying that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

As Members of Congress, the most sobering job that we have is to comfort the families left behind in a time of great loss and a time of war. I have stood by, like many of my colleagues, to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. We all stand here today indebted to those brave Americans and their families.

And because those heroes and those families cannot speak on the floor of the House, I would like to share some of their words here with you today. And these are the words of Janet Norwood, a constituent, a Gold Star Mother, whose son, Byron, was killed in Fallujah while serving in Iraq. And she said: In the past I have always had great hope for this country. But, for the first time, during the State of the Union address last month, I had real doubts. I had doubts about our winning this war on terrorism. She said, When President Bush used the word "victory," only half of the room stood to applaud. My heart sank. It was obvious to me at that moment that party affiliation was more important to some than victory over evil and the sacrifice our son and other sons have made.

Well, to Janet and all the other Gold Star Mothers, I say, I couldn't agree more. And as Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand.

September 11 changed our lives forever. But the war on terror started long before that. The year 1979 changed the world. When Iran took our embassy hostage, the seeds of Islamic jihad were spread all over the Middle East.

These seeds planted hatred and contempt for freedom in the souls of men like Osama bin Laden. In 1983, they murdered our marines in Beirut. In 1993, Ramzi Yousef and his al Qaeda associates bombed the World Trade Center. They were supposed to fall that day, but that day would come later.

They struck the Khobar Towers in 1996. They bombed our embassies in Africa. They defeated us in Somalia. And they deliberately attacked the USS Cole.

Each time we failed to respond. And then came September 11. It was as if the United States was a sleeping giant. And not until the bloodiest alarm of 9/11 did the giant finally awake. And America cannot afford to go back to sleep again.

"It is hard to ignore the inconvenient truth that this ill-timed measure will aid the terrorists and depress the morale of our soldiers who are fighting to defeat them." It also sends the wrong message to our troops at the wrong time. They are carrying out their mission as I speak, while we here in Congress are condemning it.

The time for evaluating the success or failure of this endeavor will come soon enough, but now is not the time to be sending a message to friend and foe alike that we no longer believe in this mission.

It amazes me that just as General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate, this resolution was introduced condemning his counter- insurgency plan for victory.

"Never in our history has this country sent a war leader into battle while condemning the mission that he and the armed forces he will be leading have been asked to complete."

Make no mistake; this resolution is the first step towards cutting off funding for our troops. As a consultant to the Iraq Study Group, I supported the findings that a troop surge is necessary for security and stability. I also supported the recommendation that a political and diplomatic surge is essential for victory.

But many in this country, and many in this chamber, insist it is in America's interest to surrender and retreat from our obligation to help Iraq build a stable democracy. They say that, knowing full well the consequences of an early American withdrawal.

And what are those consequences--

Chaos. Instability in the region. A threat that America has never seen before. A threat that we will not be able to blindly put our head in the sand and wish it to go away.

Al Qaeda has openly said that they consider Iraq the central front in the "Third World War." Their goal is to create a Caliphate with Baghdad as its capital. Their plan is to then conquer the rest of the world and force all humanity to submit to Radical Islam.

The National Intelligence Estimate released last month stated, "If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly . . . this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq."

Our allies agree. The Ambassadors from Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia recently told me, "If the U.S. fails it will be catastrophic. We are in this together . . . they will come after us and then they will come after you."

How will history judge us then? That when we stood at the brink we chose retreat over advancement, surrender over victory, and defeatism for our children and for future generations.

Let us remember the words of President Kennedy when he said:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Where is the party of President Kennedy today? This resolution sends a clear message across the Islamic Jihad world--that we will not bear any burden--that we will not oppose any foe--that we have lost our will--that they have won--that they can come and get us.

We are better than that.

We are Americans--the same Americans who defeated the most powerful country in the world at the time to win our independence.

We are the same Americans who defeated Fascists in Japan, Germany and Italy.

We are the same Americans who defeated the scourge of the Soviet Union, liberating millions more.

Now we face yet another challenge--defeating the jihadists and an ideology of hate. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say "We will support the War on Terror, except where the terrorists have chosen to fight it."

Our previous struggles were not easy, they were hard and required great sacrifice. Yet all of these challenges were met, and victory was won, and the world is a better place because of it. This struggle is the same. If we give up now, we betray not just the Iraqi people, and not just our place in history, but those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

I believe Abraham Lincoln summed it up best by saying:

… that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain …

As Members of Congress, the most sobering job we have is to comfort the families left behind in a time of great loss, in a time of war. I have stood by, like many of my colleagues, to honor those who have paid the ultimate price for freedom. We all stand here today indebted to those brave Americans and their families. They are true heroes.

Because those heroes and their families cannot speak on the Floor of the House, I would like to share some of their words today. These are the words of Janet Norwood, a constituent and Gold Star Mother, whose son Byron was killed serving in Iraq. She said:

In the past, I have always had great hope for this country, but for the first time, during the State of the Union Address last month, I had real doubts about our winning this War on Terrorism. When President Bush used the word "victory" and only half of the room stood to applaud, my heart sank. It was obvious to me at that moment that party affiliation was more important to some than victory over evil and the sacrifice our son and others have made.

To Janet and all of the other Gold Star Mothers, I say, "I couldn't agree more." As President Lincoln once said, "A House Divided Cannot Stand."

Mr. Spratt: Madam Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Tierney: Madam Speaker, in just a few weeks, America will begin its fifth year in the Iraq conflict. In that time, 3,117 members of the United States military have died, and over 23,000 American soldiers have been injured. $532 billion has been appropriated by Congress or requested by the administration.

You only need to talk or read letters from many of the returning military personnel or their families to understand that the mission in Iraq is unclear and the goals remain undefined. Our men and women are not certain if they are fighting Sunnis or Shiites, and often it depends on where they are in order to determine the answer to that dilemma. In essence, our military personnel are in the midst of a civil war, the flames of which were fanned by centuries-old animosities.

This week Congress has been addressing a resolution that reiterates its support for the troops and states clearly its opposition to escalation.

The first point could easily go unspoken. After all, we are exercising the very freedom of speech and debate that our Constitution requires, the public demands, and our men and women in uniform serve to protect.

The second point of the resolution speaks to the clear determination, as evidenced on November 7, 2006, that America does not support the President's planned escalation of this conflict.

Three previous troop buildups have already proven unsuccessful. In the first, from November 2004 to January 2005, troop levels in Iraq increased by about 18,000 troops. They did that in advance of the Iraqi elections held on January of 2005, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents rose to 61 from 52 the previous month, an increase of 17 percent.

On the second troop buildup, from June 2005 to October 2005, troop levels increased by approximately 21,500, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents in October of 2005 rose to 90, from 70 just 2 months earlier, an increase of 29 percent.

And the third troop buildup occurred from May 2006 to November 1 of 2006 when U.S. troop levels in Iraq increased by approximately 17,500 troops, and the number of daily attacks by insurgents in October of 2006 rose to 180, from 100 just 4 months earlier, an increase this time of 80 percent.

Now the President says he want to change course, but once again he proposes to only stay the course as he seeks to send in more personnel, and we still wait for the Iraqi forces to stand up.

Madam Speaker, 132 of my colleagues and I exercised the correct judgment in October of 2002 when we voted against the war in Iraq. We recognized then that this administration's claims that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent and direct threat to the United States were hyped up and many rightly foresaw that an American occupation of Iraq would, as one colleague recently said, be of undetermined length, of undetermined cost and undetermined consequences.

Tragically, this administration was not deterred. It has been flat wrong on pretty much all of its pre-war and subsequent judgments with respect to Iraq, with its questionable use of intelligence, its failure to plan, and its failure for far too long to protect our troops once they were there.

We knew then what has become painfully obvious since, that rather than open a new front and destabilize a new area in Iraq, we should have secured Afghanistan and addressed terrorism at its source as it was embodied by Osama bin Laden and others. The proposed escalation is not the answer.

Why, after such a debacle and such a dismal record, would this administration even think to follow the advice of the same people that got us into this situation in the first place?

The proposed surge or escalation is as baseless as was going into Iraq in the first place.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate, even that part that is unclassified, which I would imagine or speculate certainly puts the administration's best foot forward, states that even if violence is diminished, Iraq's absence of unifying leaders makes a political reconciliation doubtful.

Not enough capable Iraqi troops are showing up to fight. Not enough armed vehicles are available to protect the new American deployments. The State Department cannot recruit enough civil officials to manage the latest push to turn up the electricity in Iraq or to help with reconstruction.

And so Congress must, and I think they are going to this week, pass a resolution that reiterates our support to our troops and opposes the escalation. That action, I sincerely hope, will be followed by action which will prohibit the use of Federal funds to increase the number of troops above the number existing in Iraq on January 9, 2007.

The large majority of Americans are waiting for action by this Congress to insist that we begin redeploying our troops from Iraq and complete that redeployment as quickly as possible in a measure done in months, not years.

In essence, this week's action should be the beginning of a relatively short process, culminating in the redeployment of American troops from Iraq, and energizing diplomatic efforts and international efforts to stabilize that nation and ensure its security, while it provides for a platform to redirect the necessary attention to the unfinished business of Afghanistan and focus, Madam Speaker, our efforts on terrorism, both short term and long term.

I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to support this resolution and take what I expect will be the first step in charting a new course in Iraq.

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. McCarthy of California: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her service to the country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in a different position than the majority of this body. You see, I am one of the 54 newly elected Members of this Congress. We did not have the opportunity to debate and vote on the authority to use military force in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I want to have an honest debate, not for political gain and not one that questions anyone's patriotism, because I believe everyone in this body wants to move this country in the right direction.

But I believe the right direction means that we move forward, not backwards. On this floor today is a nonbinding resolution that I believe moves us backwards. This resolution offers no hope to the American people. It offers no plan of action, no new strategy with the prospect of achieving success.

A lot has changed since last November's election. We have a new Defense Secretary, recommendation from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and a new general, General David Petraeus. He will lead our troops on the ground in Iraq.

We have a new plan, a new way forward that addresses the problem of security in Iraq through a strategy that requires more ground power. This reinforcement of troops is recommended by the study group, and we will also hold the Iraqi Government accountable to establish and preserve the peace.

Our Commander in Chief, the military commanders, and our troops believe we can still achieve stability in Iraq.

But this resolution would be the first step in gutting the very resources necessary to achieve success. This resolution offers nothing.

The Commander in Chief, the bipartisan study group, and General Petraeus offer a new way forward. This resolution offers the status quo. The status quo is a mandate to fail and begins the chain of events that lead to a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and all the consequences that would inevitably follow.

And what would those consequences be?

Withdrawal makes the young Iraqi democracy vulnerable to takeover by extremist elements that hate America.

What would withdrawal mean for the stability in the Middle East?

What would generations of Iraqis believe, that Americans will quit before the job is done?

Who will fill the void of our strength, al Qaeda, Syria, or a country like Iran that threatens regional stability through an aggressive nuclear program, that supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and that possibly supplies weapons to insurgents killing our troops?

Withdrawal only strengthens terrorist groups fighting the United States and demoralizes our American troops.

I may be new to this House, but I recognize when a simple, nonbinding resolution has potential to do great damage to our Nation and to our men and women in the military.

I believe that, by voting for this resolution, the House will send a demoralizing message to our service men and women who are courageously implementing this strategy. By voting for this resolution, the House will strengthen our enemies and tell them that the end is near; that the Congress will continue to undermine our Commander in Chief, our military commanders, like General Petraeus and our troops, by cutting funding or demanding further retreats.

By voting for this resolution, the House will snuff out the hope of democracy that millions of Iraqi people have. By voting for this resolution, the House will begin a process that leads to the creation of a dangerous power vacuum in Iraq to be potentially filled by those who mean America great harm.

I ask the Members to join with me in voting "no" on this resolution.

Mr. Spratt: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

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

Mr. Udall of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this important resolution and with great hope that this debate and vote will signal an important step towards the end of the Iraq war, a war so ill-conceived, so ill-planned for, and so ill-executed that it has cost our Nation almost $400 billion, ignited a civil war, and further destabilized an already fragile Mideast region. Most importantly, this war has resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 of our bravest military men and women. These men and women enlist in the Armed Forces trusting that their Commander in Chief will send them into harm's way only as a last resort and only with a clear plan for victory.

Madam Speaker, on both of these counts, the President has failed our soldiers.

It is time for us to redeploy our troops and redeploy them now. We have an opportunity to send a loud and resolute message to the President that his misguided judgment must cease, this war must now be subject to intense scrutiny and accountability by this Congress; and that he must heed the will of the American people, the overwhelming majority of whom now strongly disapprove of his handling of this war. Sadly, however, this President is tone-deaf when it comes to the most pressing issue of the day.

For the past 4 years, the President repeatedly stated that troop strength in Iraq would come from recommendations by generals on the ground. Yet by moving forward with his escalation plan, the President is ignoring solid military advice. General Abizaid, CENTCOM commander, stated: "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are." Additionally, according to various reports, General Casey repeated to the NSA Director his warnings that to send more troops to Iraq would be counterproductive. He believed it might make the Iraqi Government less likely to defend itself.

That concern was shared by the Iraq Study Group. In one of their recommendations they stated that the Iraqi Government must make substantial progress on national reconciliation, security, and governance. Without progress, we should reduce our political, military, and economic support for the Iraqi Government.

Tragically, the Iraqi Government has shown no progress on any of these fronts. We must not be a security blanket for an ineffectual government. But the President's escalation plan is exactly that, asking little of Iraq's Government while putting the lives of our soldiers squarely in the crosshairs of Sunni extremists and Shiite militias.

Many in the military leadership have stated that the solution to the Iraqi quagmire at this point must be 80 percent political and 20 percent military. This escalation plan is 100 percent military with no significant political breakthroughs either having been reached or even on the horizon. Rather than implement a rigorous diplomatic strategy, the administration has instead begun escalating the rhetoric with Iran, causing many people throughout the Nation and the world to fear another misguided military action.

Our soldiers have done everything that has been asked of them, and more. They have served bravely and honorably. They have trained Iraqi forces to the best of their abilities. But they cannot be asked to calm the sectarian violence ripping Iraq apart without leadership from Iraqi politicians. Yet the President is asking exactly that.

Last year, after visiting Iraq, I called for a phased redeployment by the end of 2006. That time has come and gone. Today I call on the President to finally listen to the American people. Today I call on the President to finally listen to the Congress. It is time to move our troops out of the middle of this civil war.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and send a clear message to the President that the time for this war is over

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida: Madam Speaker, whether you are for or against the war in Iraq, whether you think the administration has done a good job or not, none of that, Madam Speaker, is the subject of this resolution. The issue that we are here debating now is whether or not we support the reinforcements that the Commander in Chief has sent to Iraq.

At the request of the commanders on the field, the Commander in Chief made the decision to send the requested reinforcements to Iraq. Many of them are already there, Madam Speaker. Those fine men and women have already been sent to Iraq.

The tragic effect of this resolution is to sabotage the morale of our troops and to broadcast to our enemies that Congress does not support our soldiers' mission.

Our Nation's troops are the bravest and most dedicated men and women on this Earth. They are risking their lives every single day to preserve our freedom and to ensure the safety of all Americans. They are not letting us down. We cannot let them down.

Again, Madam Speaker, the issue here is not whether you support or you oppose the war. It is whether you support our troops.

Every American, Madam Speaker, every American should agree that it is in our Nation's best interest to ensure that Iraq does not fall into the hands of terrorist groups or of a terrorist state like Iran. The consequences of that happening, the consequences of that happening, would be catastrophic for the region, for our allies in the area such as Israel, Afghanistan, Jordan, Egypt, and others, and for the United States of America. We cannot pretend, we cannot pretend, that this ill- timed resolution expresses anything other than a rejection of our troops' mission.

Our troops deserve much better than this. What our troops deserve, Madam Speaker, is our unwavering support. I refuse to let them down, and that is why I will be voting against this resolution.

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

Mr. Filner: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this resolution.

Let me just say, as Chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of this House of Representatives, no matter where we stand on this war, no matter where we vote on this resolution, we are going to make sure that the brave young men and women who come home get all the care and all the support they need from a grateful Nation. We will show what support of the troops means when they do come home.

Now, those who voted for the war back in 2002 are sometimes asked, Knowing then what you know now, how would you have voted?

Well, Madam Speaker, we knew then what we know now, and we know now what you are going to know a year or two from now.

Let me read to you what I said 4½years ago when we had the debate on Iraq: "I rise in opposition to this resolution to grant unilateral authority to the President. I cannot believe that the Members of this body are ceding our constitutional authority to this President. And they can give me all the fancy whereases and phrases and put all the fig leafs and write all the report language they want, but this is a blank check. This is a Gulf of Tonkin resolution. This is a violation not only of our Constitution but will lead to a violation of the U.N. charter.

"Wake up, my colleagues. Why would anyone vote to do that? That is not our constitutional responsibility. And when we vote on this resolution, will America be safer? No, I think America will be less safe. We will dilute the war against terrorism. The destabilization of the area will lead to the increased probability of terrorists getting nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda is probably cheering the passage of this resolution. Now is their chance to get more weapons." I said that then.

Then we talked about the imminent threat. You guys threw the imminent threat at us. What a lie. And what are you saying now? We are emboldening our enemies and demoralizing our troops. I heard the word "sabotage." I heard the word "retreat."

I will tell you what demoralizes our troops, my colleagues. What demoralizes our troops will be the failure to provide adequate health care when they get home. What demoralizes our troops is the story of just a couple weeks ago when a young marine went to a VA hospital in Minnesota suffering from PTSD, and they said, You have got to go on a waiting list. And this young man committed suicide. That is what demoralizes our troops. That is what we have to prevent here, and that is what we are working on to do.

I said back in 2002: "I have heard all my colleagues on the other side calling us appeasers, those who are going to vote against this resolution. We are wishful thinkers. We have our eyes closed. We sit on our hands." And, of course, now we want to cut and run.

Well, I tell you, Madam Speaker, no one on this side is suggesting cutting and running. Making peace is hard work. Just ask Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ask Gandhi. Ask Nelson Mandela. They didn't cut and run. They were peacemakers. And they changed the history of this world.

So let us not hear talk of retreat and sabotage and surrender. We want action for peace. We want it now, and we want the United States to be part of that action.

I said also in 2002, Madam Speaker: "There is a whiff of Vietnam in the air. I had a constituent call me and say, `You know, if you enjoyed Vietnam, you are really going to love Iraq.' The mail is running 10-1 against this war. Protests have already begun around the Nation and around the world."

I said to the President then that "you came to the office as a uniter, not a divider. Yet we have gone down the road to division in this Nation. You can see it. You can smell it. You can hear it. And we are going to get more.

"So let us not go further down that road, Mr. President. Rethink this policy. A country divided over war is not a country that is going to make any progress. Let us have a rethinking of this war."

That is what I said in 2002. You guys didn't want to listen to us then. The President didn't want to listen to us then. You really should listen to us now and listen to the people of America who voted in 2006 to change this policy.

Let us respond to the American people. Let us vote against escalation. Let us begin to bring the troops home. Vote "yes" on this resolution.

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania: Madam Speaker, I want the American men and women serving in Iraq to come home. I want this war to end. I want the violence to stop, the injuries to stop, the deaths to stop, and I also want terrorism to stop.

Over the last few weeks, many of my constituents told me these same feelings, their strong feelings in support of or against this resolution.

I hear your concerns. No one can doubt your love of your country. Like you, I am deeply concerned about the direction of this war. Like you, armed with the knowledge of the present, the strategies of the past were too often incomplete. The intelligence was misinterpreted or inadequate.

The comments made here today on this resolution will be listened to by Iraqis and al Qaeda and the soldiers in the field right now, the marines on the high seas headed that way, and the thousands who already are on the offensive. Here is my message to them: Arab countries have told us that if we left now the results would be catastrophic. I want those Arab countries to impress upon the Sunnis and the Shias the absolute need to work for peace now. I want the United States to actively engage in diplomatic efforts with all Arab nations. There is no more time for delay. I want the Iraqi military to step up and take over combat operations, to be the tip of the spear, and for our troops to shift our mission to training and support. I want to see the Iraqi Government stand strong where every group feels respected and protected and all feel they have a future of hope.

There is no time for delay.

I also want Republicans and Democrats to sit down together and discuss how to make these things come to fruition. I want us to review the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, to talk about which recommendations are worthy of implementation. I want us to thoughtfully, carefully and responsibly discuss not only what action we should take in Iraq, but to weigh the full consequences of any action and to offer real ideas, real strategies and real solutions.

I want this Congress to support our soldiers, every one of them; to tell them we value them and pray for them and their families and will give them what they need to do their job. I want all of them to know that we will stand with them until the last one returns home. And I want them to know that policy comes before politics, and that no poll, no political plan, no political threat should ever undermine our allegiance to doing what is right for our soldiers and our Nation. I want them to know that their work, their risks, their fighting, has meaning and purpose, and must be immune to the politics of Washington.

I want the soldiers and airmen from the 171st, the 99th and the 911th in Pittsburgh, and all our National Guard and Reservists and active duty to come home. I want their families to be able to embrace them, their children to be tucked in at night by them and our towns to be able to show the affection of a grateful Nation. But while they are there, while they stand sentry with eyes on the horizon, ride in their convoys or walk on patrol, I want their minds on the critical task of that moment.

I spoke this week to the mother of a soldier who was just killed in Iraq, Russell Kurtz. A finer and a braver man you will not find. I asked her what she thought about this discussion of sending more troops to Iraq, and she said, "I would rather have more troops there helping my son."

Dom DeFranco, the Pennsylvania Commander of the VFW, wrote this letter to the editor of the Almanac Newspaper. I will submit the whole letter, but let me read this. He said, "Even with their pride, honor and dedication motivating them patrol after patrol, bad morale can bring down even the toughest warrior. As a Vietnam veteran, trust me, it cuts deep. Regardless of where you stand on the current war on terror, troops get the message that they are wasting their time when politicians and citizens make headlines criticizing military action."

Madam Speaker, I include the entire letter for the Record.

Madam Speaker, listen to this comment from the American Legion regarding their unanimous support for the current action in Iraq and the increase in troops and their caution or political rhetoric. They said, "Veterans of the Vietnam were remember what it was like to fight without the support of the people back home. You couldn't separate the war from the warrior then, any more than we can today."

While our soldiers are there, I will support them with everything they need in terms of armor and ammunition, bullets and bread, weapons and words.

I will continue to work for all of these things, but for this point in time, while our soldiers are on the battlefield, I want to be able to look them in the eye and say at your moment of need, I backed you up on the battlefield.

Mr. Clyburn: Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157, and as the designee of the majority leader, I demand that the time for debate on the concurrent resolution be enlarged by 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees.

The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. DeGette): Under the rule, that will be the order.

Mr. Spratt: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Olver: Madam Speaker, I support the resolution before us today. In clear and succinct language it says what I believe must be said regarding the war in Iraq that America is engaged in by the choice of President Bush.

I support our men and women on the front line with all the training, the body and vehicle armor and the equipment they need to be successful at the task that they have been given, and I support them as they return, whether safe and sound or scarred by grievous wounds. Almost 24,000 have been wounded, and many returned broken in body or spirit. Many have suffered permanently disabling wounds. Thousands of others, not physically wounded, suffer severe traumatic stress disorders. And all will need and must be given the care and rehabilitation they have been promised.

America mourns the loss of more than 3,000 of our soldiers since that fateful first day of May in 2003 when President George W. Bush triumphantly proclaimed "Mission Accomplished." At no time in the 220 years since the founding of our Nation has America suffered such casualties during an occupation following war. This occupation has been spectacularly mismanaged, yet Americans are asked to suspend doubt and support an already used tactic, placing almost 20,000 additional troops on the ground around the clock, with our young men and women caught between the combatants in the civil war raging in Baghdad's urban streets and neighborhoods.

I oppose this escalation. It is 4 years too late and more than 100,000 troops too few. The tactic itself has been used repeatedly over the last 4 years, with dangerously counterproductive results. Each time this tactic has been used, it has left behind greater hatred for the occupation and the occupiers, as well as thousands of new recruits for the insurgency or al Qaeda. I believe that this escalation will be remembered for the deaths of many more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

President George W. Bush has repeatedly cited the 300,000 strong Iraqi army and police force which we have spent billions of dollars to train and equip. They should be pacifying their capital city. As dysfunctional as it is, the Iraqi government which we created must decide whether they want all-out civil war or a stable, unified Iraq, with oil revenues fairly distributed and with changes to their Constitution to assure the rights of 40 percent of the population who are not Shia Muslims. We cannot decide that for them.

The civil war will continue and our casualties will continue to mount until we disengage our forces from a direct military role, except to deny haven to al Qaeda. We must place responsibility directly on the Iraqi government.

At this very late date, virtually everyone agrees that peace and stability for Iraq cannot be secured militarily, but only politically. Our best chance for a positive outcome to this tragic and unnecessary war is outlined and unanimously recommended by the Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.

We should substitute a robust, multifaceted diplomatic campaign to discourage all of Iraq's neighbors from engagement in the growing civil war and to gain support and assistance for a stable, unified Iraq. That diplomatic campaign must involve major powers and regional groups like the European Union and the Arab league, along with all of Iraq's neighbors, without exception or precondition. The U.S. should always be willing to talk. In every way, talk is far less costly than war.

In a month, the war in Iraq will have gone on 4 years, well beyond our participation in World War II. It is time to begin bringing our troops home.

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Hobson: Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that last night when I was watching the floor debate, my colleague from Connecticut, Chris Shays, gave one of the best speeches on where we are with regard to the war in Iraq. It was a comprehensive overview of the current situation, and I agree with his views on this debate, and I would like to associate myself with his comments. I hope that my colleagues and those who are following this debate will take a moment to read his remarks.

Like Mr. Shays, I rise in opposition to this resolution. This is the wrong resolution to be considering if we in Congress are supposed to be fulfilling our responsibility to provide oversight on how this war is to be conducted. Rather than debating the so-called surge, which is actually taking place, we should be debating how to put policy in place that will bring stability and ensure the security of the American people.

Admittedly, the administration has made mistakes in the execution of this war. Many of us, both Democrats and Republicans, have been telling them that from the beginning. Among a number of things that we have been saying has been that they had enough troops to win the war, but they didn't have enough troops to win the peace. But we can't correct those mistakes. What we can do now is to find a strategy on how best to go forward.

So the question becomes, what can we do now that gives the Iraqis the best chance to take control of their country, while also allowing our troops to return home with honor? We owe it to the parents and the families of the men and women who have fought and died in this war to not let their lives be lost in vain. That is the message that I have heard many times when I have met with those families in my district and one that many of my colleagues have also heard.

Last month, I went on a bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While we met with the U.S. troops and commanders, we also had a chance to meet with the leaders of those countries, including the prime minister, al-Maliki. He told us that if his country had the command and control equipment and our backing, the Iraqis could begin to take over their own security in 3 to 6 months and that we could begin to redeploy up to 50,000 of our troops.

Madam Speaker, we need to make sure that Prime Minister Maliki has the tools and resources to do just that. Frankly, the American people would be better served if that were this debate, instead of this nonbinding resolution.

Our focus should be on fixing what needs to be fixed so that the Iraqi people can take control of their country's fate, like they did 2 years ago when they held their first free elections in 50 years.

This action will require several steps. For example, as several of my colleagues have already mentioned, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group supports a short term surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad. This is being done. The group also recommended that there be more diplomatic outreach in the region to include countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and even Iran, and this needs to be done by the administration.

Further, it is imperative that our U.S. troops begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counterterrorism, force protection and controlling Iraq's borders.

My colleagues, the world is watching. Our friends, our enemies are watching and waiting to see what our next move will be. A retreat from Iraq would lead to even more instability in the region and create a haven for terrorist groups who despise freedom and our way of life.

What kind of message are we sending when we engage in debate that is essentially a political exercise, rather than one that is on substantive strategy on how to bring stability to the region?

Madam Speaker, we cannot accept defeat, but we must insist on making the changes necessary so that the Iraqi people can take the fate of their future in their own hands. There is a phrase that has often been repeated since the war began, and that is as Iraqi forces stand up, U.S. forces can begin to stand down. Defining a workable strategy to achieve that goal should have been the focus of this week's debate, rather than this nonbinding resolution that will not bring us a step closer to stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home or achieving stability in this region of the world.

Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Grijalva: Madam Speaker, I am here today to support the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I won't spend a lot of time assessing the blame and the responsibility for the quagmire that our Nation finds itself in in Iraq, but I do find it curious during this debate that the opponents of this resolution want us to believe that the history of the Iraq war begins today, that it has no past, that it has no consequences, just a doubtful future. This head-in-the-sand attitude, while politically expedient, denies reality and truth.

Rest assured that history will not be kind to the decisionmakers and the decider of this war, nor will it be kind to a Congress that looked the other way.

The resolution before us today is a first tentative step toward the removal of our troops from Iraq. The escalation proposed is another desperate act opposed by the American people and former military leaders.

The resolution does not demoralize our troops nor embolden the insurgents. To the contrary, this resolution offers hope to our troops that an end is in sight and that their elected representatives in this House are not passing on their authority regarding the most important issue confronting our Nation today.

I personally know families whose loved ones have been lost, badly injured or profoundly intangibly affected by this war. Our commitment should be to those families and veterans who need our full measure of support. Our gratitude should be measured in real resources for veterans, and not empty platitudes and political rhetoric expounded to justify an irreparable failure in Iraq.

The focus of this debate is not centered on our soldiers who are nobly doing their duty and following their orders. It is directed at those who set policy and who have produced a war without end, with no plan of success or exit, with no international strategy, who now turn to a desperate and doomed escalation that only reinforces the failure and the desperation of those policymakers.

Rest assured that the civil war in Iraq will not end with the influx of more American troops. I do believe this resolution should have teeth. We must send a message that binds all of us to real action, an unflinching message of opposition to the escalation and a message of support for our troops. Today marks a step in that direction.

And I wonder, how many ways can the American people tell this Congress to act to prevent more loss of our blood and treasure in the war in Iraq? Weren't the elections that just happened a strong message? Isn't the loss of confidence by the public in their elected officials a strong message? Isn't the sacrifice and valor of our men and women fighting this war deserving of the respect of this government? Don't we have a duty to those men and women to protect them, reunite them with their families immediately, and, above all, share the truth with them, that the question is no longer if we get out of Iraq, it's how and when.

The answer to that question for me and many other families is, the sooner the better. I could stand here and read poll after poll that talks about the public's overwhelming opposition to this war and even more overwhelming opposition to this escalation. But as I think about it, the most important poll for those of us who serve in Congress needs to be our conscience. The resolution before us is simple and direct. It speaks in a very clear way to the frustration we all feel about this misadventure in Iraq. And I said I would not belabor the question of who to blame, but it is important to address the obvious.

Remember weapons of mass destruction? None found.

Remember the links between Iraq and the attack on 9/11? It didn't exist.

All the misspent funds in Iraq, misappropriated dollars. That was ignored by the administration.

"Mission Accomplished." What a premature political hype that was.

And a strategy for Iraq. It doesn't exist.

Funds for education, health care, our cities and towns, investments in our people here in this country, that has all been spent in Iraq.

The litany of failures and untruths goes on and on. The lack of leadership by this administration requires, no, I think it demands that this Congress assert its constitutional duty to check and balance this administration by beginning with the important step of passing this resolution.

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Hall of Texas: Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I stand and I hope we all stand in support of our troops. But I also rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63. While I believe that we all share the same goal of winning this war on terror and bringing our brave young men and women home, I regret that this bill before us today absolutely will not lead to that goal. Nobody wants this war to end more than those fighting in it and we need now to do what it takes to bring our brave men and women home, but to bring them home in victory. If we don't achieve victory, the consequences are going to be disastrous for the progression of freedom all over the world, and instead of taking a step forward, we would be taking multiple steps backward.

So what is the point of this resolution? Is it going to block the troop surge? Absolutely not. Will it end the war? Not a chance. Will it help our chances of achieving victory? Absolutely not. This resolution will demoralize our troops who are sacrificing themselves for us today and tonight, and this resolution will give comfort to an enemy. This resolution puts politics before the lives of our brave soldiers and there is no way in the world that I can support it. The only chance we have for victory is to support the President's troop escalation. It's not a sure thing, but it's our best chance for victory. These added troops will help us secure Baghdad, stabilize the area, and accelerate the training necessary for the Iraqis to stand on their own. Only after these things happen can we leave Iraq the way we should and that is victorious.

I fully support our Commander in Chief, and I think he has much more information than I have or any other Member or combination of Members in regard to our war on terrorism, and particularly the war in Iraq. I think President Bush is a godly person, intelligent and educated, and cares for this country and cares for those who defend it. I will continue to support him as long as he holds the title of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. I heard the President loud and clear in his State of the Union address on January 23, 2007. What I gleaned from his speech is that he is asking for calendar year 2007 to complete the existing plan being implemented by General Petraeus and those who serve under him. And at such time, he fully expects the Iraqis to be in a position to defend their borders and protect their people, resulting in an executive order hopefully to bring the process of withdrawal of these American forces still defending our Nation, to bring them home.

This resolution will absolutely undermine the efforts of our troops in Iraq. I strongly oppose it.

Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Capuano: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I don't have prepared remarks. I have been listening to this debate for the last couple of days, and everything that can be said on both sides has been said repeatedly. And thus far the only thoughtful argument I have heard to not vote for this resolution is that somehow it will demoralize the troops. That pretends that the troops live in a bubble and don't know what is going on and just never think. Everybody who has done any discussions or any polling of the troops know they already know that this war is over. It's not a military defeat. To put it that way is ridiculous. No one can defeat our military. It is absolutely undefeatable. It is a political defeat. We cannot win, which I am not even sure what that means, this war. This escalation will do nothing but delay the inevitable. America knows it.

To listen to the discussion I have heard in the last couple of days, all I can say to myself, if we had this attitude in the seventies, we would still be in Vietnam. For what? For what? We have done what we could do, and we may have to go back someday, and I may vote for it under the right circumstances. To never say never is ridiculous. We don't know where the cards are going to be played. We do know one thing: that today Iraq is engaged in a civil war. One of the leaders of that civil war isn't even in Iraq. He is in Iran. We are only delaying the inevitable at the cost of our young men and women. And I am not talking about money, because if this was the right war, a moral war, money wouldn't be the issue.

This war is over. We need to recognize that. We need to stop trying to play politics with it. Bring our troops home and prepare them for the next battle that we might all join in if it's the right place and the right time.

Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. Barton of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Barton of Texas: Madam Speaker, I attended the Charlie Norwood funeral today in Augusta, Georgia. He was a veteran of Vietnam. I think it is ironic that because he was a veteran, we saw at the beginning of the funeral the honor guard walk in carrying the flag of the United States Army and the flag of the United States and all the battle ribbons on that flag, that as 70 to 80 of the Members of this body were showing respect to Charlie and his family, we were having this debate on another war.

The resolution before us is a sham resolution. It is nonbinding. I have voted on resolutions of war and peace in my time in this Congress. I voted on the first gulf war resolution back in the early nineties when we thought that there might be tens of thousands of body bags coming back with our troops in them. I voted on the first resolution supporting our President in this war after 9/11. Remember 9/11? We had more American citizens killed in one day in the Twin Towers and in the Pentagon than we have had in all the years that our troops have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't demean their sacrifice. I have attended three funerals in my hometown of young men who have been killed in the line of duty in this current war.

This nonbinding resolution tries to have it both ways. It says at the first, in part A, we support the troops and in part B, we don't support our President's decision, the Commander in Chief, to send these reinforcements. Well, if it's nonbinding, why have the debate? I think it's commendable that we are having this debate. I wish it would have had some meat on it. Let's put a real resolution on the floor. But the Republicans weren't offered an alternative, so we have to vote for or against a nonbinding resolution that has it both ways in the resolution. I don't think that is very becoming to this Congress.

But when the time comes, I am going to vote "no" because I believe as Thomas Jefferson believed, and if you go to his monument not too far from here and look up around the ceiling, Thomas Jefferson says, "I have sworn upon the eternal altar of God unending opposition to all forms of tyranny over the mind of man." This Islamic terrorist campaign is a direct attack on our democracy. It is a direct attack on our tolerance. We need to support our President. We need to vote against this nonbinding resolution. And then if we want to have a real resolution, let's bring it to the floor and have that debate.

I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63. This nonbinding resolution serves only to degrade and demoralize the troops currently engaged in forward operations and those additional troops President Bush has called upon. This is not a call for a new direction in Iraq nor is this a call for a new course of action. This is a political distraction and a call to our enemies around the world by showing a lack of resolve and fostering the idea of uncertainty towards support and funding for the men and women of our Armed Forces.

Speaker Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have charged that the previous policy did not work, the new policy will not work, and yet amongst all this rhetoric my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not have a constructive alternative to put forth. Instead they offer legislation that if enacted would fuel the call for setting timelines and the withdrawal of our troops. To leave before the job is finished would leave our country in a weaker position globally and leave the Middle East without any hope for democracy to ever take hold. The extremists that oppose us are against freedom and we are right to be engaged in the fight for democracy and tolerance. The stakes are high and our enemies know this. They are not going to quit, but if we pass this resolution it will be the first step in signaling that we will. It is right to support the President as he lays out his plan for securing Iraq and is in our national interest.

The necessary framework for democracy has been established and the labor of our brave troops has produced many measurable results. A constitution was written by the Iraqis resulting in democratic elections where nearly 12.5 million people braved the threat of violence to cast their votes. A fair criminal trial was held for Saddam Hussein, the country's former dictator, who denied that right to his own people. I urge my colleagues to let the Iraqis lead and give democracy a chance. Establishing a secure Iraq, a thriving democracy and a noticeable reduction in crime will pave the way for numerous infrastructure improvements.

Sustainable achievements in the reconstruction effort include the building of more than 5,000 schools, the training of more then 60,000 teachers, the training and equipping of 323,000 police and military forces, the vaccination of 98 percent of Iraqi children, the ability of more than 7 million people to access phone service, the repair of nearly all of Iraq's railway stations, the restoration of electricity output and oil production to near prewar levels and the increased availability of clean water and sanitation. The milestones that have been reached are a testament to why we should not abandon our presence in Iraq. Progress is being made and we must continue to support our troops and Iraq's democratic government.

The President's call for more troops is a decision not made in haste. It is made with careful consideration and thoughtful advice from his commanders both at home and in the field. The additional troops will work with Iraqis to solve serious challenges and to find ways to curb future outbreaks of violence. To achieve success in combating those serious challenges it is important that America stands with Iraq so they can defend their own soil, create a sound economy and govern themselves effectively. The President understands the consequences of failure in Iraq, something this resolution proves the Democrats do not comprehend.

I have been to the funerals of men and women from my district that lost their lives in this war. I have pinned medals on the chests of the brave men and women from my district who returned home safely. Visiting with families at home and troops in Iraq I have seen first hand the effects this war has on Americans. This resolution serves to discredit the memories of fallen soldiers, the efforts of those still fighting, and to embolden our enemies. If we remember, our enemies attacked us on September 11th and instead of living in fear and leaving ourselves open to more attacks we chose to take the fight to them. In the time since, there has not been another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. That is a testament to the fight our men and women are waging to protect the freedoms we so richly enjoy. I remain committed to supporting our forces serving abroad and ensuring they have the funding they need to complete their mission.

Some of my colleagues misguidedly stand to dismiss our efforts in Iraq. I stand with the resolve of former President Thomas Jefferson who said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." We must not stand divided and turn our backs on those fighting for democracy where tyranny threatens to reign. We must be steadfast and support them in every way we can. We can not let the difficulty of the task diminish our support for the troops and the cause for which they are so diligently fighting. We must not let this frivolous resolution pass.

Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Let me thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I believe that each and every Member that has come to the floor tonight and over the last 2 days would never consider any of their remarks frivolous, nor would we characterize this debate as political. Unfortunately, in 2002, many of those same words were used to characterize a very needed debate and one that we had hoped that those who had the powers of decision would have listened to.

I remember standing in this same location and suggesting to my colleagues that I was proud to accept and to make as my choice life over death and peace over war. Through these years, members of the Progressive Caucus thoughtfully have gathered to reinforce the words that we offered during those days when even though the en masse lobbying and representation of mass destruction weapons, we knew that this was a war that would be ill-fated and misdirected. In fact, during that time, we had solutions. We asked for a continued use of political diplomacy and, as well, the continuation of utilizing the U.N. inspectors to determine if there were weapons of mass destruction.

But now we have come some 5 years and we hear the same refrain. And I know in the hearts of those who have spoken that they are sincere. But if we said nothing else but point to those who have fallen, let their faces represent the sacrifice of America. Those are the faces of those who are always willing to go into battle, and not one of us on the floor today will ever say anything untoward about the United States military through the years and decades and centuries, because they have never faltered in the Commander in Chief's direction to go to war.

But what has really failed in this Congress in its oversight and responsibility and, as well, the choices being made by the leadership that has sent them into war.

And so, as Abraham Lincoln has said, "We wish to honor the soldiers and sailors everywhere who bravely bear this country's cause; honor also to the citizen who cares for his brother. We will never forget."

But we now stand in opposition to the escalation and support of this resolution because we believe that the Nation must hear, but also the leaders who make the decisions must hear this is wrong and misdirected.

The troops have been magnificent. We have had 180,000 of them who have served in Iraq from Texas, we have had 200 or more who have been killed, including the 3,000-plus that have been killed across the Nation. They do have a military success.

But we know that the surges do not work. We know it was ill-fated from the beginning. There was no collaboration, very minimal, and now the collaboration has ended. What is needed now is the declaration of a military success, which is what I have expressed in H.R. 930. And now we must search for diplomatic and political reconciliation, a Special Envoy to Iraq that focuses specifically on bringing together the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. We know that surges have only generated more insurgents, they have only generated more violence, and it has not brought about the safety that is needed.

Of course, the response is that this escalation will bring some sort of security to Baghdad, and then we can sit down and have reconciliation. One more soldier generates one more violent act. So we know that the troop surges do not work. We also know that it strains the readiness.

We need a diplomatic surge. More importantly, we need not to go over the steps of Secretary McNamara who indicated in his words, as I said in the October 2002, Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara said in his mea culpa on the Vietnam War: We were wrong, terribly wrong. And he hoped that the suffering, as he quoted one of the philosophers, he hoped that what we had experienced in the suffering of Vietnam would give us experience. Today this ongoing war in Iraq shows we have thrown away that experience.

We also throw away the Constitution, because this is not pursuant to Article I, section 8. This is not a declaration of war that we are in, and we therefore need to terminate the power of the President that had been given in 2002 to attack Iraq. This document has not been followed. And so H.R. 930 will terminate the authorization given in 2002, because for these lives lost already we don't want to participate in the foolishness of monies being spent recklessly, the lack of accountability, and a war that already can be claimed as a military victory by the United States military who can now come home with honor and dignity.

Let us stand again on this floor and claim that we support life over death and we support peace over war and we want our soldiers to return home in celebration and dignity in honor of these who now are fallen on the battlefield.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 63. I stand in strong support of our troops who have performed magnificently in battle and with a grace under pressure that is distinctively American. I stand with the American people, who have placed their trust in the President, the Vice President, and the former Secretary of Defense, each of whom abused the public trust and patience.

I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid nearly $400 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 3,019 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I stand fully, strongly, and unabashedly in opposition to the President's unilateral decision to escalate the war in Iraq by deploying more than 20,000 additional combat troops to Iraq, and at least that many more to provide logistical support.

I wish to make clear, Madam Speaker, that sending more combat troops into Iraq will not lead to success in Iraq. We cannot achieve success in Iraq unless we change strategy. But the President's proposed troop surge is not a change in strategy and it does not signal a new direction; it is simply more of the same. As our most recent great President, Bill Clinton, once said, "if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."

In proposing this latest troop surge, President Bush seeks to "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war." But even Henry V did not exhort his troops, his band of brothers, to go "once more, into the breach" for a fifth time. And neither should we.

Madam Speaker, instead of a surge in combat troops, the United States needs to launch a diplomatic surge for political and national reconciliation in Iraq. That is why I have introduced H.R. 930, the "Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for Political and National Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2007." As I will discuss in greater detail later in my remarks, my legislation offers a far better chance of sustainable success in Iraq than does the President's escalation. And equally important, my legislation will go a long way toward ensuring that never again will the American people or the Congress be bamboozled into rubber-stamping an ill-advised, ill- planned, preemptive war.

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to represent the citizens of the 18 Congressional District in the great State of Texas. The sons and daughters of the Lone Star State have always answered the call to service. More than 280 Texans have been made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. More than 2,200 Texans have been wounded. Only California has suffered a greater number of dead and wounded. Today, Madam Speaker, there are more than 31,000 Texans serving in Iraq, which is 12,000 more than the next highest state. Since the war began in March 2003, more than 180,000 Texans have served in Iraq, some deployed two, even three, in some cases four times.

Madam Speaker, it is more than irresponsible not to oppose the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. It is unconscionable. In opposing the President's latest folly, we send a message that is both simple and profound: You cannot win the just War on Terror by launching an unjustified War in Iraq. That is one of the hard and bitter lessons we have learned during the 4 years course of the War in Iraq.

The misguided, mismanaged, and costly debacle that is the Iraq War was preemptively launched by President Bush in March 2003 despite the opposition of me and 125 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. To date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history.

But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander-in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job.

My friends, I say with sadness that we have not enjoyed that same quality of leadership throughout the conduct of the Iraq War. The results, not surprisingly, have been disastrous. To date, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,109 brave servicemen and women (115 in December and 39 in the first 13 days of this month). More than 23,400 Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this misadventure.

The depth, breadth, and scope of the President's misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent in American history. It is a tragedy in a league all its own. But it was not unforeseeable or unavoidable. As the President's intention to launch a preemptive war against Iraq became known back in the fall of 2002, thoughtful members in the halls of Congress took to the floor, and concerned citizens in the countryside took to the streets to stop it. Patriots all, we registered our dissent. We acted not out of dislike of the President but out of love for our country and what it had represented to the world. As Robert Taft, "Mr. Republican," as he was affectionately known, the late, great Senator from Ohio, stated two weeks after Pearl Harbor, "Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of a democratic government."

My friends, in light of the enormous losses of precious American blood and treasure, it is very small consolation to know that those of us who acted on the biblical injunction to speak truth to power have been proven right in our warnings about the disaster war in Iraq would produce.

We predicted before the war that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." We made the point that it was essential for the Administration to develop "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary." We knew the Armed Forces of the United States is invincible on the battlefield and would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam Hussein. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we questioned whether the President knew what to do after we caught it."

We warned of the "postwar challenges," particularly the fact that there was no history of democratic government in Iraq, and that its economy and infrastructure was in ruins after years of war and sanctions and that rebuilding Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars that could be better at home securing the homeland and waging the real War on Terror. And we warned against sending American soldiers to war in Iraq without adequate protection against biological and unconventional weapons.

I am also reminded how General Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2003 that the Defense Department's estimate of troops needed for occupying Iraq is too low and that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed. But instead of heeding the wise counsel of General Shinseki, the Bush administration cashiered him out of the Army.

Indeed, anyone who questioned the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was ridiculed and marginalized as unpatriotic, weak, sympathetic to terrorists, and un-American: Anti-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Laurence Lindsay, Joe Wilson, and congressional Democrats.

But four years later, people like us are now the majority. And we are united in raising our voices to proclaim: End the war and redeploy our troops out of Iraq.

Madam Speaker, it is instructive to review why the American people have turned against the war in Iraq.

The American people were told erroneously but repeatedly that the gravest threat facing America was Saddam Hussein and his regime. The Vice-President assured all who listened that he knew that Iraq and Al Qaeda had high-level contacts that went back a decade and that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and deadly gases. He was wrong. What's more, the American people were led to believe that the regime in Baghdad had long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. Wrong again. President Bush even went so far as to say that you couldn't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talked about the war on terror. Of course, this claim turned out to be untrue as well.

That is not all, Madam Speaker. The campaign to persuade Americans that Iraq posed a clear, present, and mortal danger to us included the false claims that Iraq possessed ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles--far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations. It was also falsely represented to Americans that Iraq had a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas and that Iraq was exploring ways of using unmanned aerial vehicles to target the United States.

But the capstone of the administration's disinformation campaign was the claim that Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing nuclear weapons which could be used against America by Iraq, or by the terrorists to whom it was giving safe harbor. President Bush even went so far to announce to a world-wide audience in his 2003 State of the Union address that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." According to the President, facing such clear evidence of peril, we could not wait for "the final proof that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." We now know for sure that these claims were false. And covering up those false claims is one of the main reasons that Scooter Libby found himself in the predicament that led to his indictment by a grand jury and the on-going trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Regarding the actual conduct of the looming hostilities, the Administration and its courtiers assured us that "it would be a cakewalk" and that American troops "would be greeted as liberators." The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, boldly claimed that "the war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Vice- President Cheney said, "I think it will go relatively quickly . . . [in] weeks rather than months." There are many things one could say about these rose- colored scenarios peddled by the Administration nearly four long years ago. But there is one thing you cannot say and that is "truer words were never spoken."

Finally, Madam Speaker, let us not forget the wildly extravagant claims of this Administration regarding the cost of this war. The Director of the White House OMB was quoted as saying that "Iraq will be an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid and will be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion." At last count, Madam Speaker, the war has cost the taxpayers $379 billion. That a cost overrun of more than 600 percent.

To put the cost of the war in perspective, consider that we are spending more than $8 billion a month to sustain the war effort in Iraq. Could this money be put to better use? Well, consider the following:

For $33.1 billion, or 4 months in Iraq, we could have fully funded the Department of Homeland Security FY 2007 budget.

For $10 billion, just 5 weeks in Iraq, we could equip every commercial airliner with defenses against shoulder-fired missiles.

For $8.6 billion, just 30 days in Iraq, we could finance the shortage of international aid needed to rebuild Afghanistan.

For $5.2 billion, just three weeks in Iraq, we could finance the capital improvements needed to secure the nation's public transportation system, including trains, subways, and buses.

For the equivalent of 5 days in Iraq, just $1.5 billion, we could provide radiation detectors at every port in the United States.

For only $1.4 billion, the cost of another 5 days in Iraq, we could double the COPS (community police grants) program.

For the cost of a mere two days in Iraq, we could fund the $700 million needed to provide 100% screening of all air cargo.

For $350 million, 26 hours in Iraq, we could instead make emergency radio systems interoperable.

For the cost of 8½hours in Iraq, $94 million, we could restore the cuts in Homeland Security funding to cities hit on September 11.

Madam Speaker, opponents of the resolution before us contend that it gives comfort to the enemy and undermines the President's strategy for success in Iraq. They claim it is our patriotic duty to avert our eyes to this Administration's nearly unbroken record of spectacular failure and incompetence and rally around the flag. But to paraphrase the old saw: fool me four times, shame on you; fool me a fifth time, shame on me. The truth is, Madam Speaker, this Congress--and the American people--has not been fickle or impatient. Rather, it has been understanding and generous to a fault, overlooking and excusing blunder after blunder committed by the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). As Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, and a former senior member of the NSC, brilliantly describes in his essay, "The Seven Deadly Sins Of Failure In Iraq: A Retrospective Analysis Of The Reconstruction," in Middle East Review of International Affairs (December 2006), our trust and patience has been repaid by a record of incompetence unmatched in the annals of American foreign policy.

The Bush administration disregarded the advice of experts on Iraq, on nation-building, and on military operations. It staged both the invasion and the reconstruction on the cheap. It did not learn from its mistakes and did not commit the resources necessary to accomplish its original lofty goals or later pedestrian objectives. It ignored intelligence that contradicted its own views.

It is clear now that the administration simply never believed in the necessity of a major reconstruction in Iraq. To exacerbate matters the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the White House Office of the Vice President (OVP) worked together to ensure that the State Department was excluded from any meaningful involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The administration's chief Iraq hawks shared a deeply naive view that the fall of Saddam and his top henchmen would have relatively little impact on the overall Iraqi governmental structure. They assumed that Iraq's bureaucracy would remain intact and would therefore be capable of running the country and providing Iraqis with basic services. They likewise assumed that the Iraqi armed forces would largely remain cohesive and would surrender whole to U.S. forces. The result of all this was a fundamental lack of attention to realistic planning for the postwar environment.

As it was assumed that the Iraqis would be delighted to be liberated little thought was given to security requirements after Saddam's fall. The dearth of planning for the provision of security and basic services stemmed from the mistaken belief that Iraqi political institutions would remain largely intact and therefore able to handle those responsibilities.

But there were too few Coalition troops, which meant that long supply lines were vulnerable to attack by Iraqi irregulars, and the need to mask entire cities at times took so much combat power that it brought the entire offensive to a halt.

It was not long before these naive assumptions and inadequate planning conjoined to sow the seeds of the chaos we have witnessed in Iraq.

The lack of sufficient troops to secure the country led to the immediate outbreak of lawlessness resulting in massive looting and destruction dealt a stunning psychological blow to Iraqi confidence in the United States, from which the country has yet to recover. We removed Saddam Hussein's regime but we did not move to fill the military, political, and economic vacuum. The unintended consequence was the birth of a failing state, which provided the opportunity for the insurgency to flourish and prevented the development of governmental institutions capable of providing Iraqis with the most basic services such as clean water, sanitation, electricity, and a minimally functioning economy capable of generating basic employment.

Making matters worse, the administration arrogantly denied the United Nations overall authority for the reconstruction even though the U.N. had far more expertise and experience in nation building.

The looting and anarchy, the persistent insurgent attacks, the lack of real progress in restoring basic services, and the failure to find the promised weapons of mass destruction undercut the administration's claim that things were going well in Iraq and led it to make the next set of serious blunders, which was the disbanding of the Iraqi military and security services.

Madam Speaker, counterinsurgency experts will tell you that to pacify an occupied country it is essential to disarm, demobilize, and retrain (DDR) the local army. The idea behind a DDR program is to entice, cajole, or even coerce soldiers back to their own barracks or to other facilities where they can be fed, clothed, watched, retrained, and prevented from joining an insurgency movement, organized crime, or an outlaw militia.

By disbanding the military and security services without a DDR program, as many as one million Iraqi men were set at large with no money, no means to support their families, and no skills other than how to use a gun. Not surprisingly, many of these humiliated Sunni officers went home and joined the burgeoning Sunni insurgency.

The next major mistake made in the summer of 2003 was the decision to create an Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), which laid the foundation for many of Iraq's current political woes. Many of the IGC leaders were horribly corrupt, and they stole from the public treasury and encouraged their subordinates to do the same. The IGC set the tone for later Iraqi governments, particularly the transitional governments of Ayad Allawi and Ibrahim Jaafari that followed.

Finally, by insisting that all of the problems of the country were caused by the insurgency rather than recognizing the problems of the country were helping to fuel the insurgency, the Bush Administration set about concentrating its efforts in all the wrong places and on the wrong problems.

This explains why for nearly all of 2004 and 2005, our troops were disproportionately deployed in the Sunni triangle trying to catch and kill insurgents. Although our troops caught and killed insurgents by the hundreds and thousands, these missions were not significantly advancing our strategic objectives. Indeed, they had little long-term impact because insurgents are always willing to flee temporarily rather than fight a leviathan. Second, because so many coalition forces were playing "whack-a-mole" with insurgents in the sparsely populated areas of western Iraq, the rest of the country was left vulnerable to take over by militias.

Finally, Madam Speaker, a cruel irony is that because the Iraqi Government brought exiles and militia leaders into the government and gave them positions of power, it is now virtually impossible to get them out, and even more difficult to convince them to make compromises because the militia leaders have learned they can use their government positions to maintain and expand their personal power, at the expense both of their rivals who are not in the government and of the central government itself.

All of this was avoidable and the blame for the lack of foresight falls squarely on the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Madam Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held 52 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group Report.

But President Bush is still not listening to America. He is acting as if nothing has changed. He is not offering a way out of Iraq, only a way forward that will take us deeper into the morass and quagmire.

The troop surge proposed by President Bush is not a new strategy for success in Iraq; it is just the same old repackaged policy of "stay the course." This troop surge--this escalation of the war--will not provide lasting security for Iraqis. It is not what the American people have asked for, nor what the American military needs. It will impose excessive and unwarranted burdens on military personnel and their families. It is opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people. It is opposed by a majority in Congress.

The architects of the fiasco in Iraq would have us believe that "surging" at least 20,000 more soldiers into Baghdad and nearby Anbar province is a change in military strategy that America must embrace or face future terrorist attacks on American soil. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we learned last year when the "surge" idea first surfaced among neoconservatives.

The President's proposed troop surge is not new and, judging from history, we know it will not work. It will only succeed in putting more American troops in harm's way for no good reason and without any strategic advantage. The armed forces of the United States are not to be used to respond to 911 calls from governments like Iraq's that have done all they can to take responsibility for the security of their country and safety of their own people. The United States cannot do for Iraq what Iraqis are not willing to do for themselves.

Troop surges have been tried several times in the past. The success of these surges has, to put it charitably, been underwhelming. Let's briefly review the record:

1. Operation Together Forward, (June-October 2006): In June the Bush administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing the presence of Iraqi Security Forces. That plan failed, so in July the White House announced that additional American troops would be sent into Baghdad. By October, a U.S. military spokesman, Gen. William Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop increase was a failure and had "not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence."

2. Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005): In the fall of 2005 the Bush administration increased troop levels by 22,000, making a total of 160,000 American troops in Iraq around the constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. While the elections went off without major violence these escalations had little long-term impact on quelling sectarian violence or attacks on American troops.

3. Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005): As part of an effort to improve counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive in November 2004 and to increase security before the January 2005 constitutional elections U.S. forces were increased by 12,000 to 150,000. Again there was no long-term security impact.

4. Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004): As part of a massive rotation of 250,000 troops in the winter and spring of 2004, troop levels in Iraq were raised from 122,000 to 137,000. Yet, the increase did nothing to prevent Muqtada al-Sadr's Najaf uprising and April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for American forces.

Madam Speaker, by more than 60 percent, Americans oppose increasing American troop levels in Iraq. So do many of the nation's leading and most knowledgeable military officers. In testimony before the Senate, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the former Commander of United States Central Command, stated: "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are." General Abizaid's view is shared by Gen. Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has said "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work." And Gen. Barry McCaffrey (retired), who commanded the 24th Infantry Division during the first Gulf War, is even more blunt: "It's a fool's errand . . . Our allies are leaving us . . . Make no mistake about that. Most will be gone by this summer."

Even leading members of the Republican Party are skeptical of the President's latest ploy to salvage the mess he has made of Iraq. According to Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the President's escalation plan "represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam--if it's carried out. I will resist it." Senator Hagel is joined in his skepticism by Senators Olympia Snowe, John Warner, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, George Voinovich, Sam Brownback, Arlen Specter, and a growing list of others.

Madam Speaker, although Americans are right to oppose the President's troop surge, stemming the chaos in Iraq will require more than opposition to military escalation. It requires us to make hard choices.

It is past time for a new direction that can lead to success in Iraq. We cannot wait any longer. Too many Americans and Iraqis are dying who could otherwise be saved.

Since the President still has not seen the light, we need to make him feel the heat. I believe the time has come to debate, adopt, and implement a plan for strategic redeployment. I am not talking about "immediate withdrawal," "cutting and running," or surrendering to terrorists. And I certainly am not talking about staying in Iraq forever or the foreseeable future.

I am talking about a paradigm shift. Rather than undertaking a misguided and futile surge in troops, the United States should surge diplomatically. The Armed Forces of the United States have performed magnificently. They won the war they were sent to fight. Their civilian leadership has not succeeded in winning the peace.

That is why I have introduced H.R. 930, which among other things creates a high-level Special Envoy to launch a new offensive on the diplomatic front. My legislation, the "Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for Political and National Reconciliation Act of 2007," implements twelve of the most important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker and 911 Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton.

Among other things, H.R. 930, would require a diplomatic full-court press designed to engage all six of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait--more constructively in stabilizing Iraq. These countries are already involved in a bilateral, self-interested and disorganized way.

While their interests and ours are not identical, none of these countries wants to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, becomes a failed state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become a haven for terrorists or a hemorrhage of millions more refugees streaming into their countries.

Madam Speaker, when Congress authorized the president to use military force in Iraq in 2002, it departed from the wisdom of our forefathers. The Framers understood that while the military does the fighting, a nation goes to war. That is why they lodged the power to declare war in the Congress, the branch of government closest to the people. They knew that the decision to go to war was too important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise or well-informed he or she might be. But the AUMF passed by Congress was not a declaration of war but rather a blank check for the president to start and wage war in Iraq at a time, place, and manner of his choosing. It is time to rescind that blank check and return to first principles.

That is why H.R. 930 also includes another important legislative initiative, the "Military Success in Iraq Act of 2007 (MSIA)." This provision of my legislation is crafted to end the American military involvement in Iraq and redeploy American troops out of Iraq.

The MSIA declares that the objectives which led Congress to pass the 2002 AUMF have been achieved. It further declares that whenever the objectives set forth in an AUMF have been achieved, the AUMF expires automatically. Then it finds that Congress is the ultimate arbiter as to whether the objectives set forth in its AUMF have been achieved.

Because Congress now finds that the 2002 AUMF objectives have been achieved, my legislation provides that the authorization to use force conferred upon the President by the AUMF has now expired. My bill then makes clear that the President must obtain a new authorization to continue the use force in Iraq. Finally, my bill requires that if the Congress does not vote to reauthorize the use of force in Iraq by March 31, 2007, then all American armed forces in Iraq must be redeployed out of Iraq. Thus, under my legislation, an up-or-down vote must be held by the House and Senate to continue waging war in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, our domestic national security, in fact, rests on redeploying our military forces from Iraq in order to build a more secure Middle East and continue to fight against global terrorist networks elsewhere in the world. Strategic redeployment of our armed forces in order to rebuild our nation's fighting capabilities and renew our critical fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda is not just an alternative strategy. It's a strategic imperative.

My legislation requires the Congress to provide leadership on the most important issue of our day. That is what the American people want. That is what they voted for last November. That is what has been required all along.

And providing constructive leadership that will bring peace, enhance security, and save lives is the task to which I am now, and always have been, dedicated. That is why I strongly and proudly support our magnificent, heroic, and selfless service men and women. That is why I strongly support H. Con. Res 63 and squarely oppose the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq. I urge all members to support the resolution before the House.