---

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any other speakers?

Mrs. Davis of California: Yes. Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Gohmert: Mr. Speaker, when people on the other side of the aisle wonder how we can ask, Do you really support the troops? How about this quote that was contributed to Mr. Murtha? "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment. They don't have the training. They won't be able to do the work." There is no question in my mind.

On his Web site that has now been taken down, it says, "Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq, but undermining other aspects of the President's foreign and national security policy."

He is the Commander in Chief. That is undermining the President.

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I just want to inquire of our remaining time.

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman from California has 18 minutes. The gentleman from Indiana has 16 minutes.

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Ryan of ohio: Mr. Speaker, it is entirely possible and welcomed under the Constitution of the United States to have disagreements about how we need to handle troops deployments, how we need to handle our situation in different wars. And it is not to be said that because one party or one group of people have a different philosophy and a different strategy, that somehow they are not supporting the troops.

Now, your party and your President, the Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, and the Republican President are the ones who sent our kids to battle without armor, without body armor. And it took Jack Murtha months to uncover it, and then to finally get it paid for and distributed. It was the Republican Party, Mr. Speaker, who sent kids into battle without up-armored Humvees.

Now, nobody questioned the Republican Party's patriotism, and nobody asked them if they supported the troops. Again, we called you incompetent, we said you were incapable, we said you were derelict in your duty, we said you should have provided oversight and you didn't. But we never called you unpatriotic.

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I now recognize Mr. Chris Murphy of Connecticut for 5 minutes. He will be our last speaker, and, as we all know, he is a veteran of the Iraq war.

Mr. Murphy of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I often get confused with my good friend from Pennsylvania.

Let's just touch for one minute, before I address the resolution on the question that our friends from the other aisle brought to us today and that Mr. Ryan was so good enough to talk about as well, that is this notion that in order to support the troops, you have to support the commander of the troops.

Well, having spent the last 2 years walking around talking to every sector of the constituents of the Fifth District of Connecticut, having a sense of where the American people came down in November on this question, the American people seem to agree with folks on this side of the aisle, which says this: There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the commander.

It is not an issue of patriotism necessarily, it is an issue of differentiating between the brave men and women who are over there fighting and dying for this country, and the man who sends them into battle. You can disagree with him and you can support the troops. You can do that out in the public as a matter of your private advocacy, and you can do that here on this floor.

That is where the American public came down on election day. They said loud and clear that day, "We support the troops." They go every day to celebrations of those troops when they leave and when they come home. They go to much more somber ceremonies when they don't return home. And then on election day they come out and they say this: "I support those troops. I don't support the man who put them into harm's way in the manner that he did that."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer for allowing us to be here this morning. It is late at night, and I will be brief in my remarks on the resolution before us.

Amidst the embarrassing overabundance of thorny foreign policy questions before this House currently, the question before this Chamber tonight is a fairly simple one: Do we agree with the Nation's military establishment, with the country's foreign policy community, with popular opinion, and reject this President's very wrongheaded plan to send 21,000 more troops into Iraq? Or do we remain silent in homage to Congress' past and allow this potentially disastrous escalation to move forward?

I think the question answers itself. And I am proud today to stand here in support of this resolution, and register my strong support of our troops and my strong opposition to escalating this war.

As we finish the debate tonight, I have been joined in these final remarks by some of the younger colleagues in the House of Representatives. And I think our unity is significant. I should remind other Members of this House that we are discussing the fates of many young men and women, my classmates, my friends, that are this hour fighting and dying in a country halfway around the world.

As younger Members we also serve as reminders that our duty here is not just to set policies to secure the safety of our country in terms of months or years but also in terms of decades.

Mr. Speaker, I have never fought in a war. I haven't shot another man on the battlefield nor have I been wounded myself. But I have been allowed the privilege to represent my constituents in this body because of the selfless bravery of those men and women around this country that made a different choice than I did, those that volunteered to go overseas and fight and defend this country. It is my duty to stand here today and thank them for their service, thank their families for their service, but also to be their advocate here tonight. Because the President is asking a cadre of our bravest young men and women to go house to house in Baghdad to root out an insurgency while he does virtually nothing to address the systematic causes of that insurgency. One hundred thousand troops may not be able to do the job that the President is asking 21,000 to do. Escalating the number of troops in Baghdad hasn't worked in the past and it most likely won't work here. Through his actions, the President is putting our soldiers' lives at unnecessary and unconscionable risk. There is a resolution in Iraq but it's a political solution. It's not a military resolution. And we owe it to our soldiers who have done everything that we have asked them to do to stand up to a President who would ask them to do a job that they cannot and should not do. And beyond our duty to our current generation of troops on the ground, our responsibility, quite frankly, also lies with the generations to come. I decided to seek a seat in this House at a relatively young age because I was fearful that the decisions that were being made here today would have dramatic consequences for the world that my future children and grandchildren will grow up in. And I came here to begin a conversation that acknowledges that what will make this Nation safe for generations is not a Nation built on bullying, not a strategy based on scattershot military intervention but a comprehensive foreign policy that combines American might with American diplomacy. In order to secure this Nation for the next generation, we need to acknowledge that the most important question we must ask is not who do we attack next, but instead how do we reset our place in this world in a way that would prevent the forces who would do America harm from becoming stronger?

Mr. Speaker, we need to come to grips with the fact that we live in a world in which our own supposed allies create societies that foster extremism and violence amongst their most marginalized members. At the same time our Nation often strangely views cultural and political global detachment as a virtue rather than a weakness. This combination causes those that speak different tongues and those that worship different gods to look upon our great Nation with undeserved derision. This must change.

For my mind, we do that in three parts. First, we must pass this resolution in order to pivot to a much broader conversation. And in that conversation in the coming days and months, we must redeploy our troops both to home and to fights that are central to the war on terror, such as in Afghanistan. The gentlemen from the other side of the aisle are right. This battle with terrorists who may do harm to this country does not end no matter what happens on the ground in Iraq. But we must focus on our energies there. Lastly, we need to begin, going forward from today, to renew that multilateral spirit that once made this country great by proving ourselves in the future to be both a strong America and a humble America.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this resolution.

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

There was a peculiar comment a bit ago from the gentleman from Ohio when he said, well, I didn't call you unpatriotic when you sent troops into battle and they didn't have their up-armored Humvees. What a weird statement to say.

You see, we prepare our force. So, for example, when myself and Colonel Phillips in the first Gulf War, those Hummers that we took in, they didn't even have doors on them. We didn't have doors on the side of those. We didn't go in with all the side plates and front plates, groin plates, neck plates, shoulder plates. We didn't do all that. Most of that, the body armor, was reserved for special ops. When you move in to counterinsurgency and then the enemy begins to use roadside bombs to attack our Hummers, what do we have to do? We respond. That is why I made the comment of what does our military do? They improvise, they adapt and they overcome, and that is exactly the same thing which our enemies do. So it was a very peculiar comment to say, well, we didn't attack you because. I don't know. It's so peculiar, I don't even want to comment anymore on it.

What I would like to comment on is the nature of the enemy and the significance of Iraq and the global war against militant Islamists.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to turn our attention to the nature of the enemy we face and the significance of Iraq in the global war against militant Islam. We often use the term "global war on terrorism" to describe our efforts since the September 11 attacks. I believe this is a misnomer. In reality, we are engaged in a campaign to counter a global, radical Islamist insurgency, a global jihad. This global insurgency is, in fact, a diverse confederation of Islamic movements that uses terrorism as only one of its many tactics in their war against the West.

On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, declared war on the United States, Israel and the West in his statement "World Islamic Front Declaration of War against Jews and Crusaders." Subsequently, bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a statement after September 11 announcing a two-phase strategy for al Qaeda's war. First, reestablish the Islamic Caliphate, the historical and temporal authority of all Muslims that existed from 632 A.D. until 1924 A.D, and, second, use the Caliphate as a launch pad for a jihad against the West.

No one believes that Osama bin Laden directly controls this worldwide insurgency. Rather than a single monolithic movement, al Qaeda is but one movement that symbolizes a broad and diverse confederation of militant Islamic movements that operate around the world. This insurgency includes such wide-ranging organizations as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Islamic Army of Aden, al Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Abu Sayyaf Group in Malaysia and the Philippines. In addition, Iran, a majority Shia country, backs numerous radical Islamic groups, including Hezbollah and Palestine rejectionist groups such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These wide-ranging and disparate groups are loosely linked ideologically, linguistically and culturally. They use family ties, personal relationships and financial links to coordinate their efforts. Thus, the global jihad plays out in a variety of theaters around the world. These include:

The Americas, where in North America we saw the September 11 attacks and as a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report stated, Federal authorities have shut down at least 25 charities contributing to terrorist activities since September 11. That is here in our own country.

In South America there is a strong al Qaeda presence in the tri- border area of Argentina, Paragiau and Brazil.

In Western Europe, where there have been recently uncovered plans for attacks against Great Britain and the United States and where insurgent financial networks and planning cells flourish throughout Europe supporting insurgent activities.

In the Southern Pacific, where the Bali bombings in October 2002 were attributed to an al Qaeda-linked cell.

In the Ibernian Peninsula and North Africa where North Africans were blamed for the May 2004 Madrid bombings and where there have been bombings in Casablanca, Morocco and Tunisia.

In the greater Middle East, where there are ongoing Islamic insurgencies in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.

In East Africa, where simultaneous bombings in October 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania were coordinated from the Sudan.

The Caucuses and European Russia, where nationalist insurgencies in Chechnya, Georgia, and Azerbaijan have been co-opted by Islamic militants.

South and Central Asia, where the Taliban and al Qaeda continue to operate in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas.

And in Southeast Asia, where Islamic insurgencies continue in Indonesa, the Philippines and southern Thailand.

These Islamic insurgencies share a common goal. They are oriented toward the overthrow of the current world order and its replacement with a pan-Islamic Caliphate. They wish to change the status quo using violence and subversion in order to initiate a clash between Islam and the West. They use terrorism, subversion and propaganda to further their goals and initiate open warfare.

It will come as no surprise that most of the active Islamic insurgencies take place either within the historical bounds of the Caliphate, meaning North Africa, Spain, Turkey and the Middle East, or in areas claimed by the new broader pan-Islamic Caliphate, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. These insurgencies contribute to what is called an arc of instability that reaches from Indonesia across South Asia and the Middle East to North Africa.

Where does Iraq fit into this global jihad? Iraq has become the front line in the open warfare of the global insurgency. In many ways, Iraq is a microcosm of the complex worldwide Islamic insurgency. The centrality of Iraq to the insurgency became clear in a July 2005 letter to the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from al Qaeda's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. In discussing Iraq, Zawahiri stated:

"I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

Zawahiri went on to outline the larger strategy for Iraq. First, expel the Americans from Iraq. Second, establish an Islamic authority and reestablish the Caliphate. Third, extend the jihad neighboring secular Islamic countries. Fourth, eliminate Israel. Thus we see a clear statement from the number two man in al Qaeda that Iraq is centrally important to the global jihad.

Al Qaeda is not alone in operating in Iraq. There have been extensive Iranian involvement that has been alleged recently. On March 14, 2006, General John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "Iran is pursuing a multitrack policy in Iraq, consisting of covertly supporting the formation of a stable, Shia Islamist-led central government while covertly working to diminish popular and military support for U.S. and Coalition operations there."

While the full extent of Iranian support is unknown, it appears that at a minimum Iran is supporting the 20,000-man Badr Brigade as well as the 2,000-man Wolf Brigade which is an offshoot. Just this week, administration officials announced that Iran was the source of deadly explosive form projectiles being used in Iraq.

Iraqis also grasp that Iraq is central in this global struggle. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki told us here in a joint session of Congress, "I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of that war on terror, but let me be very clear. This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and that of terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak."

The centrality of Iraq in the larger global Islamic insurgency cannot be disputed. Our enemies and our friends in the region grasp its significance. To fail in Iraq is to fail in the larger struggle. And our enemies are watching. They remember what America did not grasp the scope of the threat posed by radical Islam. Yet the signals were there:

In 1979, 66 American diplomats taken hostage, held in Iran for 444 days.

In 1983, a truck bomb kills 241 Marines at their barracks in Beirut.

In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 bombing kills 270, including 189 Americans, over Lockerbie, Scotland.

In 1993, six killed at the first World Trade Center bombing by militant Islamic terrorists.

In 1996, 19 U.S. servicemembers were killed at Khobar Towers.

In 1998, 225 people killed in bombings at our U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

In 2000, al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS Cole kills 17 American sailors.

In 2001, September 11, killed 2,973.

Until 2001, we failed to properly react to this threat. The enemy perceived us as weak and believed that we lacked the will to fight.

This resolution before us, if approved, will signal our lack of resolve and I am troubled. It will be interpreted, I believe, by the forces of the global jihad that the United States lacks the will to persevere against the forces of radical Islam. It will give comfort to their thoughts, for they will know that we in Congress are uncertain and irresolute. In a war where information and willpower are more important than firepower, we must continue to send the signal that we cannot and will not cease to fight the enemy's vision of the world. You see, even if you have your way and you say we are going to withdraw the troops, whether they come back to the United States or whether they go to an over-the-horizon position and this new infancy government fails, we cannot cower to the security of America. This front continues.

The Bible states, "If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" If the trumpet is uncertain, who will follow? This resolution, I think, sends the wrong signal to our friends and to our enemies and I urge my colleagues to support those troops, sound the certain trumpet, and defeat the resolution.

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

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, because in many ways he has really made the case for us. The argument on his side has been that we can't just use our military, the tools that they bring us, the great treasure that we have in them. We cannot solely look to them. And I think our great consternation over this war has been that we have not used our political, our economic and our diplomatic tools to represent the great Nation that we are.

I have to tell my colleague that I was really saddened when the veterans of my community asked me, and I have asked our generals and I have asked the President, are we in fact a military at war and not a Nation at war? The generals told me that we are a military at war. I think the President disagreed with that. But the reality is that we have not brought our Nation to this effort in the way that I think is appropriate to have done. And so when we talk about the strategic risks that are there, when we talk about the fact that we need to understand those risks, we are doing it in a context that we know that when we went to this war, we didn't properly assess those risks.

We failed to do that, and we can't fail to do that any longer.

So what we bring to the table and what we bring to this discussion and this debate, and I think it has been a good debate, Mr. Speaker, is I think it is important, as a lot of my colleagues have said on both sides of the aisle, that we represent the people of our community.

I often go into schools and talk to students about what representation means and tell them that it would be really impossible to take their entire class to Washington and have everybody there to speak on the floor of the House. Well, we are honored, and I know that my colleague is too, to be in the House, to be able to make those presentations, and we do it for people who actually sometimes disagree with us as well as agree with us. But it is important that we do that.

I think what we bring to this debate is to try and understand what these strategic risks are today. You made my case, and I appreciate that, because there are many conflicts, and we need to understand them. That is why only focusing on a troop escalation, which isn't 20,000 troops, Mr. Speaker, we know there are probably another 15,000 in support troops, and those 15,000 troops, which are there for support of combat troops, sometimes get in the way. We know that, and we know we have had many deaths from our support troops as well. So we need to think about this as a much larger troop escalation.

But the reality is we need to utilize all of our other tools, and we want to put the pressure on our country, on this administration, on the Iraqi people and its government and all of our friends around the world to help us and step up to the plate; not to just rely on our military, not to just rely on our treasure. We believe that is essential to make the statement.

So I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this has been a good debate. It will continue. It will continue into tomorrow. Then Members will have an opportunity to vote and to let their constituents know how and why they chose to do that.

Mr. Buyer: Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I just want to compliment her for her civility and the way she led the debate. It was a good discussion, and it is exactly what the American people are looking for from this body. I congratulate the gentlewoman.

Mr. Walsh of New York: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution formalizing this body's resolve to support and protect the men and women in the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and disapproving of President Bush's decision to deploy 20,000+ additional combat troops to Iraq.

Like the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the House and Senate, in 2002 I voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq should the President deem such force necessary.

Since then, the men and women of our Armed Services have carried out their mission with great courage and bravery, and they successfully achieved every military objective we set forth.

They removed a tyrannical, oppressive dictator who brutally slaughtered his own people, including innocent women and children.

They rebuilt schools and replaced a crumbling infrastructure.

And they provided security for the Iraqi people to successfully conduct interim elections, to write a new constitution, and to democratically elect and install new national leadership.

The remaining objectives articulated at the outset--conflict resolution between Sunnis and Shiites and national peace and stabilization--can only be achieved for the Iraqis, by the Iraqis. Their success will take personal will and political compromise from all domestic parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, success in Iraq today requires a political solution, not a military one. Twenty thousand more armed American men and women on the ground in Iraq will not change the determination or alter the strategy of the warring factions and militants our troops now face.

The addition of more American forces will certainly not encourage the Iraqi Forces to take responsibility for their nation's security. This premise never became clearer than when GEN. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more and from taking more responsibility for their own future."

He continued, "I've met with every divisional commander--General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey--we all talked together. And I said, `in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no."

Today's U.S. military role in Iraq should be to assist in support and training initiatives, not to lead the charge. We must remember that this democracy does not belong to us, but to the Iraqi people who are responsible for protecting and enhancing it.

If an increase of troops is needed to stabilize specific regions, those troops ought to be Iraqi troops. At last count there were 325,000 trained, equipped and fielded Iraqi Security Forces. At some point in time, these Iraqi Forces have to lead security efforts.

What better time than now? What better opportunity could there be for the Iraqis to manifest their national pride and commitment to democracy by concrete actions? The Iraqis are ready and the U.S. needs to stop enabling their dependence.

Recently, the 174th Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard based in my hometown of Syracuse returned from a support tour in Iraq, and I'm proud that a young member of my staff deployed with them. Dozens of other young men and women from New York's 25th Congressional District have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am deeply proud of them and their remarkable service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you as a member of the greatest deliberative body in the greatest representative democracy in the world. We are the people's House. We are all elected--chosen--every two years by citizens across this land to converge here in Washington to represent them, to vote on their behalf, and to ensure that their voices are heard in every national debate. And as Members of Congress we do so with a unique balance of personal belief and public will.

The President is the Commander in Chief. That is a fact. But he is not the sole decider. We--the other elected leaders of our government-- have a responsibility to express the will of the American people as we perceive it.

The people of my New York district overwhelmingly supported this mission at its start, as did I. We still support its goals. We will always support our troops. But we do not support the continued build up of U.S. troops in Iraq.

This resolution states the House's disagreement with the President on this strategy, and I support this 97-word resolution before us. But I also say today clearly and without equivocation that I will not support any proposal to cut funding to our troops while they are in harm's way.

America has kept her promises to the people of Iraq. Over 3,000 American soldiers have given their lives to ensure those promises were kept, and their families now go forward with a constant reminder of the price of their sacrifice.

This resolution confronts the reality that there are defined military objectives, defined diplomatic objectives, and defined political objectives that can only be achieved by a sovereign and selfsustaining people.

This resolution, ultimately, is about the role and the responsibility of the Iraqi people. This resolution does not call for us to step out-- American troops there need to remain and take on a different role. Rather, this resolution calls for Iraq to step up.

For that reason, it has my support.

Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I voted against the original resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action against Iraq. As a Member of the Out of Iraq and Progressive caucuses, I have and will continue to call for the immediate withdrawal of American troops.

I rise today in strong opposition to the President's proposal to send more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. Today's non-binding resolution is an important first step. After its passage, I will encourage my colleagues in Congress to take further steps to end the War in Iraq.

When a scientist uncovers facts that contradict a theory, he or she throws out that theory. But when President Bush learns of facts that contradict his theories, he throws out the facts. As a member of the reality-based community, I continue to be amazed by this President's disregard for objective truths.

The President, however, isn't just a scientist experimenting with chemicals in a laboratory. He is an executive whose decision to take us to war under false pretenses has adversely affected the lives of millions of Americans and Iraqis. The costs of the nearly four-year old conflict are grave.

More than 3,100 brave American servicemen and women, including at least 325 from my home state of California, have already died in the war. An additional 23,000 plus have been wounded. Estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion run even higher, from 47,000 to 70,000. All at a cost of $379 billion to the American people. That's more than $1250 for every man, woman, and child currently living in the U.S.

But these are facts. President Bush is more interested in cockamamy theories.

In the run-up to the war, Bush speculated that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. When intelligence officers suggested that might not be the case, he ignored them. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

Bush also hypothesized that the attack would turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. When academic scholars wrote that Iraq's history and culture didn't suggest such an outcome was likely, he dismissed them. Today, despite the election of an Iraqi Assembly and formation of an Iraqi government, the country is in a full-fledged civil war.

During the past four years, the President has repeatedly theorized that America was making progress in Iraq, and that "success" was just around the corner. I remember, in particular, Bush's summer 2003 statement that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," his summer 2004 claim that we were "turning the corner" abroad, and Cheney's summer 2005 reference to an insurgency in its "last throes." Despite these promises, the situation in Iraq has gotten worse every year, not better.

My favorite declaration came this past summer, when the President said that the formation of a new Iraqi government represented a "turning point."

Unfortunately, the body count in Iraq continues to grow. This past July, an average of 110 Iraqi adults died each day, the deadliest month of the war for Iraq. In October, militia attacks spiked 22 percent. In December, more than 100 American troops were killed, the third deadliest month of the war for the United States.

But the November elections did represent a turning point--in the United States. The Bush administration no longer has a Republican Congress to lick its boots. What's more, voting on this resolution will soon suggest President Bush doesn't even have the support of his own party.

When the President in January suggested sending additional troops to Iraq, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle criticized his foolhardy proposal. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, termed it "Alice in Wonderland" thinking that would "represent the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam."

Retired military personnel weren't much more enthusiastic. Former General Barry McCaffrey called the surge "a fool's errand." Retired Colonel Paul Hughes said "sending more troops to Baghdad is like pouring more water in the sands of Al-Anbar. It's just going to disappear without accomplishing anything."

I couldn't agree more. The President's proposal to escalate the war in Iraq in the naive hope of winning a lasting peace is another cockamamy theory that contradicts all available facts.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote "yes" and take this important first step to end the War in Iraq and bring all of our troops home.

Mr. Baird: Mr. Speaker, every member of this Congress, every member, regardless of political party, and regardless of their position on this war, or the resolution before us now, is equally committed to the security of this nation, our communities, and our families. And I believe every member of this Congress supports our troops and their families while they are deployed. We must all support our veterans and their families when they return home.

Since this war began, I have attended, as many of my colleagues have, deployment ceremonies as we send the troops off to fight. I have been on the tarmac in the cold and dark mornings when they've come home to their families. I have been many times to Walter Reed to visit the wounded. I have been to funerals for the fallen and held the hands of loved ones left behind.

Over the past weeks, months, and in the years since this conflict began, I have heard from constituents on all sides of this issue, including members of our armed forces who have served or are now serving in Iraq. Some of our troops support the war in Iraq, others oppose it, some support an increase, others don't. To suggest that opposing the President's planned escalation means not supporting the troops would imply that many of the troops themselves and many of their loved ones back home don't support the troops. That suggestion simply makes no sense and we should put it to rest for good.

The real question today is not whether or not we are committed to security, or whether or not we support the troops. The real question is how we believe protecting security is best achieved. On that, there is legitimate disagreement, which is, or should be, what this debate is about. To have that debate is not only a right, but a responsibility of the elected representatives in a republic such as ours. Indeed, it is to defend that very right that our troops are being asked to serve and sacrifice not just in Iraq, but around the world.

I saw the Pentagon explode from my office window on September 11th. We all knew that thousands of our fellow citizens were dying before our eyes and I was worried about the safety of my own family. None of us need to be reminded through floor speeches or Presidential homilies about the threat of terrorism. But let us also not forget that the terrorists of that day did not come from Iraq. And let no one forget that, with only one exception, the entire House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, all voted to authorize the use of force to destroy the Al Qaeda bases and the Taliban who harbored them in Afghanistan. That is where the terrorists of September 11th were based, that is where the central focus of the fight against terrorists was focused, and we were united, along with virtually the entire world, in that fight.

Iraq is different, and the focus on Iraq has distracted and detracted from the mission in Afghanistan and the real battle against terrorists. Administration suggestions aside, none of the terrorists of September 11th came from, or were trained in Iraq, and there were no weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush and the rest of the administration took this Nation into an unnecessary and ill conceived war based on false threats and with a deeply flawed plan. Our soldiers, their families, our economy, our overall military readiness, the Iraqi people, friends in the region, and our coalition partners, have all suffered as a result of the administration's misinformation and miscalculations.

Before this war, I, and many others, asked the administration to answer fundamental questions. How many troops will this take? How many lives will be sacrificed? How long will we be there? What will it cost financially? How will we pay for it? How will you manage internal conflicts among the Iraqi's themselves? What will be the impact on our overall security elsewhere in the world?

The fact is this administration has never answered any of those fundamental questions honestly or fully. Never. Either they knew the answers and refused to give them, or they did not know and went ahead anyway. If the first is true, they were being dishonest. If the second is true, they were incompetent. Sadly, it appears likely that both incompetence and duplicity were at work.

Unfortunately, very little has changed since this war began. As we consider the proposed escalation of the occupation in Iraq, none of the most important questions has been answered.

I voted against this war from the outset and believe to this day that was the right vote. But once we were committed and engaged, I believed, as most of my colleagues and most Americans, that we had a responsibility to support the troops and try our best to help the Iraqis rebuild their nation, establish a democratic republic, and try to restore stability. I, along with most members of this Congress, voted repeatedly to provide our troops the needed resources to succeed, and I fervently hoped the mission would be successful. To a degree, there have been successes. We determined there were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power, and is now dead as a result of a public and open judicial process. There have been free and open elections, and Iraq has a constitution and elected government.

Those are good things. But the costs have been horrific and the key questions still have never been, perhaps cannot be, answered by this Administration. As we consider the President's latest proposal we must ask again: How many more lives? How much more will this cost? How will we pay for this? What will it do to the rest of our security internationally and at home?

Because these questions are at the core of whether or not this policy will enhance or jeopardize our troops and our security, and because the administration to this day is unwilling or incapable of answering these basic questions honestly, I must vote in favor of this resolution, and oppose further troop increases.

It is irresponsible to allow a commander in chief, who has not been honest or accurate from the outset, to continue sacrificing the lives, bodies and families of our troops to a mission that lacks a clear objective or any foreseeable endpoint.

It is recklessly dangerous to permit a commander in chief to jeopardize our nation's security by letting our military equipment, readiness and troop morale continue to decline. It is shortsighted and unwise to leave our National Guard and Reserve unprepared and under- equipped to respond to other challenges or crises abroad or within our own borders. It is wasteful and foolhardy to build the largest embassy in the world in this very small nation. It is dangerous and strategically unsound to concentrate more of our intelligence assets in this one city, leaving the rest of the world and other dangerous threats less covered. It is unsustainable for our economy to keep pouring out money, forgoing needed investments at home, and piling debt onto our children with no real plan to pay for it, and no real end in sight. It is a breach of trust to not provide the needed services for our veterans and their families when they return home. It is irrational and inaccurate to believe that securing Iraq is the real key to keeping our nation safe from terror, or that if we withdraw from Iraq the only possible outcome is for our nation to be more vulnerable. It is immoral to leave our soldiers dying and bleeding in the middle of a centuries old religious conflict that is not of our creation and is not within our power or responsibility to resolve.

For far too long we have given this President far too much credibility, far too much power, far too many lives and far too much money. It is time to stop.

Having said how I will vote, the sad but simple truth is this, neither moving forward with the President's proposed troop increase, nor voting for this resolution of disapproval, will really do what is needed to secure our own nation, solve the problems in Iraq or bring real stability to the region. There are, in fact, better alternatives to the administration proposal and those of us who oppose the President's plan should spell out what we think is the better course.

This is where I believe that better course should take us:

1. We must renew our focus on securing and rebuilding Afghanistan and increase both troop strength and financial investment in that nation along with our allied partners. The fight in Afghanistan was the real and most important fight against the terrorists of September 11th. It was justified from the beginning and remains just today, and it has the support of the world. We cannot let the Taliban regroup and reinstate their reign of terror and extremism there and we still have a chance, though it is slipping fast, to help the Afghanis establish a successful, tolerant and secure nation.

2. In Iraq, the administration should meet confidentially with the Iraqi leaders and give them a timeline with key benchmarks by which our forces will withdraw. The timeline and benchmarks should be sufficient to ensure the safety or our forces and give the elected Iraqi government a reasonable time to train their forces and strengthen their political processes, but there must be a timeline so there is real pressure for real progress. The process of conveying this information and the timeline itself should be confidential. The elected Iraqi government should then announce that it is they who are asking us to begin withdrawal, thereby strengthening their credibility and leadership while giving our nation a graceful way to exit at their request. Frankly, this should have been done by the administration before the Iraq Study Group report and before this debate in Congress, but it is still not too late.

3. While beginning a measured and strategic redeployment of our forces from Iraq, we should increase our support for infrastructure repair and shift increasing responsibility for that effort to Iraqi companies and workers and away from foreign contractors.

We should, however, maintain close oversight of the spending to ensure the resources are being used as intended and we should link continued financial support to real political and security progress on the part of the Iraqis. Further, we should prevail upon wealthy neighbors in the region, notably the Saudi Arabians and others, to expend some of their own vast funds to enhance the infrastructure effort. We should also dramatically reduce the size of the embassy complex that is now under construction in Baghdad and we should pledge to no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

4. To help fund the infrastructure and security activities within Iraq, and to give every Iraqi a stake in the success of their political process. An equitable means of distributing oil revenues should be created that ensures all Iraqis will benefit from the oil resources and, simultaneously, that all Iraqis will lose economically if insurgents damage those resources.

5. We should encourage the Iraqis to work more closely with moderate Arab neighbors, notably Jordan, Egypt and others in the region to help with the training of the security forces and with the reconstruction effort. This assistance has been offered since the beginning of the conflict but the Iraqis have not taken advantage of that offer to any real degree as of yet.

6. Because the Iraq conflict has had a devastating and destabilizing economic, political and social impact on friendly and moderate nations such as Jordan, Egypt and others, we should provide additional financial aid to those nations, particularly to help them deal with the influx of refugees, the high costs of energy, reductions in trade and tourism, and other adverse impacts. We cannot leave our friends to suffer from this conflict, and we dare not let the instability spread to nations that have been models of change and moderation.

7. We must also reach out once again to our traditional allies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere in the world, openly acknowledge past mistakes, spell out this new direction, and ask for their financial, diplomatic, and, if necessary, military help in making it succeed.

8. While supporting and working with friendly and moderate nations in the region and elsewhere, we should engage in direct discussions and negotiations with other nations in the region, notably Iran and Syria. We disagree profoundly with these nations on many issues, and we must not be naive or overly optimistic, but it is in our best interests to at least engage in a dialogue and search for areas where we may find common ground. The administration's refusal to do this, even through back channels, is misguided and counterproductive.

9. It is dishonest to not include the full costs of this war and the associated increases in defense spending as part of the annual budget and deficit projections. We must at last fully account for the costs of this war and fully fund our commitment to veterans when they return.

10. Our focus on the Iraq situation should not cause us to lose sight, as it has for too long, of the real goal, which is promoting broad security, stability and moderation in the region for the sake of that region itself and in the interest of our own security. Even if we could fully secure Iraq with this surge of troops, which is highly doubtful, if we do not improve our overall image and relationships in the region and the world, and if we do not do more to support moderate and friendly nations, we will see continued and worsening threats from extremist groups and rogue nations.

A key part of this effort will be playing a constructive role in working to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. We also have important and necessary work to do to improve our image and relationships within our own hemisphere and we must not ignore or neglect that work.

11. Finally, but importantly, for far too long our energy policy and dependence on petroleum has distorted our foreign policy and thereby endangered our national security, our economy, and our environment. We must recognize that energy policy is coupled with national security and we must change both policies or we will never have real and lasting security.

I urge my colleagues to consider this course, but before I conclude, I must respond to those who suggest that if we do not give unquestioning support to this administration regardless of what they ask for, regardless of history, and regardless of the evidence on the ground, we are somehow empowering the terrorists or undermining our troops. The President himself has implied that any questioning of his policies is "politically motivated" and anything short of further escalation is sending a message that our Nation will "cut and run" when things get tough.

I believe the evidence suggests the opposite. The evidence from this war is clear, while there may be differences of opinion about policy, this Congress, and the American people have, and will continue to support our troops to the fullest. The evidence is also clear that our troops will serve valiantly and effectively whenever and wherever they are called.

For the elected representatives of the people of this great nation to exercise their constitutional responsibility and demand change is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of the strength of our own republic. Perhaps more importantly, it is a sign of the strength of our very form of government itself, which is, after all, what we are hoping to promote in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. The rest of the world, our allies and adversaries alike, understand this and understand that the strength, character, courage and commitment of this Nation, its people, and the Congress are separate from, and stronger than the flaws, and mistakes of any one President or administration.

We are not turning away from the fight against terrorists or terrorism by changing course in Iraq. We are changing the course of a strategy that has been wrong from the beginning and has not gotten better. Our Nation, our Armed Forces, and our Congress are fully willing to sustain a tough fight when the fight is right and the strategy is sound. But our republic, our people, and this Congress are also strong enough, wise enough and courageous enough, to recognize the truth and change direction when the time comes. That time is now.

Mr. McKeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the motion under consideration. As the House debates this so called non-binding resolution concerning the recently implemented troop surge in Iraq, I think it is important to remind my colleagues exactly what is being sought by this resolution and what is to be accomplished with its passage.

This ill-conceived resolution seeks to do two incompatible and indeed conflicting things; it attempts to speak for this chamber in disapproving the proposed troop increase. And it simultaneously claims to support those troops, whose devotion to duty is essential, in prosecuting a mission which is, in part, renounced by this very same resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I do not question that the members who serve in this chamber do so with integrity and with a high regard for the men and women who serve in uniform. I do, however, question the wisdom of considering a resolution which will have no practical effect, but will have serious and inevitable consequences for the men and women who have been asked to serve.

While we consider this resolution, our enemies, in prosecuting their side of this war--will little note its allegedly non-binding character. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, this is very much a binding resolution. It binds this House irreversibly to a statement of disapproval. But it will do nothing to change the situation to which it is nominally addressed, because it does not bind our words to any actions.

General Peter Pace, in his testimony before the Armed Services Committee displayed confidence in our armed forces. He said that he believes our men and women in uniform understand the intricacies of our democracy and the nature of our vibrant debate in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would add that while they may understand our prerogatives, they will seek to decipher our intent and the resolve of this Chamber to support them in this fight. I also believe that they will rightfully see this resolution for what it is--mere contradiction.

Without our continued commitment to the young democracy in Iraq, the political and security situation in that country will suffer tremendous setbacks. Without support from American troops and our allies, there is a greater chance of failure in Iraq. General Petraeus, Commanding Officer of Multi-National Force-Iraq, last month described what failure in Iraq would look like when he said that "Sectarian groups would obviously begin to stake out their turf, try to expand their turf. They would do that by greatly increased ethnic cleansing."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a press conference last month said that if we fail, "One would see an emboldened and strengthened Iran, a safe haven and base of operations for jihadist networks in the heart of the Middle East, a humiliating defeat in the overall campaign against violent extremism worldwide, and an undermining of the credibility of the United States." Mr. Speaker, these results are not acceptable to Americans because they are not in America's interest and because more turmoil in Iraq or the Middle East will unacceptably threaten our national security.

Mr. Speaker, we know that among the strengths that our men and women in uniform possess is the courage to carry on. They are armed with the notion that no matter what inspires our enemies, we fight in defense of human dignity and natural rights. This chamber, which would say that it supports our troops, should not do anything that would lead those troops to question the meaning or sincerity of our support.

I therefore encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous resolution, which in two short paragraphs declares principles while avoiding the actions those principles seemingly require.

Mr. Bilbray: Mr. Speaker, in the 230-year history of our country, the United States has fought in conflicts both at home and abroad that have tested the resolve and unity of the American people. During that time, the purview of the Commander in Chief has justly been scrutinized and questioned. These debates are a part of our past and will be a part of our future as long as we send our men and women into battlefields to fight for our country.

Today's debate is no exception. The question we must answer for ourselves is a fundamental one that speaks not to our approval of the War in Iraq but rather to our commitment to the men and women fighting this war. It is a commitment we must reaffirm without question or doubt. With commitment and unity.

Now it seems to me that we have two courses of action we can take regarding the War in Iraq. We can pull our troops out immediately and leave the stability of the region up to an increasingly violent insurgency, thereby admitting defeat, or we can send in further reinforcements to work with Iraqi Security Forces to seize control of their country.

We can all agree that a change in the status quo must be made. With an increased level of violence between Sunni and Shia insurgent groups, an escalating cost, and the loss of American lives, it is imperative that we have a legitimate and substantive debate on the direction of this war.

However, if we are to succeed in Iraq and complete the mission, then the United States House of Representatives should not waste its time debating a nonbinding resolution criticizing the Commander in Chief. This resolution offers no real policy alternatives for Iraq and does not bring our men and women home any sooner. It is a political shot aimed at the President, but it is really our troops who suffer most from these grandstanding tactics.

I recently visited Walter Reed Hospital to hear from the wounded who have been to Iraq and sacrificed so much for their country. I talked to a wounded soldier who had a bone infection that prohibited him from returning to Iraq. He was not concerned about his physical well-being but instead he was upset that he could not go to finish the job that he had started. His feelings reflected the thoughts of many of the soldiers that I had the privilege to sit and talk with that day.

The fact is we face a moment of unparalleled opportunity to, in voice, in one vote, fulfill our promise to our troops--the promise that we will give them the resources, the armor, the manpower and reinforcements they need so that they may safely and effectively win the War on Terror and come back home.

Ms. Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I am very supportive of our troops around the globe and in particular those who are in harms way in Iraq. I wholeheartedly support H. Con. Res. 63.

Mr. Speaker, in the President's January 29, 2002, State of the Union address, in regards to protecting America, responding to the terrorist threat and capturing Osama bin Laden, he said (meaning Iraq): … This is a regime that agreed to international inspections--then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be Catastrophic.

Secretary Rice, after being named Secretary of State to succeed Colin Powell, Secretary Rice warned six months before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein could deploy a nuclear weapon, saying that the administration did not "want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." according to the Washington Post. We now know that these assertions were a fiction created by this administration to justify the unjustifiable.

U.S. Central Command Gen. Tommy Franks, the war's operational commander misjudged the interests of our Afghan allies. He ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. According to another Washington Post April 17, 2002, article; The first Americans did not arrive until 3 days into the fighting.

As a representative from NY whose constituents resent the lies and deception thrust upon us to justify this war and creating a distraction away from the homeland security we all desire the question is: When will Osama bin Laden be brought to justice.

The article continues by identifying that Osama bin Laden slipped through the cordon ostensibly placed around Tora Bora as U.S. aircraft began bombing on Nov. 30. More precisely, bin Laden was in Tora Bora on Nov. 26, spoke to his fighters about "holy war" then, as quickly as he had come, bin Laden vanished into the pine forests with four of his loyalists walking in the direction of Pakistan. bin Laden escaped according to the Christian Science Monitor, somewhere between Nov. 28 to Nov. 30 as confirmed by Arabs and Afghans in eastern Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I support our troops and that is why we must commence the redeployment of our troops today. Thus far:

There are 135,544 troops in Iraq today. 3127 or 2.3 percent of U.S. soldiers have been killed in service to our country.

Seventeen percent or 23,279 U.S. soldiers have been seriously wounded in service to our country.

Twenty percent of the troops wounded have received serious brain or spinal injuries; 30 percent of U.S. troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home.

During the President's tenure, he has requested a cumulative total of more than $700 billion to pay for the war effort in Iraq; $9 billion of U.S. taxpayers money is unaccounted for.

The State of New York has lost 143 soldiers, 16 from Brooklyn. U.S. troops continue to die from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have been sent to Iraq with poorly constructed and poorly armored equipment. Pentagon war planners have created a high level task force that has spent $6.7 billion on how to combat IEDs.

Thousands of Americans are dead, thousand more will die if we don't get our troops home and get them redeployed today. I oppose the President's call for 21,000 more troops to go to Iraq. I support our troops and that's why I want them home where they belong.

Mrs. Davis of California: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that, I thank the entire body, and I thank you.

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

The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 157, further proceedings on the concurrent resolution will be postponed.