---

Mr. Buyer: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this resolution. It champions a dismally irresponsible and dangerous course of action. On its face, the resolution merely addresses the troop surge, ignoring the President's plan in its totality, as I said earlier.

I will now address our efforts to move forward on the diplomatic and economic front. With regard to the establishment of government capacities, the establishment of the rule of law is a necessity, for to have Iraq address the national plan of reconciliation, to have them pass enabling legislation for the Constitution and amendment process, and to set provincial elections, is extremely important.

With regard to the economic piece, the concession whereby the Iraqi government will seek to have a quasi-Alaskan model with regard to the revenue sharing of its precious assets is extremely important, because you do not want the distribution of the oil proceeds to go to regional leaders. It will only empower them and then weaken the unity Federal Government.

With regard to the debt relief agreements, much has been negotiated, but the neighboring Gulf States need to step forward, and upcoming meetings are at hand.

The debate seems to be on the security piece. There are those saying well, let's just back out completely. They use words such as "withdraw to the United States" and "redeploy." But is that a plan? I haven't heard any form of military plan. They say what, we will just turn it over to them? Wow.

As we listen to the neighboring leaders, they express caution of cataclysmic consequences. I fear how America will be defined by our friends. Do you reach out to a child as you are teaching it how to walk, let go of the hand and let them fall and say it is up to you, and leave them alone? You are going to have to find your way to the kitchen. Or do you go back and help them walk?

I am concerned about how cold and callous the new majority is to this new infant democratic government. But I guess even more disconcerting to me is the politics behind this resolution. While the majority tells the American public that change must occur, that we are going on the wrong course, this amendment basically opts for the status quo, the same status quo for which they have attacked the administration, which they campaigned against last fall.

They offer no solution, only acting as the critic, and being a critic is the easiest role in the world.

Just sit back and just bark at someone, yet offer no plan of resolution for stability within the region. What is the plan of success for them? Silence.

Let us also address the undemocratic process under which their resolution was brought to the floor here. We stand here and debate how best to bring democratic government to Iraq, yet this majority in Congress shows the leaders in Iraq how to be undemocratic and deny a Republican minority a chance to bring a substitute resolution. I find that quite ironic that this Capitol that is supposed to be the most democratic process in the world is now undemocratic.

I beg of my colleagues not to play politics with the safety and security of this Nation. I must remind this body and the American people the threat we face.

Iraq is a critical front in the larger global war on terror. We are entrenched in a fight against masters of intimidation, bound together by an extreme, perverted ideology which they claim is a legitimate interpretation of Islam.

Our enemies seek to establish regimes that rule according to a violent and intolerant distortion of the Islamic faith, that is, to deny all political and religious freedoms and aim to establish sanctuaries for violence and additional attacks. They have no centralized command structure or place to call home. Instead, they exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization. They mobilize resentful, disillusioned, and underemployed young men and women and have mastered technology to aid them in their bidding.

Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, explicitly warned that the establishment of a democratic Iraq is the death of al Qaeda there. Think about that. The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq says to establish a democratic Iraq is the death of al Qaeda. Yet, what does the new majority want? Pull-out of our troops, weaken the stability of that country, to be overtaken then by al Qaeda, instead of strengthening the democratic government, ensuring that they have an economy political apparatus and have the security to prevail, which is the death of al Qaeda.

Our resolve should be to succeed in this struggle, and we must be stronger in our resolve than their resolve to inflict terror. At every step they are watching our move, waiting for us to falter, fail, drop our guard, or just walk away.

General John Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. CENTCOM, described well the ramifications of letting Iraq fall to terrorism in his testimony before the United States Senate: "The enemy's vision of the future would create a region-wide zone that would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Music would be banned, women ostracized, basic liberties banished, and soccer stadiums used for public executions. The people of the region do not want the future these extremists desire. The more we talk about this enemy, the more its bankrupt ideology will become known."

This enemy uses suicide bombings, beheadings and other atrocities against the innocent citizens of the world to pursue its objectives. They are the enemy of freedom and wanting nothing more than to disrupt peaceful, civilized people everywhere. No one is safe from this hatred, and it is not restricted to the Middle East. Just ask those in London and Italy and other places around the world. This is a global threat. Iraq is not the limit of this beast's haven.

It is the challenge of our generation to destroy this enemy wherever it lurks. We cannot do it without the resolve, cunning, and above all vigilance. The price that we pay for freedom is eternal vigilance from those who seek to steal it away.

While we have not been attacked on our homeland since September 11, 2001, it is not for the lack of the terrorists' efforts. We have been fortunate to have spoiled and foiled several plots here in this country and around the globe. Yet, the fight is far from over. Chances are that today you feel safe in your neighborhood. You can walk to the store. You can play with your children at the local park or in your backyard without having the fear of being blown up by a roadside bomb or being shot by a sniper. You allow your children to go to the malls without fear of a suicide bomber.

It is that peace of mind, this feeling of safety that we are endowed as the elected leaders of this country to preserve at all costs.

I remind you that these extremists want to disrupt and destroy our every way of life. They are not equipped to do battle on a conventional battlefield. Instead, they look to disrupt our most basic freedoms, our securities and our institutions, public and private. The world is their battlefield. Their hope and their goal is to outlast our resolve.

It is our burden to bear, our generation's great challenge to defeat their hopes and objectives. We cannot cower and seek the sanctity of security in this challenge. You are not free when you cower. You have given in to the designs of the terrorists if you do.

This debate began with the Speaker asking whether or not this resolution will make our troops safer. The answer I believe is no. This resolution lacks courage. It lacks leadership and it lacks a forward way of thought. This resolution, to me, is pure political theater. The administration has given us a legitimate plan to work with, and the majority in this House has given us nothing but criticism and a path for an easy way out that virtually holds the door open for terrorists to destroy an infant democratic government and to open a way of access to the U.S. and our allies for terror.

I close with a thought from a past President who faced the trials of war in his lifetime. President Kennedy said, "Let us resolve to be the masters, not the victims, of our history, controlling our own destiny without giving way to blind suspicions and emotions."

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Smith of Washington: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California: Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues today to add my support to this resolution.

This resolution is straightforward and simple: we support our troops and oppose President Bush's plan to send more than 20,000 additional combat troops to Iraq.

I support this resolution because we need a new direction in our Iraq policy. This war has been going on for almost my entire service in this House, and during that time, I have heard one misrepresentation after another.

This war began on a flawed premise, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the world. After months of fruitless searches, it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction; but 3 years after coming to that conclusion, we are still in Iraq.

Then we captured Saddam Hussein and more than 3 years later we are still in Iraq. We were told we needed to be there to fight the terrorists who attacked us, but we all knew that al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.

Vice President Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes; and 20 months later, our troops are still in combat in Iraq.

We were told we were in Iraq to establish democracy and freedom. Iraq now has a Constitution and an elected government, but over 1 year later we are still in Iraq.

It was 3 years, 9 months and 2 weeks ago that President Bush declared mission accomplished, but our troops are still in Iraq.

We in this House and the American public have been continuously misled about this war. Enough is enough. If I really believed that sending another 20,000 troops would end the war and bring stability to Iraq, I would support it. It would be worth the sacrifice. But the war in Iraq cannot be solved militarily because it is a political problem.

So when the President wants to send even more troops, we really need to take stock of what that means for our country and the lasting impact that it will have.

We all know the statistics: 3,124 American troops killed; over 20,000 wounded; and over $379 billion spent.

And I have seen the costs beyond the numbers, and I am sure my colleagues have as well.

Each visit that I have made to Walter Reed, every wounded veteran that I have met in my district and each condolence letter I write to the widow or the parent of a fallen soldier painfully reminds me of the great sacrifice we are asking from our men and women in uniform and their families.

There are also costs that we don't have numbers for, but they are worth considering. How many children will grow up without a parent because of this war? How many veterans' lives will be forever altered because of the injuries they have endured? How are we being perceived throughout the world, and has it made us more vulnerable to terrorism?

As we consider the President's decision to send yet more troops and to escalate the costs we are bearing, we need to ask ourselves whether the cost of sending more troops to fulfilled a flawed policy is justified. I don't think it is, and most Americans don't think it is either.

As far as I am concerned, this is a moral issue. We are not doing right by our troops and their families to continue sending them into harm's way without a winning strategy.

And we are not doing right for America. Our continued presence in Iraq is breeding new recruits for terror groups and eroding the readiness of our own Armed Forces.

We are increasingly vulnerable to defending our interests in other parts of the world, such as Afghanistan, where just yesterday The Washington Post reports that NATO lacks enough troops to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda.

It is time to change our tactics and bring an end to our current mission in Iraq. This resolution is not going to do that, but it is a first step in articulating to this President that staying the course is not working and it is not acceptable to the American people.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting "yes" on the resolution.

Mr. Buyer: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Thinking about this debate, I reflected back to when this House voted on the resolution to go to war and so thought I would better look up what I said, because I remembered something that was very serious to me and what was very curious was the years before 2001.

I had watched a lot of people vote against the defense bill. Yet coming off of September 11, there was this bravado about going to war, and I felt a sense of unease. So I thought I would go back and see what I said when I came to the floor on that day, and I would like to share it with everyone.

I said: "I have seen great resolve uttered in this Chamber and the swaggering display of courage.

"I can share with my colleagues, as a veteran of the gulf war, that war may be glorious in verse or prose, but in reality it is not. We are about to send America's finest, and that means men and women will die. It will be a noble cause, but we must remember the resolve of this moment, because in war it is chaotic. Not everything is going to go right. We cannot be 400 and 500 generals between the House and the Senate."

Now, I said that back on September 14, 2001, trying to caution all of my colleagues, many of whom had voted against defense bills, now rattling sabers, feeling this bravado of let us go to war.

Now I have to ask, was that a false bravado because now, as war has gotten chaotic and has gotten hard and difficult, now they cower, and I have great concern.

So I ended with: "We cannot have the bravado of today and then run at the first sound of the guns."

Please remember this day when it gets hard.

The gentleman I am about to yield to, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), was chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and I remember him well because I had served as the chairman on the House Armed Services Committee at the time and served with Mr. Smith, and when we came out after Oklahoma City, then-President Clinton, very concerned about terrorism, and we passed our first anti-terrorism bill here in the House and many people were like, wait a minute, that was a domestic act of terror.

No, President Clinton began to focus abroad, not only upon the Russian Mafia, but he was also focusing on Osama bin Laden and other terror. It can be debated whether or not he took great vigilance on that front or not, but let me post a real compliment to Mr. Clinton because he turned to Hugh Shelton.

General Shelton was at the time the commander of Special Operations. I was very upset coming out of the House conference on the anti- terrorism bill because Joe Biden and I were trying to bring the country to roving wiretaps, but the country was not ready for it. So then it was defeated.

I then get on the phone and call General Shelton and bring him up to Washington, D.C., and I asked him a simple question: What are the top ten unfunded requirements that you have given Special Operations, the missions that you have to do in the dark world to secure America but you don't have the resources to accomplish them?

He sat down and he detailed them. More importantly, as President Clinton then named him, appropriately and wisely, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he worked then with Jerry Lewis and prepared the force. So when America was hit on September 11 and we immediately sent those special operators into Afghanistan, they were prepared, they were equipped, they were trained to fight in the dark world and special operations, and Jerry Lewis, his leadership, was responsible for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California such time as he may consume.

Mr. Lewis of California: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those very, very poignant remarks laying the foundation for all of us to understand just how serious this challenge is that we are about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution before us and urge those who are voting for it, or considering it, to carefully reconsider their decision.

Section 1 simply expresses all of our support for our troops who are fighting for our freedom and freedom in the world in Iraq.

All of us agree with that piece of the statement, and each of us has expressed our support and encouragement to our troops in our own way and our own time.

The second section challenges the President's, actually the Commander in Chief's, request for a surge in Iraq.

Much has been said about our going to Iraq because of the prospect of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the madman Saddam Hussein. We presumed their presence, as most of the leaders of the world and most of the intelligence communities of the world so presumed. Not finding weapons of mass destruction does not set aside the importance of eliminating the force of Saddam Hussein from the face of the Earth.

It was my honor to lead one of the early trips to Iraq following the fall of Saddam. We were about to consider an $87 billion supplemental to help finance our presence in Iraq. I wanted to take a team of Members who would reflect much of the Congress, so that trip included conservatives and moderates and liberals. It also included within us Members who had voted to support going to war and those who had voted against it.

We visited most of Iraq, Mosul, Tikrit. We spent time in Baghdad. We visited the killing fields where over 500,000 bodies of Iraqis lie, Iraqis who were murdered by Saddam Hussein. We saw the golden palaces and visited the industrial sites suffering under Saddam Hussein's neglect. We saw the economic conditions, the handbasket conditions left by Saddam Hussein.

We stopped out of country on our way home to consider the fact that there was this supplemental appropriations before us when we returned, some $87 billion, discussing what we had experienced. And the experience had a tremendous effect upon all of our colleagues. It is properly summarized by the statement of one of our Members who said: "You all know where I have been coming from. I voted against the war. But after we have seen what we have seen over this long stay in Iraq, I am afraid what I am about to do is going to be very, very unpopular at home but I don't know how we can do anything else. Sometimes," he said, "you have to be ahead of your people; sometimes we are elected actually to lead."

That was almost 4 years ago. And fast forward to today. Saddam Hussein is gone, he is dead, and he is buried. But the extremists jihadi Islamic terrorists remain and continue to impact the entire Middle East. That is why we must succeed in Iraq. That is why we cannot afford to withdraw troops now.

Watching our floor debate last night, my wife turned to me and said, "They want us to redeploy or withdraw. They want us to retreat." She said, "George Washington did not retreat when our country was in danger." She questioned why we find ourselves in this kind of circumstance today.

I was reminiscent of that early time in our history when our Nation was threatened. The French came to our rescue, our assistance, and indeed played a major role in our future Commander in Chief himself being successful.

Americans should never forget that. The Statue of Liberty stands on Ellis Island as a reminder of the French view of that young America, its potential, a land of hope where freedom could reign and opportunity indeed might abound. For that and many other reasons we love France, and the French people are our friends.

But France is not entirely the same country at this point in its history. She no longer provides such a leading light for the world. No longer is it presumed that the French language should be the language of the international world. Today, about 10 percent of the French population is Muslim. Much of that population is middle class and something less than a middle-class opportunity.

Within that group, there abounds the voice of Islamic extreme. There are those who advocate jihad and who would wipe France as we know it off the face of the Earth.

We should not consider withdrawing now, because a stable Iraq is vital to our national interests and is an important part of our ability to promote peace and economic opportunity in the entire world. It is a critical battleground in our war against terrorism.

If we succeed in Iraq, we will have taken a gigantic step towards stamping out the source of terrorism that exists in that part of the world. If we are not successful in Iraq, we will meet extremist Islamic activism elsewhere. 9/11 was only a part of a beginning. If we do not stop extreme Islamic jihadists in the Middle East, we will see it again, and most likely we will see it again here at home.

Review with me for a moment where we have been in Afghanistan and Iraq and where it may take us. Al Qaeda was nurtured and gained strength in Afghanistan. America had played a key role in forcing the former Soviet Union to cease its incursion in Afghanistan. The Islamic extremists who surround the likes of Osama bin Laden took advantage of the vacuum of Afghanistan, and used it as a training ground that would provide the terrorists an opportunity to spread their jihad around the world and spread terrorism with it.

America cannot allow the likes of Osama bin Laden to have places like Afghanistan to serve as training grounds. It is in our vital interests to see that Iraq, for example, does not serve as a recruitment and training ground for the forces who oppose freedom and oppose our very way of life.

Make no mistake about it, there are forces in the Islamic world who do not believe we should exist. They may be relatively new or small in number, but there are those of Islamic jihadist extreme who are committed to the death of the nonbelievers. There are those on the extreme Imam fringe who teach hatred for the infidels in mosques all around the world.

We do not want to believe in such extremism as a country or a people, but the true believers want all of us to be dead, all Englishmen, all Germans, all French people, all Americans who are not committed to their belief. The heathens should be dead. How else would one be able to convince men, women, and children to strap themselves with bombs and kill the innocents by the thousands? If not death to all infidels, how else would a mother praise Allah as her young child explodes as a bomb in a crowded train station?

The war on terror goes well beyond Iraq. But make no mistake, that war will not be won by walking away from Iraq.

The President has called for a surge of just over 20,000 troops. That request does not flow from a naive presumption that maybe, just maybe the battle for Baghdad can be won by a few brave men.

The call for these troops is a change in strategy, a strategy that suggests that, with the leadership of such brave men committed to taking the Iraqis out front, can lead the way to a successful change in Baghdad, indeed, a change throughout Iraq; a strategy that the President would suggest involves clearing areas of Baghdad, clearing other areas throughout Iraq, stabilizing them, and then providing the real opportunity for democratic growth and change in Iraq.

A successful stabilization of Baghdad indeed is only the beginning point in Iraq. To me, this kind of change is the real hope for the people, not just of Iraq, but of the entire region. To me, that is the definition of success in Iraq.

If we are successful, we will have changed the face of the Middle East. A successful Iraq will send a great message to the likes of Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Indonesia.

The chance for a long-term peace and the chance for stability in the entire Middle East is the great strategic interest of the United States saving tens of thousands of lives are worth a great commitment by the world's only remaining superpower. The economic values that are to be gained from stabilizing the region are impossible to estimate, but they can be measured in multiple trillions of dollars.

But what happens if we walk away now? Also difficult to estimate, but here are but a few of the possibilities. And listen to the possibilities:

First, instability is replaced by a new kind of centralized authoritarian control potentially, perhaps an arbitrary government with Saddam-like controls. Shia would very likely be in charge, and force would be exercised in the name of stability.

Beyond that, Kurdistan in the offing; an insecure Kurdish population to the north would do all it could to provide for its own protection. The prospects of independent Kurdish region or state would create major tension between Turkey and Baghdad and that new region in northern Iraq. Beyond that, Sunni Iran would look upon the new direction of Iraq with great concern because of sectarian differences.

Fourth, the jihadist extremists of Islam would have increased sway in the entire region. The threat of terrorism all over the world would be a reality to those who would but look. Indeed, the prospects, to say the least, should be frightening to anybody who will but look.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, all of our country, please realize that this is not the time to walk away. This is the time for the only remaining superpower in the world, America, to lead on behalf of freedom, to lead on behalf of people who are looking for opportunity and change for the entire world.

Mr. Buyer, I very much appreciate your extending me this time.

Mr. Buyer: Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Smith of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I guess the first thing I want to point out, and there are other arguments I want to make, but during Mr. Lewis' comments, and I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from California, he mentioned that, you know, George Washington never retreated. Well, as it happens, I just read a biography of Mr. Washington, and not to go puncturing holes in the midst of our great Nation, he retreated a fair amount, actually.

In fact, I don't know where we got this idea that the great leaders of our time only went forward. We have heard about President Kennedy and President Truman. At one time or another, they retreated from a fair number of battles. Now, sometimes that was a wise and tactical maneuver to win the larger war. Sometimes it was a mistake.

History judges, but I think it does sort of portray the thinking of the President that the only way is forward, regardless of the details. A little more thought, I think, might help us. I will return to that point at the end of my remarks.

But the first thing I want to say, I think this is by and large a very good debate on a very important issue facing our Nation. The only time I become troubled in this debate is when speakers on the other side say that this is just political, and that this resolution is irrelevant. What they are saying is that the opinion of the United States House of Representatives on the most important public policy issue facing our Nation today is irrelevant. The opinion of the people's House doesn't matter.

Now, that explains a lot for the last 4 years while the minority party was in the majority, when they did not question this President, when they did not express their opinion in a way that would move us in a more positive direction.

I feel very strongly that it is absolutely the responsibility of those of us in Congress who represent people, our constituents, to express our opinion. In a way we are expressing their opinion. That is what we are supposed to be here in the House, the most directly reflective voice of the people of this country.

So to say that this is irrelevant is just an absolute attack on the Constitution and the way this country is supposed to be set up. We must express our opinion on the most important issues of the day.

Then we come to the next issue, which is, you cannot question the Commander in Chief. He is the guy in charge, he knows more than the rest of us. You cannot question him. It undermines everything.

Let me say I express a certain amount of sympathy for the view that we should place faith in the Commander in Chief. That is a good part of the reason why I voted for this resolution 4 years ago. A little more than a year after 9/11, our President was saying to us, To prosecute the broader war on terror I need this authority. And I had my doubts, but, by and large, I want to be supportive of the Commander in Chief, recognizing the power he has.

But the question I have for the minority is for how long? How many mistakes does this President have to make before we don't have an obligation, not just a right, but an obligation to express our disapproval and try to get him to move in a different direction? Books have been written, more than I can count, about all of mistakes that this President has made in Iraq; books not written just by opponents of the war, many of them written by proponents, outraged that they took their idea, the President took their idea and made such a hash of it.

We have an obligation at some point to stand up and say, enough. Mr. Commander in Chief, I am sorry, but based on 4 years, we do not trust you enough to give you a blank check anymore. We have to express our opinion, and that is what this resolution does.

Let me also assure you, we want to win. We, on this side of the aisle, recognize everything that has been said on that side about the threat that al Qaeda and their followers present. We will fight them anywhere, anytime, because we recognize that threat.

In fact, I believe that there is al Qaeda in Iraq, and we should fight them.

But what we are talking about specifically today, and Mr. Buyer mentioned the 21,000 troops, that is the aspect of the plan that we focused on, precisely because that is the aspect of the plan that is most wrong, that does the exact wrong thing, sending 21,000 U.S. troops to fight in a civil war that has been better described by some of my colleagues, so I won't go into it any further, that they cannot possibly sort out the bad gays from the good guys is the exact wrong thing to do.

Given that feeling, and I have personally thought about this a great deal, I met with the President on a couple of occasions as he outlined this plan. I talked with many soldiers who served, gotten many opinions on this, and have come to the honest conclusion that it is a mistake, that it undermines our ability to win that larger war against al Qaeda, which is the war we are fighting.

Given the fact that I feel that way, I would be betraying everything that I said I was going to do when I got elected if I didn't on the Record express that opinion. That is what this resolution does.

So I know this hope will go unfulfilled, but I would hope at a minimum that the minority can stop saying that the opinion of this House is irrelevant. If they feel that way, they should all just go home. All right, it matters. You may disagree with the opinion we are expressing. I urge you to vote "no" if you feel that way, but I don't feel that way.

I feel we need to tell the Commander in Chief that he has led us down one too many blind alleys. We disagree with him. We want him to change course, and that is the will of the people's House, being expressed by us. That is not just our right. It is our duty as Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly four years since the war in Iraq began--four-and-a-half since President Bush and his team in the White House started the effort to launch our nation on the path to this war. We learned a lot during that time frame, but two things stand out. First, the war effort has failed to achieve the outcome the President hoped for, instead creating problems he clearly felt would not come to pass. Even he admitted that he is dissatisfied with the way the war has gone. Second, at every step along the way, beginning with the way the President got us into the war, right up to the President's latest plan to once again increase the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, President Bush and his administration made mistake after mistake--failing to an almost incomprehensible level to learn from past errors or to demonstrate even a modest level of competence in prosecuting this war. Countless books from all points on the political spectrum lay out in painful detail all the mistakes this administration made in Iraq.

It is way past time for this Congress to stand up and say enough. We disapprove of what President Bush is doing in Iraq.

But our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that such a statement is meaningless. This is an astounding assertion. The United States House of Representatives--the elected voice of the people of our Nation--stating clearly and on the record how they feel about the single most important policy issue of our time is meaningless? This opinion, expressed by the minority party, perhaps explains the utter lack of oversight and accountability that they employed when they were in charge--standing by and acting as mere cheerleaders for the President's actions in Iraq as he made mistake after mistake. The other side of the aisle at least has a consistent record of believing that the opinion of Congress, a body our Constitution set up as a coequal branch of government with the Executive, is meaningless.

As much as I disagree with this conclusion as to the proper role of Congress in expressing its opinion on the Iraq War, I do understand this initial reluctance to pressure President Bush to change course. In a time of war we all want to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief as a first option, and the powers of the presidency make it difficult for Congress to, in a clear-cut straightforward manner, direct the President in the conduct of war. But the President's record of mistakes in Iraq makes it clear we can no longer cling to this first option, and, difficulties notwithstanding, the cost of continuing down the same path the President has been pursuing in Iraq has reached the point where Congress must at least try to force a change in direction.

This effort should logically begin with a clear statement from the House that we disapprove of the way the President is conducting the war in Iraq. That is what this resolution does. With this vote members can no longer hide behind, "on the one hand, but then again on the other" statements. We can all mutter about things we don't like in Iraq, but an official on the record vote is required to make that disapproval clear. Do you support the way President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq? Yes or no.

And make no mistake about it the President's plan to increase the number of U.S troops in Baghdad represents no change in policy. It is stay the course, more of the same. In the last year we made large increases in the number of our troops in Baghdad twice already. Both times violence went up in the city, and as we have begun the current increase in troops that violence has once again increased. The lesson should be clear at this point--United States military might will not stop or even reduce the violence in that city.

Listening to the arguments against this resolution helps to understand why our President insists on making some of the same mistakes over and over again in Iraq. We are told that our fight in Iraq is a clear-cut battle against the same type of al Qaeda-backed extremists who attacked our Nation on 9/11 and that we are defending a worthy Iraqi government against these evil forces. If this were true, I would support whatever increase in troops was necessary to defeat that evil force.

But it is not even close to true--it is instead a dangerous attempt to paint a black and white picture on a situation that is far, far more complex. Baghdad is caught in a sectarian civil war. Both Shia and Sunni militias are battling each other as well as United States forces and the Iraqi government. It is a complex web of frequently changing alliances and interests that makes it impossible for our troops to separate good guys from bad guys. This is why our troops cannot stop or even reduce the violence. And the Maliki government we are being asked to support spends as much time acting like they are supporting the Shia side of the civil war as they do acting like they want to bring Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together to form a stable Iraq.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq and we should continue to target them, but that effort will require a far, far smaller U.S. military presence than we have there today. Currently we are expending an enormous amount of resources in Iraq, most of which is going towards putting our forces in the middle of a chaotic civil war where our efforts do not advance and may even retard our fight against al Qaeda. That massive military commitment reduces our ability to pursue al Qaeda in the dozens of other nations where they have influence--most glaringly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This larger, more important fight is not solely or even primarily military. Diplomacy and other efforts to move disaffected Muslim populations away from joining al Qaeda are a huge part of our battle, and we need to enhance those efforts. But we can't, because we're hamstrung both by a lack of resources--financial and strategic--that are tied down in Iraq, and because our open-ended occupation of Iraq continues to undermine America's standing in the world.

Instead of sending more troops to Baghdad the United States policy in Iraq should be to instruct our military leaders there to put together plans to as quickly and responsibly as possible reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We need our troops to focus on al Qaeda and its supporters, not to be bogged down in a sectarian civil war that is only tangentially related to the larger fight against al Qaeda.

The first, critical step in this process of changing our policy in Iraq is this resolution. Congress must make its disapproval of the President's policy in Iraq clear and on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Allen: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our Speaker and the majority leader for scheduling this long overdue debate on Iraq. For 4 years we have suffered from a Congress that was unwilling to lead, and content simply to follow on Iraq. The previous majority gave the President a blank check for the war and rubber-stamped the funding. They ignored oversight, avoided investigations, and stifled debate.

Today in Iraq, the price of this neglect is the loss of too many American lives caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war.

Now our new Democratic leaders and committee chairs are asserting Congress' constitutional responsibilities on war and peace. We are reclaiming a congressional role in foreign policy in order to bring a responsible end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq. One step is this resolution, which sends a vital signal of disapproval of the President's escalation plan. Another is the ambitious list of long overdue oversight hearings.

In the first 5 weeks of this Congress, we held more hearings on Iraq than the Republicans held in all of 2006. The next step, we should use the appropriations bills to shape policy in Iraq.

I strongly support the Skelton-Lantos resolution, which expresses support for the troops and disapproval of the President's escalation. Only a political solution, not a military one, will address the sectarian conflict in Iraq. Yet President Bush has rejected the wisdom of his military commanders, the Iraq Study Group, and many other experts by choosing to send more troops into a Sunni-Shia conflict that we cannot control.

Escalation, we know, is opposed by the majority of the American people. More telling, it is opposed by a majority of the Iraqi people. When the White House war plans diverge from the wishes of the people and leaders of Iraq, we must question the relevance of the mission. Our statement on the escalation is important, but our constituents also deserve to know our position on an exit strategy.

We cannot make needed investments in our future until we put our involvement in Iraq in the past. This war is straining our military and undermining our ability to deal with domestic challenges. We must force Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security by directing an orderly redeployment of the troops and promoting a political solution in Iraq with a focus on transition to Iraqi control.

Recent experience shows that the U.S. must impose deadlines with consequences so that Iraqi leaders will be compelled to take responsibility. An indefinite U.S. military experience in Iraq creates a climate of dependency that undermines the goal of having the Iraqi Government control internal security. It is not in our national interests to have U.S. troops placed between warring factions in a sectarian war.

To achieve this goal, I support H.R. 645, a bill introduced by Representative David Price and Representative Brad Miller. The bill terminates, by December 31, 2007, the authorization for military operations in Iraq that passed, over my objection, in 2002. The original mission, eliminating weapons of mass destruction and ousting Saddam Hussein, is no longer operative.

If the President believes troops should remain in Iraq beyond 2007, he must come to Congress and justify a new mission, and Congress would have to vote to approve a new mission. H.R. 645 also requires the President to submit a plan and timetable for phasing out troop deployments by December 31, 2007. It prohibits funding for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. It authorizes funding for employment, democracy, and governance programs in that country, and it creates a Special Envoy for Iraq regional security.

America's servicemen and women who have been sent to Iraq have served with skill, determination, and courage. We owe them and their families our gratitude and our unwavering support.

Like every Member of Congress, I have been to too many funerals not to understand the sacrifice of those who have served, and their families. Neither H. Con. Res. 63 nor H.R. 645 cuts our funding for armor and protective equipment still needed by troops in the war zone. Congress must take a long overdue leadership role in ending this war. This resolution is an important first step, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Smith of Washington: Thank you, I just want to add, before reserving the balance of my time, I want to thank Mr. Allen for offering a very specific plan and to once again remind all of you who are watching the debate that to charge the Democrats don't have a plan simply isn't true. We have a large number of them. We are just trying to get the Commander in Chief to start paying attention to them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The mission here is to develop a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself, govern, sustain and defend. So under that, under govern, you have political. Under sustain, you have economic. And under defend, you have security.

So as I listened to my colleagues come to the floor and say it only requires a political solution, really? These are not inextricable. I also appeal for consistency. I just heard the last speaker talk about the necessity for national interests, so he said it is not in our national interests to be in Iraq.

Let's stop and think about that for a second. Let's be consistent. In the 1990s, Republicans operated under what was called the Weinberg Doctrine, that only commit U.S. ground troops if there is a national vital security interest. And that is how we kind of were guiding ourselves based off the Weinberg Doctrine. Then what happens? We have got Bosnia. We said oh, that is a European problem. Then the U.N. came in, the U.N. was ineffective.

President Clinton made a judgment, and he upset Republicans. He made a judgment that because of the atrocities in Bosnia, the ethnic cleansing that was occurring, that it took U.S. ground troops, a presence of them. Republicans at the time said there are not vital national interests at stake. Democrats then said, oh, that doesn't matter, this is a humanitarian cause.

Democrats said, it is okay to take U.S. troops, put them on the ground to stop the fighting for a humanitarian purpose. That is what Democrats said in the 1990s. Republicans were curious about all of this because it was against the Weinberg Doctrine. As a matter of fact, there were 315 votes. I brought a resolution to the floor, 315 Republicans; Democrats then said, oh, no, no, no, no. Don't put U.S. ground troops on the floor, and that was in the middle of the Dayton Peace Accords.

Bill Clinton was very upset with me. So the President brings me down to the White House and says, hey, work with me. So I said, I will, and we drafted benchmarks for the success of the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords. I worked with President Clinton.

Where do I hear you working for a solution in Iraq? Don't just be the critic. I ask of my colleagues, where is your consistency and your policies? If you are as consistent as you were for a Democratic President, it was a humanitarian cause in Bosnia, I don't hear you talking at all about the atrocities that occurred under Saddam Hussein.

The murders, the ethnic cleansing, a humanitarian cause, the effect it has not only upon the neighbors, the stability of the Middle East, but what about Israel? Do you want to turn your back on Israel?

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hodes): The gentleman's remarks should be directed to the Chair, rather than to others in the second person.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, do you want to turn your back on Israel? If that is what you are asking me, Mr. Speaker, do you want to turn your back on Israel?

I am stunned. I just ask for people to remain consistent, or if you change your beliefs, say that you change your beliefs, or if you don't want to say that you changed your beliefs, then we must assume that you changed your beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. Boozman: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask my colleagues to vote against House Concurrent Resolution 63. I ask this despite the fact that I am very much in favor of the first part of the resolution before us. The first part says: Congress will and should continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq. If the resolution stopped there, it would be great.

We would be sending a message that we unequivocally support our troops in Iraq, our troops who are preparing to go there, and General Petraeus is being confirmed to lead those troops.

But the resolution does not stop there. It goes on and by its words takes that support away. How do you support the troops without supporting the plans of those troops? General David Petraeus was confirmed just a scant 20 days ago with much praise and fanfare. He is probably one of the most respected men to ever wear the uniform.

Congress said to him, you are great, go get the job done. Now, less than a week after he took over in Baghdad, we are in the throes of the process which will essentially tell the general, sorry, we don't approve of the plan you created or are currently undertaking.

Most of those criticizing this plan offer no alternative, and I say most. Some have offered an alternative, but most of those criticizing this plan have offered no alternative.

Even the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission of statesmen who have been heralded and quoted by the many who support this resolution, have indeed said that they support the short-term surge. This was later confirmed by Mr. Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the group when he appeared in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee of which I am a member.

I visited Iraq five times, the last with my friend from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). I met with the troops from my State and from others across America, thanking them for their service in combating radical Islam and the insurgency and liberating a people from tyranny.

I have sat down with the President and the Prime Minister of Iraq. I have told them that the Americans and the coalition forces would soon be leaving Iraq in the not-too-distant future. Their response has always been, we want you to leave but we need your help now until we can train our forces to provide our own security.

America will one day hand over responsibilities to the Iraqis, but it must be on terms which are beneficial to the interests of America, Iraq and the region, while not sacrificing the progress we have made or the security that we have earned. We must do right by the Iraqi people. We must do right by our troops in Iraq tonight, and we must do right by the men and women in uniform and their families who have served and sacrificed so much.

Our allies, countries in the region, in fact most of the world, agrees that if we pull out before the Iraqis are ready, it will create tremendous instability in the region, leading to the possibility of war and nuclear proliferation in the Arab states.

I had the opportunity to successfully play sports at a fairly high level. Whether it was on a Boys Club team, a high school team or a major college football team, nothing emboldened our team more or made us work harder to defeat the other team than when we saw dissension on the other team. We have an opportunity this week to send a strong message to our allies, the insurgents and most importantly the men and women in uniform who ironically are in combat tonight attempting to execute the plan that is being railed against on the House floor as we speak.

The message that we should send should be our will to not jeopardize the safety of those in Iraq by emboldening our enemies. We can show this by our will tonight of defeating this resolution.

The other thing I would like to say is that reference was made to Washington. And I also am reading a book on John Adams that is related, certainly. And Washington did at times have to pull back. He was facing the greatest army of the time.

But he did pull back. And Washington also was under tremendous pressure from Congress, under tremendous criticism. And I am certainly glad that Washington did not listen to that criticism, that he fought on. If he had not, we would probably be under British rule today.

Mr. Buyer: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this past fall I had an opportunity to meet with 18 representatives of the European Union. The European Union is quick to say that we are not necessarily with you on Iraq. But boy, we are with you in Syria and standing tough on Iran.

Do you know what the message is? It is inextricable. You cannot pick and choose. The Middle East is so complex. So, Mr. Speaker, when you begged of me to address you the question, it is this: If we were to follow the Pelosi-Murtha plan, what happens to Israel if we leave a vacuum that is quickly filled by Islamic extremists in Iraq? Therein lies the question.

I believe we jeopardize the safety and security of a lone democracy called Israel, and we leave them to defend against a region filled with vipers who seek their annihilation.

Now, our friends who are also of Arab nations, they are partners in our coalition to help on the political and economic success of Iraq, and they are eager for us to also help Israel and the Palestinians resolve those differences. It is all inextricable.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman from California has 1 hour and 10 minutes. The gentleman from Indiana has 1 hour and 19 minutes.

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to mention to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it is concern for our allies in the region, it is concern for our friends there that we have chosen and speak to escalating our diplomatic efforts in the area that this resolution comes forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Perlmutter: Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in that chair, Mr. Speaker, because you and I, I think, are here because people in this country wanted a new direction. They had had enough. They wanted a change. And they want a new direction in how this country is being run. And if there is a single subject where they want a new direction, it is on Iraq.

Now, we have a resolution before us tonight that is a vote of confidence for our troops and a vote of no confidence for our President's policies in Iraq. First and foremost, I want to say that I support our troops and will fight to make sure they have the equipment they need and deserve. What they require on the battlefield they must have. What they need when they come home we must provide.

However, our troops are entitled to sound public policy with a realistic mission that strengthens America's national security interests. I am opposed to the President's proposed surge of sending 21,000 additional troops to Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and I believe that we have taken our eyes off the necessary war in Afghanistan and against terrorism by the costly distraction of nation-building in Iraq.

We must be seeking Osama bin Laden. That is where our attention must be focused. But this surge is not a change in direction, but it is more of the same.

The President has not listened to the American people. He has not listened to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group or even to our senior officers such as Generals Powell, Abizaid, and Hoar.

Now, my opponent and I in this last election debated the issue of a surge. How my opponent knew that there would be a surge, that is beyond me. But he supported the escalation and I opposed it. And I still oppose this surge, because in my opinion it is too little too late.

The people of the Seventh Congressional District of Colorado spoke loud and clear. They questioned the President's policies in Iraq. Americans elected a new majority in Congress to act as a check and balance, and not a rubber stamp of the President's policies, especially those in Iraq.

It is time to turn over security to the Iraqi people, press forward with diplomatic efforts, create a multinational reconstruction effort and redeploy our troops from Iraq by the spring of 2008, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

It is time for Iraq to take responsibility for its future. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress and all of the Members to vote in favor of the resolution that is before us tonight.

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Cuellar: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. While I believe that the President as the Commander in Chief has the inherent authority to manage the conduct of congressionally approved military action, I have serious concerns that a surge in the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq is not the best course of action at this time.

The deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq is not the answer. I agree with former Secretary of State Colin Powell when he stated: "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work."

Secretary Powell is not alone in his belief. Generals Wesley Clark, Barry McCaffrey, John Abizaid, and James Conway have also made statements to this same effect.

I have traveled to Iraq and I have met with our military forces. And I believe our foremost commitment must be to their safety. I strongly believe that we must concentrate our efforts on preparing the Iraqi Government for the task of providing security to their own citizens. Our forces in Iraq should be primarily focused on training and supporting Iraq's own military and police.

We must continue working to shift the responsibility for security from the U.S. forces to those of the Iraqi Government. It is only through this path that we will ensure the safe and orderly return of our brave men and women.

Empowering the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government must be our primary goal. I will continue fighting to ensure that our service men and women have every tool and every resource that they need to carry out their duties and return home safely.

We must all dedicate ourselves to ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform have all of the unconditional support and thanks. Their sacrifices and bravery must never be forgotten. We should also be mindful of those who have served and serve in our National Guard and Reserve units, and those that are not yet American citizens but who still serve our country with distinction.

Let us always remember the lives of more than 3,000 dedicated Americans who have lost their lives in this conflict, and the thousands and thousands of American soldiers that have been injured.

It is time to be bipartisan and move forward with a comprehensive plan for handing over responsibility to the Iraqi Government and stabilizing the region. Iraq must become the responsibility of the Iraqis. Let's surge forward only in the commitment to transfer responsibility for Iraq to the Iraqis.

Only together can we ensure the safe return of our brave and dedicated American troops.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, who is also the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and obviously, very, very passionate and articulate on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents know that I vote my conscience. I voted against my party and our President when I thought that they were wrong. I have stood up to my leadership when my constituents knew Congress could do better.

But, Mr. Speaker, my vote on the resolution before us isn't about my party or about the President. Unfortunately, this vote and this debate is all about politics and providing some political cover. This vote does nothing to help our soldiers win. What I see here is this liberal leadership pandering to the vitriolic left wing of the Democrat Party.

How do I know this?

At the opening of this debate, Speaker Pelosi asked the only real relevant question: Will this resolution make our troops safer? In her remarks, and I have read and reread them, she didn't say how her resolution did that. I have pored over the remarks and the text of this resolution to find all the instances where the House will be giving greater resources to the troops, and it doesn't.

After I read all 60 words many, many times, I can tell you, not one single word in the resolution offers any more equipment, not any more diplomacy, or any more security for our troops.

And guess what?

It also does not bring one soldier home sooner. It doesn't demand the Iraqis take the lead in the fight. These omissions make it startlingly clear to me that the answer to Speaker Pelosi's questions, will this resolution make our troops safer, is absolutely no, it will not.

The Democrats have this resolution all wrong. To be more specific, there is not a single mention in this resolution of how we will send more body armor for the troops, not a single mention of new tools to detect IED explosives, not one word dedicated to up-armored Humvees, and, Mr. Speaker, not one mention of the method to fund the health care needs of those veterans who will come home. Not one word.

I invite the Speaker to come back into the Chamber and tell this House where is the additional money to make our soldiers safer and our Army stronger, because if she can't show me the substance in these 60 words, then they are nothing but rhetoric, and this resolution cannot and will not help our troops.

This week the House is debating a useless resolution that's only purpose is to weaken and divide. The American people are not stupid. They can see through this charade for exactly what it is. It is a toothless effort to provide political cover for Democrats.

As a matter of fact, the Orlando Sentinel, certainly not a conservative newspaper, has said that this is an empty measure. It says the pointless House Resolution on Iraq fails to set goals. It goes on to say, The U.S. House launched a welcome debate this week on the Iraq war. It is too bad 3 days of points and counterpoints will end in a vote on a pointless resolution. This isn't thoughtless policy, it is political cover.

Believe me, the Orlando Sentinel is, by far, not a very conservative newspaper.

My constituents know that over these 3 days we have debated a resolution with no teeth, no enforcement, and it is delivered in a way that has no guts, no character and provides no leadership.

Mr. Speaker, if this debate were about policy, we would be talking about changing or creating law. If the Democrats believed what they were saying, this House would be debating spending and funding, not wasteful rhetoric. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were genuine, we would be talking about benchmarks for Iraq, the Iraqi Government, and strict guidelines for appropriations.

I have heard some on the other side of the aisle say that this debate is about preventing an escalation. Is the Democrat majority so powerless that it cannot stop a deployment?

Before I got elected, Congress authorized this war, and with the force of law, this Congress could stop it. Congress' concern should be for our troops, not the Presidential and political ambitions of the Democrat Party.

It is rare when I stand on the floor and say that the Senate actually got it right, but I must commend them for their more thoughtful and less politically attuned resolution, because their resolution states the long-term security interests of the United States are best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in the war against extremists. That statement acknowledges the battle that we are waging and the eventual victory that we must achieve in the Middle East.

The 60-word resolution before this Chamber makes no such statement or recognition and sets absolutely no benchmarks.

My sole concern is for our troops. The litmus test for my vote is whether or not this resolution makes our troops safer.

Mr. Speaker, I believe every Member of this House should ask themselves the following questions:

Will this resolution protect one of our soldiers?

Will this resolution make one piece of armor thicker?

Will these empty words make a single IED less lethal?

Will this resolution stop one sniper or one suicide bomber from attacking our troops in the field?

Sadly, the answer is no. This resolution is not being debated in a vacuum.

We must ask the question, Could this resolution encourage our adversaries?

Could this debate put one of our soldiers in further harm's way?

Might some Islamic terrorist believe that the more of our troops that they kill, the quicker the U.S. will withdraw our forces?

If the answer to these questions is even possibly "maybe," then I cannot vote for this resolution. We should not risk encouraging those who would attack our troops just for the empty gesture of partisanship.

Let's call this for what it is. This resolution puts our troops at risk for the Presidential aspirations of some Members of the opposite party.

Many Members have noticed that on the 11th day of every month I wear this pin. This was given to me by firefighters. It is a depiction of firefighters putting up our flag in New York City after it was attacked. This is why we have very brave young men and women out there fighting today.

I am not a blind supporter of the President's policies. And if we wanted to make this debate about policy, I would be there to work with them.

The President knows all well my strong reservations about some of the policies in Iraq. But, Mr. Speaker, it has not been a perfect war.

I stand here today to let our troops know that I will hold the President's feet to the fire to ensure that our soldiers have the tools for our victory. That is what our soldiers want.

In the South, we have a wonderful saying and it goes like this: "Git 'er done." Our soldiers want to get it done and come home. And our President wants the same thing. And this Congress should also demand the exact same thing. Let's get out there and "Git 'er done."

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, Ron Lewis.

Mr. Lewis of kentucky: Mr. Speaker, this debate is a sad moment in our Nation's history. If there was ever a time when Americans should be standing together, this is the time. This resolution does nothing but divide.

Throughout our country's illustrious history, we have been confronted with many challenges, but challenges met with unity of purpose, unflinching courage and unyielding resolve to be victorious against all odds.

This debate, disguised as a no-confidence vote against the President, is really about defeat, about surrender, about retreating from an enemy determined to destroy our very existence.

Mr. Speaker, the obvious truth of our situation is that we may run, but we can't hide. They know where we live.

Today, Americans all over this great land should stop for a moment and consider this national debate. They should ask themselves what this means to them personally, their families and their neighbors. Is it worth the expense and sacrifice of war now in order to establish a secure and lasting peace? Or should our Nation take momentary relief and retreat as we wait for our newly emboldened enemies to strike our homeland with even more fierce and deadly attacks?

Mr. Speaker, we must all realize that September 11, 2001 was not the end of the radical Islamic jihad against the United States. It was just the beginning. September 11 was a declaration of war. The fact is, we are not at war with Iraq. Iraq is an ally in our war against the radical Islamic jihadists. Iraq is only one among many battlegrounds where we are fighting jihadists who are committed to the destruction of Western civilization and replacing it with theocratic Taliban-style rule.

Mr. Speaker, if we cut and run, if we retreat from Iraq, we will forfeit our ability to lead the world against the enemies of peace. Iraq, in all likelihood, would fall to Iranian dominance and would become a launching pad for terror attacks against the United States and Israel. Islamic jihadists will be emboldened in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the greater Middle East. The world oil supply could be vulnerable to jihadist control, and nuclear armed missiles in Pakistan could turn into a hellish nightmare.

And Israel, Mr. Speaker, one of our closest and most faithful allies, could see its very existence perilously close to total annihilation. World War III could even be the final consequence of the misguided actions of this Congress if we retreat from Iraq. But sadly, Mr. Speaker, there are some in this Congress who are more concerned about the next election than the next generation.

So where are the FDRs, the Churchills, the Pattons, the MacArthurs, the Trumans, the John F. Kennedys, and the men and women of the Greatest Generation in this hour of our great peril? They are in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for our safety and our security. But the self- centered generation, the politicians, the media types and the whiners and complainers are sitting in the safety of their homes complaining about the unpleasantries of war. This generation of the self-centered and indulgent, if successful in their defeatism, will condemn untold numbers to horrors never imagined by the most creative writers of horror fiction.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot, will not believe, as a Nation, that we have become so preoccupied with our own personal and political agendas that we have fallen asleep to the dangers before our Nation. The hour of decision is upon us. Will we rally from our slumber and awaken to reality? We are at war. Or will we close our eyes in self-deception and hide ourselves under the blanket of a cowardly resolution? Tomorrow we must choose. Will it be commitment over retreat, freedom over slavery, courage over fear, democracy over theocratic fascism, security over terror, life over death?

Mr. Speaker, our brave men and women serving in our Armed Forces have already chosen. They have willingly volunteered to put their lives on the line and, at this very moment, are fighting for all that we cherish. It is they who represent today's greatest generation.

Tomorrow we can honor these brave souls by choosing their values, by defeating this disgraceful resolution, or we can pass this vile legislation and have it recorded to our eternal shame.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I am now very happy to yield 5¼minutes to my colleague from Maine, Mr. Michaud.

Mr. Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of this resolution that expresses our unwavering support of our troops and our opposition to the escalation in Iraq. This is an extremely important debate and it is one that is long overdue.

We have lost over 3,100 brave Americans. Many more will return home with mental health and physical wounds that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives or fled their homes as their country has fallen into deeper civil war.

Regardless of one's opinion on how we got into Iraq, we are there, and the situation is deteriorating. So the simple question before us is, What is the best plan for the future?

The President has called for an escalation of troops; in other words, more of the same approach.

I oppose an escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq. I will not support funding for the President's plan or blank checks for an open-ended commitment.

We need a new plan, and escalation is not what the Iraq Study Group called for. It is not what our top generals have advised, and it is not what the American or Iraqi people want. When General John Abizaid, former top commander in Iraq, asked his commanders in the field if more U.S. troops would help, the unanimous answer was no. As he said: "And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

U.S. forces cannot clear and hold neighborhoods in Baghdad indefinitely. We have tried so-called "surges" before, and they have not stopped the violence. And as with these previous surges, when we leave, the same problems will return, and perhaps even worse.

The reality is that United States military strength cannot solve the problems in Iraq nor should it. The future rests on the capability and the will of the Iraqi people. Our continued dominance only prevents Iraqis from taking control of their country and their destiny. The military mission of toppling Saddam Hussein is over. The political mission, the reconstruction mission, the nation-building that this administration said it would never do has all but failed.

But that is what we must now address, not our strength of arms but our strength of diplomacy and our power to rebuild.

Our new strategy should be to withdraw and redeploy our soldiers quickly while empowering the Iraqi security forces. We can help to rebuild and create economic opportunity, to train Iraqis and perform other assistance as asked, but we cannot remain the dominant force in Iraq.

It is time for Iraqis to take control of their own country. A stabilized, secure and free Iraq can only be achieved when Iraqis take full control. Until that time our forces will be stuck in the middle of an increasingly violent civil war and all the while Afghanistan sliding back into danger and violence and al Qaeda continues to plot while our attention is being diverted.

I have spoken with many people in Maine about this war. I have spoken with current military personnel, many who have served in Iraq, their families, veterans, and concerned citizens of all political stripes. Everyone agrees there is no simple solution to the challenges we face in Iraq and how to solve it.

There is one opinion that is unanimous. We all support our men and women in uniform. They, like the generations before them, are heroes. They heard their country's call and they did not hesitate to answer. I am glad this resolution makes that support clear. We owe it to our military personnel to provide them with the very best when they are in harm's way and when they come home.

I have heard from many Vietnam-era veterans who fear that our new veterans may face many of the hardships that they faced. This cannot happen. As a member of the Veterans Affairs' Committee, I am committed to addressing the mental health and physical needs of our returning heroes, and I know the American people are willing to do that as well. And as we discuss alternative strategies, it must be clear that we must do something that fully supports our military personnel.

This resolution is not about politics. This issue should unite all of us. This is about the future of Iraq, our strategy abroad, and our welfare for our troops.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would ask the last speaker if he could remain for a moment. I have such great respect for my colleague, Mr. Michaud of Maine. We have worked together on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We deal with the consequences of war. And so out of my respect for Mr. Michaud, I would like for us to clarify what may be a potential contradiction.

The gentleman said that, and correct me if I am wrong here, unanimously commanders did not ask for an increase in troops. According to General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and this was in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on January 11, 2007: "So, collectively, the military commanders, both U.S. and Iraqi, have asked for this increase. And those of us in advisory positions agree with their request.

"General Casey and his Iraqi counterparts have determined that there are more forces needed …

"To do this, we're going to need additional U.S. forces. General Casey and General Abizaid have asked for those additional forces, as have the commanders below them.

"In addition, to reinforce success at Anbar province, the Marine commander out there has asked for, and General Casey and General Abizaid have asked for, an increase of about 4,000 troops out there …

"So, collectively, the military commanders, both U.S. and Iraqi, have asked for this increase."

That was our testimony of our Chairman of the Joints Chiefs before the Armed Services Committee. So I will yield to the gentleman and ask if he was aware of General Pace's comments before the Armed Services Committee because it appears contradictory to the gentleman's statement.

Mr. Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, that was a quote in a paper from General Abizaid where he said that they requested no additional troops, and I will try to find that article for the good gentleman to get it hopefully to him tomorrow.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure our record is clear because we have got the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs quoting General Abizaid. So I want to work with the gentleman.

Thank you.

Mr. Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. And I will find that quote, because you know sometimes quotes get misquoted; so I will get that for the gentleman.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I now yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

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

Mr. Bilirakis: Mr. Speaker, failure in Iraq is not an option. We enjoy our freedom today only because we have been willing to fight for it in the past. We must win the war on terror that has been thrust upon us.

Before going any further, let me first clearly state that I do not believe we should have an open-ended commitment in Iraq. I believe a new strategy is needed. America has a proud history of promoting and fighting for democracy around the globe. I don't believe now is the time to abandon that commitment.

While a new strategy is needed, the resolution that we are debating does not present us with any new policy options. Instead, we are voting on a nonbinding status quo resolution which will not do anything to change the situation in Iraq. It smacks of political posturing. Americans expect more of the world's greatest legislative body.

Let us not debase the honor and tradition of the great men and women who have served before us. We are duty bound to serve the public and engage in serious lawmaking, not political pandering. This resolution does nothing. Worse, it endorses the status quo of the violence and bloodshed. Maintaining the status quo is what ultimately resulted in the situation we find ourselves in today.

The debate before is more consequential than the question of should we engage in a troop surge or not. None of us want to see Americans unnecessarily be put in harm's way. The debate before us is about the global threats facing the United States and how we choose to respond to them. Failure to forcibly respond to previous acts of terrorism has undermined America's credibility around the world and projected us as weak to our enemies.

Some examples of these attacks include: the World Trade Center in 1993; U.S. troops in the barracks in Saudi Arabia; sailors on the USS Cole; and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Unfortunately, Americans were too quick to forget these terrible acts.

Like many Members of Congress, I believe there should be strategic benchmarks that are designed to hold both the administration and the Iraqi Government accountable for success in Iraq. These benchmarks should measure whether sufficient progress is being made. Unfortunately, under the restrictive rules imposed upon this debate, we will not have an opportunity to vote on other proposals which would institute benchmarks for success.

I am compelled to vote against this status quo resolution. Americans deserve a real debate with multiple options for success in Iraq, not closed proceedings that are intended to be a political ploy.

I would rather America fight the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad, instead of allowing the terrorists to attack our homeland.

I am concerned that the resolution we are debating this week is a precursor to cutting off funds for our troops. The Democrats have even called it a first step. I have heard it several times tonight. Our troops must have all the resources they need to accomplish their mission. I support our troops in the field. Therefore, I will vote "no" on this resolution.

General Petraeus has indicated that reinforcements will hasten the end of the Iraq battle, allowing us to direct our efforts elsewhere in this greater war on radical Islamic terrorists.

The national commander of the VFW, the Nation's largest organizations of combat veterans, issued a statement earlier this week which says, "We need to send a message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed."

As a Member of Congress, I will always do whatever possible to support our brave men and women in uniform. As such, I will actively oppose efforts to cut off funding to our troops.

I cannot support this resolution, but I am committed to working with the President and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that the actions taken in the war accomplish the following: Moves Iraq closer to a peaceful and stable democracy; improves America's security; ensures the utmost safety and best equipment for our soldiers; and provides the shortest feasible time frame for their return to their families.

Failure in Iraq will lead to Iraq becoming a training and staging ground for terrorist groups intent on destabilizing the entire Middle East and destroying the United States and our allies.

In closing, I thank and offer my prayers for all our troops, including those brave men and women in the Ninth Congressional District and throughout the State of Florida who have answered their Nation's call to duty.

God bless our troops, and keep them safe.