---

The Speaker pro tempore: Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 157, proceedings will now resume on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 63) disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

The Speaker pro tempore: When proceedings were postponed on Thursday, February 15, 2007, 8½minutes of debate remained on the concurrent resolution.

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

The Speaker pro tempore: Under the rule, that will be the order.

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) now has 35½minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 33 minutes remaining.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Emanual: Mr. Speaker, we gather today to consider a question that is profoundly simple: Do we support the President's plan to further escalate America's involvement in Iraq, or not? After 4 long, painful years in which we have seen so many young lives lost, are we now willing to put even more of our brave heroes in harm's way, or will we acknowledge that the current course is failing, that doubling down on the status quo while hoping for a better result would be foolish.

There are those who oppose this resolution because they say it would hurt the troops' morale. Hurt morale? Our leaders promised them they would be greeted as liberators. Instead, we have put them smack in the middle of a shooing gallery, policing someone else's civil war, backing an Iraqi government that refuses to stand up for itself.

We have sent our soldiers back time and again. We have sent many of them without the life-saving equipment and armor they needed, and now they say this resolution would hurt troop morale? To suggest that more of the same just won't do.

They have done their duty with courage and discipline. Now it is time for Congress to do its duty. They deserve not to be sacrificed in the furtherance of a policy that failed for the last 4 years.

From the beginning, this war has been a saga of miscalculations, mistakes and misjudgments for which America will pay in many ways for years to come. Let us not compound those bad judgments by ratifying another.

The President assures us that this escalation of war is the most promising path to a more peaceful Iraq. For the past 5 years we have accepted the President's assurances on Iraq, only to learn that the facts on the ground belied his aggressive assertions and rosy rhetoric. We accepted his assurances about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's links to al Qaeda. We authorized a war on that basis, only to learn that much of what we were told simply wasn't true.

Against stern warnings, we accepted his assurances and those of the Vice President that a post-Saddam Iraq would welcome our presence and overcome deeply engrained sectarian differences. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they told us General Shinseki was mistaken when he said we needed far more troops to stabilize Iraq than the administration planned, and that the cost of this war would be minimal. It simply wasn't true. We accepted their assurances when they told us the insurgency was in its last throes. It simply wasn't true.

Each of the last three troop surges has been countered with a surge in violence. It is for that reason that a bipartisan group of House Members and the American public oppose the forth troop increase. More troops doing more of the same is not a policy, it is not a strategy, it is not a tactic, it is the status quo plus.

The time is past for accepting this administration's assurances at face value. The human cost of its repeated assurances is too great.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago I asked permission to establish a temporary memorial to the fallen in Iraq in Statuary Hall. The leadership at that time refused, so I began posting the pictures of the young soldiers we have lost outside my office. I have watched as that grim line of photos has grown past my doorway to fill the corridor. More than 3,000 dead, more than 20,000 wounded. When I walk by those photos, I see the purpose, I see the pride, and I see the promise in their young faces. They were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers who will never see their kids grow up.

I ask you, how long must this grim line of photographs grow before we acknowledge that this policy is not working? How many corridors must these memorials fill before we we say, not on my watch? How many more lives must we lose? How many more hearts must be broken?

It is time for this Congress to tell President Bush that his assurances are not enough. This escalation does not mean stability in Iraq, it will mean more loss and more photographs in the corridor.

I urge you to vote "yes" on this resolution.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 1½minutes to respond to the first assertion just made by my colleague, to the effect that we sent the troops in without what he called life-saving equipment.

When we finished the Clinton administration, virtually no one in any of the 10 Army divisions, which, incidentally, had been cut from 14 Army divisions when that administration went into power, none of the 10 divisions that were left, virtually none of them had any bulletproof vests, any of this body armor that we talk about that our troops have today.

When we went into the first operation, we had much more than the Clinton administration had. At that point we had a number of the inserts, of the so-called Small Arms Protective Inserts. We had the outer tactical vests that incorporate those inserts with all of our Marines, with all of the infantry units going in with the U.S. Army. And very quickly after that, we developed a plan in which we fielded body armor for not only the people on the front lines, the infantry, the artillery, the armor, but also everybody that is in theater.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely outrageous to tell the American people that the Americans were dangerously unequipped when we went into Iraq. We went in with better equipment than we have ever had in any wars that this country has ever fought. And today, we have fielded over 40,000 pieces of new equipment that we didn't have 4 years ago that makes our troops yet more efficient.

I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Linder: I thank my friend for yielding.

It has been interesting to listen to this debate over several days. Two thoughts stand out. One side says nonbinding resolutions achieve nothing and insult the troops. The other side has retired to opinion polls. The American people want to end this cost of human and financial treasure. They said so in the last election.

Thank God John Adams never consulted public opinion polls. There was never a time when more than a third of our Nation was in favor of independence and freedom. Thomas Paine said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

World War I was not America's war, no one attacked us; but an attack was made on freedom, and we responded. The doubters wondered why we would spend money on a war so far from our shores which didn't threaten us. The doughboys at Vimmy Ridge knew why they were there.

Hitler didn't attack us, he didn't even threaten us; he threatened all that freedom meant to the world. And while we were engaged in Southeast Asia after Pearl Harbor, we still sent troops across the channel on D Day. Many mistakes were made. Troops drowned before getting to the beach. Support aircraft bombed the wrong areas. 9,386 Americans died in the Battle of Normandy and are buried there on that hill.

But the Boys of Pointe Du Hoc climbed that ridge under withering machine gun fire. They silenced the machine guns, took out the embankments and walked across Europe, and in 11 months Europe was free. We then spent billions of dollars to rebuild a free Europe.

After World War II, we spent 50 years in a war against an idea. It was a battle of the two great religions, communism and freedom. When Whittaker Chambers left communism for freedom, he told his wife that he feared that he was moving to the losing side. He knew that communism could not survive if its people believed in a higher faith; he concluded that freedom could not survive if they did not. He had become a believer; he was unsure if we remained believers.

Many of those Cold War years were not pretty. Between 1970 and 1980, the Soviets increased their influence in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Grenada, Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, South Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Syria. We watched and were timid. We even had Members of this very body go to some of those nations' dictators to apologize for our defense of what we believed; we believed in freedom.

When Israel watched its athletes murdered at Munich, we urged caution. When terrorists continued to kill Israelis, we continued to urge caution. For 21 years we urged that great friend of ours not to respond in kind. We were timid. After the attacks began against America, beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers, we remained timid. We chose not to engage all of the opportunities we had to be bold. In the face of a declared war against our government and our people, we were timid.

And then September 11, 2001. We stood together on the Capitol steps in solidarity that lasted a good week, and then it became politics as usual.

I don't know if this fight for freedom can succeed when about half of our Nation doesn't know we are in it; nor do I know whether our Nation can come to an honest conclusion about what we are engaged in when all they see is the worst side of everything.

When I was last in Iraq, a young man told me about going through a city and all the residents came forth to say thank you and throw flowers. He asked the embedded reporter if that was worth a picture; he was told, "That's not news." I don't know how the whole story gets told.

I do know this: This President knows that he and his commanders have made some wrong decisions, but he knows, as we must know, that this war has always been about the principle, the virtue, the idea of freedom, and to walk away now will have catastrophic consequences for its future.

President Bush believes that our Nation, more than any other, ought to defend the right of people to live free. That is the only victory we can ever have over an ideology that cannot survive in a free society.

President Bush knows why Lincoln said that he often found himself on his knees because there was nowhere else to go.

He also knows, as did Lincoln, that a President must continue to fight for posterity, even when it becomes unpopular to do so.

If you believe, as I do, that the idea of freedom is still worth defending, you will vote against this resolution.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Lewis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concern that this President has chosen to escalate the war in Iraq instead of charting a course towards peace.

Today, I am reminded of the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., when he spoke out against the war in Vietnam on April 4, 1967. He said, "The world now demands a maturity of this Nation that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam," we could substitute Iraq, "and that our actions have been detrimental to the people of that Nation."

Mr. Speaker, war is messy. War is bloody. It tends not just to hide the truth but to sacrifice the truth. And the truth is that this was a war of choice and not a war of necessity. It was ill-fated from its inception at the highest levels of Government, and persisting in error will not fix a policy that was fundamentally flawed from the very beginning.

Thousands of our sons and daughters have been left dead on the battlefield, and tens of thousands are changed forever, wounded physically and spiritually by the brutality of war. Our soldiers are the best men and women in the world, willing to sacrifice all they have at a moment's notice to protect our freedom. They do not deserve to pay with their lives for the errors of this administration.

Mr. Speaker, we will never find the answer to the problem we have created in Iraq down the barrel of a gun. The lasting solution to this crisis will rise from skillful diplomacy, not military might. The Good Book said, "Come let us reason together."

We must never, ever be afraid to talk. What harm comes from sitting down with Syria, Iran and our allies in the Middle East to help bring the warring parties together? John F. Kennedy once said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

My greatest fear here is that the young people growing up in the Middle East will never forget this American invasion. My greatest fear is that they will grow up to hate our children, our grandchildren and generations yet unborn, because of what we are doing today in Iraq.

Yes, we must maintain a strong national defense. We must defend our borders. We must bring an end to terrorism. But not at the expense of our democracy, not at the expense of the very principles this Nation was founded upon.

I want to close by asking a question of old, Mr. Speaker. What does it profit a great Nation to gain the whole world and lose its soul? Gandhi once said, "It is either nonviolence or nonexistence."

Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, "We must learn to live together as brothers and sister or perish as fools."

It is better to heal than to kill. It is better to reconcile than to divide. It is better to love than to hate. That is why we must vote for this resolution. We must do more.

We must not place more of our young people in harm's way. We must not continue to make our soldiers sitting ducks in a civil war. As Members of Congress, we must continue to stand up, speak up and speak out. It is our duty, it is our right, it is our moral obligation. We must find a way to get in the way until we bring our young men and women home, and not to continue to escalate this war.

Vote for this resolution. It is the right thing to do. We must send a powerful and strong message to this administration to stop this madness.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Rohrabacher: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. But, as this debate progresses, we should be proud of the sincere expressions of concern by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this resolution, for the lives and well-being of America's defenders who are now at risk in order to protect our country, our communities and our families.

All of us have been to heartbreaking wakes, funerals, burials; all of us have gone to the bases to see off our Reservists and our National Guardsmen and to wish them Godspeed; and all of us have been on the tarmac to greet them when they return, sometimes having lost comrades, killed or wounded. All of us want to do what is right for our defenders and for the future of our country.

So we need to be extraordinarily careful. Whatever we do today honors their efforts and their sacrifice. We should not be the authors of a policy that ensures the lives of these American heroes have been lost in vain. If at the end of this episode our country is at greater risk, then indeed their lives will have been lost in vain.

I am supporting this last effort, this last chance, if you will, to see that our commitment to Iraq will not result in failure. A failure now will have consequences that are worse than the price that we are now paying in blood and treasure. We do not have the option of walking away without consequences. No amount of midwest corn pressed into ethanol will allow us to ignore the Middle East.

Helping establish moderate democratic governments in the Middle East is not just a favorite of the people there, but it is an imperative to our own prosperity and security. Our dependency based friendships with oil-rich yet dictatorial regimes has set the parameters for the fundamental decisions American leaders have made. It has skewed our ability to be a force for freedom and progress. And it is freedom and progress that shield us from the whims of feudalistic, corrupt despots and religious megalomaniacs. It is the onslaught of freedom that will change that reality that we are now dependent upon.

That is what we had to deal with, and now we have come to this moment of decision. I wish it were not so. But it is a sad reality that what is right is usually not easy. The right course is, in the long term, usually frustrating and heart-wrenching. There are stalls and reverses to every historically significant event and undertaking.

There are always those who walk away when the road gets rough, who cannot see the end and when uncertainty looms. If one seeks certainty, bold actions will never happen. Only if we are bold to our enemies and steadfast will we ever succeed in any international endeavor.

The current conflict in Iraq has several dimensions; and, yes, it is between the Sunnis and the radical Shiite sects of Islam, a bloody Janus, with one face to Tehran and the other to Riyadh.

But don't be fooled, Mr. Speaker. The murderers, torturers and the haters on both sides revile the United States. The sword of Sadr and the bombs of al-Qaeda have turned on each other, but they both have a dream that is close to their hearts, and that dream is a nightmare to those who cherish freedom and to those who stand with liberty and seek comity among the people of the world. That macabre nightmare is the removal of the United States influence from the Muslim world.

You see, there is another force in Iraq and throughout that part of the world, where the majority of people are guided by the visions of the prophet Mohammed. Those of whom I speak are those Muslims who desire liberty and justice, who want government to be elected and directed by the people, who do not want to live their life in fear and would choose a positive relationship with the western world.

They are there, as we have witnessed in one of the most devout Muslim countries of the world, Afghanistan. It was not the American soldiers but the Afghan people themselves who drove out the Taliban and al-Qaeda from their country. Similarly, moderate Muslims, people of good will all over the Middle East, and they are there and they tremble that America will lose its resolve and retreat before a radical form of Islam.

An American retreat condemns them to suppression under the heels of fanatic Muslims who hate our way of life and are willing to murder anyone who suggests that Islam and the West can live in peace with one another and that we can respect each other's faith and build a better, more peaceful and, yes, a freer world.

Mr. Speaker, if the sole superpower cannot stabilize Iraq, we are not a superpower. If we cannot thwart such a gang of bandits and savages as we face in Iraq, who will stand with us anywhere? Who will be our ally? We must not lose in Iraq.

But what does that mean? That means we must not leave that country defeated and in retreat or we and our families will lose and in the short run pay a horrible price. Yes, if we retreat from Iraq, these ghouls who kill civilians, who would kill civilians and are currently killing civilians by the tens of thousands, they will follow us home and they will be emboldened.

The sides are chosen, the game is in play. We will determine, not the terrorists or the radical lunatics, who stands and who falls, who marches forward and who retreats. All of this will be determined by our military capabilities, our technological advantages, but even more so by our will, by our desire and by our sure grit.

What we do today makes the future. We choose how it will be shaped.

I am reminded of General Petain, the French commander who fought the Germans at the Battle of Verdun. Some attribute the phrase "they shall not pass" to him. Well, he rallied the French people to that German onslaught. But, 20 years later, he capitulated to Nazi Germany almost without a fight, because he and the people of France viewed the Second World War as not worthy of the price necessary to prevent a Nazi victory.

Well, did that defeatism and appeasement, what did it do? The cost was unimaginable.

Let us today not make this severe misjudgment again about the magnitude of the downside of retreating before an evil force that threatens the West. There will be a cost with the retreat.

So let us note that what we do in Iraq will determine if the West will truly stand behind any ally of freedom and any enemy of radical Islam. Let us make sure there is hope in the Middle East and throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, let us today not make this severe misjudgment again about the magnitude of the down side of retreating before an evil force that threatens the West. There will be a cost if we retreat. Many in this Chamber supported military interventions around the world during the 1990s, including numerous civil wars, situations from which they now claim the United States should steer clear. However, the consequences of withdrawal from Bosnia or Haiti pale in comparison to withdrawal from Iraq.

What happens in Iraq determines if the West will truly stand behind democratic government in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world. Moderate Muslims must have confidence in our ability to triumph over our fears, to withstand humanitarian impulses to simply disengage from conflict, not to give in to force and pressure when applied by an enemy. Otherwise, we lose. The world loses. The moderates of the Islamic world will never prevail against this evil unless we are with them and have courage and persevere, unless we are willing to hold the line, until the moderate forces in the Islamic world can take up the fight with a reasonable chance of victory.

On the flip side, only a defeat of radical Islam will bring peace to that troubled region. A loss of faith in America's ability to persevere in the Middle East would be a catalyst for catastrophe. That region in chaos would disrupt the entire world economy. Shifts of power would channel enormous resources into the hands of the enemies of Western civilization, enemies of the United States. It's a frightening picture that doesn't need to happen.

How is this different than a year ago? The difference is 1,000 American lives lost in a distant, foreign land. America is war weary. I too am weary. Every story of another young person, blown apart, rips at my heart. Those Americans who have gone are volunteers, heroes all. We owe it to them not to call it off and change direction in haste. To withdraw quickly, without honor, that would indeed mean their lives were lost in vain. It would mean the next front line battle will be the home front.

I, then, am one who is not anxious to declare defeat and retreat from Iraq. I am willing to give the Iraqi people a while longer, a slot of time, to step forward and meet the bloody, yet historic, challenge that faces them. We can't do it for them, but we can, as the world's leading free nation, give them this chance. Otherwise, we are clearly not a leading nation at all. We are too weary to lead. That is not the America I know. Today we define ourselves, to the world, and to our children. We must have a commitment to our ideals and courage.

America has a crucial role to play in this world and we are America. Let us not fail in this our historic responsibility.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, my friend, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Peterson of Minnesota: I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, by nearly all measures, the situation in Iraq is a mess. And yet what seems crystal clear to most Minnesoteans the President says that we still have a realistic chance to achieve his vision for a free and democratic Iraq and that all is needed is a short-term addition of 21,000 American combat troops. Does nobody seriously think that this is true, that success is only 21,000 more soldiers away?

Mr. Speaker, I am against the President's plan. I have given this President the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion. But his plan to send in more troops does not pass the test of common sense. If a short-term surge was going to deliver victory and democracy in Iraq, we would have already done it.

This idea would have made more sense at the beginning of this war. And more troops at the start were what many experts counseled. I was serving on the Select Intelligence Committee when the President, senior Pentagon officials, and senior intelligence officials told us that Iraq was a threat to our national security. At the time, we had a great deal of confusing and occasionally conflicting information.

We questioned them about this, and their response was that the information that they had required us to act and that they had a plan for the aftermath. I gave them the benefit of the doubt then, and I believed them.

But as time passed and events unfolded, we all learned that, at best, we had received unreliable information and, at worst, we had been misled.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus now on the soldiers in the Minnesota National Guard and talk about what the President's plan is going to mean for them.

A Minnesota Guardsman, a staff sergeant who is currently deployed in Iraq, and, by the way, that is the same rank I held when I left the Guard, sent a letter to the editor of one the newspapers in my district; and I want to read some of it to you.

He says, "My unit, the Second Battalion, 136th Infantry, Bear Cats of Minnesota, which are now the 34th Infantry Division 1, First Brigade, is on its second deployment since 2003. In 2003, we were mobilized for a 10-month deployment to Bosnia. We returned home in April of 2004 and were mobilized again in October, 2005, for our current Iraq deployment. When our current deployment is complete, the 134th Combat Battalion will have spent 490 days in combat, exceeding the current record held by the First Armored Division, an active duty armor unit, by 35 days. A great deal has been asked of us and more will be asked of us in the near future. But our benefits do not reflect the burden that we carry."

He says that, "while the State and the people of Minnesota have been extremely generous towards their soldiers, the Federal Government continues to treat Minnesota soldiers like unwanted stepchildren by neglecting to give them the benefits that better reflect their roles in today's military, that is as full-time, front-line soldiers who are used on a regular basis, rather than sparingly. However, it is not our choice to be full-time soldiers, a capacity that we essentially fill for the military, given the frequency of deployments and the sheer numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops deployed across the globe at any one time. If the military is going to use the National Guard in an active duty capacity, it must increase our benefits to go along with the responsibility or there will be no National Guard for the Federal and State governments to rely upon in times of crisis."

Mr. Speaker, I think he said it clearly; and I couldn't agree more. When called upon to serve our country, the Minnesota National Guard has a proud history of answering that call. Over 2,500 soldiers of the Minnesota National Guard are in Iraq. Many of them were already deployed overseas, as I said, in Bosnia; and they were slated to come home in March. But, instead, they are having their tour extended for 4 more months because of this administration's plan.

Now they are scheduled to come home in July and will have spent 22 months away from their families. They will have been deployed a total of 36 months out of the last 5 years. In my opinion, that is unacceptable, and I say, enough is enough.

The soldiers of the Minnesota National Guard are performing their duties admirably. They are performing well or better than the regular Army. They are serious about completing their mission; and, from my experience, they will always do more than what is asked of them.

Another group of people that I would like to recognize are the Guard's families. They are not in harm's way, but they wake up every day worrying, not knowing what that day will about bring for their loved ones. They didn't enlist for the military, but they share their daily effects of this war.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this plan.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Westmoreland, the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Westmoreland: Mr. Speaker, if this undemocratic, smoke-and- mirrors Congress had been in power throughout our Nation's history, I am not sure we would have much to celebrate this weekend when we commemorate Presidents Day. On Monday, we honor the Presidents who guided our Nation through its toughest moments, Presidents who made tough decisions in the face of public skepticism despite great peril and unimaginable sacrifice.

Not all Americans supported General George Washington's campaign against the British, yet our Nation's father led a ragtag band of underfed and underequipped soldiers to victory over the greatest military of its day.

Not all Americans supported President Lincoln's decision to go to war to preserve the Union. It seems inevitable today, but, at the time, many Americans would have preferred to save the lives, treasure, and misery and just let the Nation cleave into two. But Lincoln decided to preserve the Union, a Union that, in time, would become the greatest, most powerful nation on earth, even though he had to wage the deadliest war in U.S. history, with 600,000 lives lost.

I wonder what the forebears of today's Democratic Party would think of their policy of retreat and defeat? What would they think of the timidity in the face of great danger?

What happened to the legacy of Woodrow Wilson, who faced down American skeptics to lead us to victory in World War I?

What happened to the legacy of FDR, who faced down American isolationists to defeat the evils of German fascism and the militarism of imperial Japan?

What happened to the legacy of Harry Truman, the first President to realize the peril of the Soviets and entered our war-weary Nation into the fight against the spread of communism?

The wisdom of their decisions wasn't necessarily clear to all Americans of their day, but the judgment of history validates their leadership.

Today, our Commander in Chief sees the danger to our Nation's security and freedom posed by Islamic extremist forces in the Middle East. Many in this Congress choose to believe that the violence in Iraq is a local problem. To some degree, it is, but it is also a problem for the United States.

If we were to follow the proposals of Democratic leaders, we would pull out our troops and let Iraq become a failed State. Anarchy in Iraq would give al Qaeda and other extremists a safe haven to train and plot attacks. It was in the failed states of the Sudan and Afghanistan that al Qaeda was able to plan the African embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole and the September 11 disasters.

The smoke and mirrors Democratic Congress wants it both ways. On the one hand, they say this is a nonbinding resolution. On the other hand, they say this is a first step.

Given how Democratic leaders have battled to one-up each other and have allowed their rhetoric to spiral, how can this nonbinding resolution be anything but a first step?

How can Democrats stop with the nonbinding resolution if they agree with Senator Obama that lives lost in Iraq have been "wasted?"

This nonbinding resolution expresses disapproval of the military plan to strengthen our forces in Iraq and give them the resources they need. By the end of this week, every Member of this House will be on the record and answerable to their constituents about whether they are for or against the military plan.

My colleagues who vote for this resolution are for one of two things. They are either for retreat and defeat, or stay the course.

We all agree that changes need to be made, that changes need to take us toward a stable and peaceful Iraq. Withdrawal would take us in the opposite direction.

Let's reject this smoke-and-mirrors resolution and continue to fight, take the fight to the terrorists.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank.

Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a great example of an important form of political debate. The Republicans specialize in this. It is kind of political necrophilia. There is this love of dead Democrats among many Republicans. Democrats who, when they were alive were trashed by the right wing, once they are dead and safely no longer possibly candidates for office, get lionized. Nothing of course shows that better than with Harry Truman, but it is John Kennedy, and it is others.

The assertion that the Democrats who are supporting this resolution, and the unspoken Republicans who will be joining with us, that we somehow oppose the use of force is terrible history. It is wrong. In fact, the most recent entirely successful use of military force by the United States came from a Democratic President, Bill Clinton--he's still alive, so don't say good things about him--and supported by Democrats in Congress, and it was opposed by many of the Republicans, including many of the current Republican leadership.

Under Bill Clinton, American military forces were used quite successfully; and the result is not perfection but a much better situation in the former Yugoslavia than we had before. And the Republicans brought forth, guess what, nonbinding resolutions.

Now, they pretend to be upset about nonbinding resolutions. Frankly, I was a little encouraged when I heard the Bush administration criticize nonbinding resolutions, because, up till now, I had thought that Bush and Cheney thought that everything we did was nonbinding with regard to national security. So they were at least implicitly conceding that some things can be binding.

But the fact is that the Democrats strongly supported--I didn't mean to make it partisan, they did--the effort in Yugoslavia over Republican opposition.

And then let's talk about terrorists. We were attacked in 9/11 from Afghanistan and overwhelmingly, with only one exception, Democrats in the House and Senate supported the war in Afghanistan. We are continuing to support that war in Afghanistan.

I am critical of an administration which has diverted military resources and energy and political resources from Afghanistan. They are weakening the number one fight against terrorism, which is in Afghanistan. And that is one of the reasons for opposing this war in Iraq.

Now, the war in Iraq has been, in my judgment, the greatest national security disaster in America history. And it isn't one in which we got sucked in and had to defend ourselves. It was an entirely voluntary error. This administration unwisely went into Iraq on inaccurate grounds; and not only did they make the wrong war, they have been disastrously wrong in virtually every decision. So the question now is, are we doing more good than harm to the causes we care about?

I believe, in fact, that fighting terrorism, fighting extremism, fighting that particularly radical fundamentalist form of Islam, not all Islam, obviously, by all means, that that is weakened by our being in Iraq. It has clearly weakened our effort in Afghanistan. The commanders in Afghanistan beg for more troops, and instead they go uselessly to Iraq, uselessly not because of the lack of capacity of the fighting people but because they are condemned to fight in a very mistaken strategy.

It has emboldened radicals elsewhere. This administration predicted that our overthrowing Saddam Hussein would strengthen the forces of moderation. In fact, it has weakened them.

Let's remember that when America invaded Afghanistan with the overwhelming support of both parties and the united support of this country, we were popular in the world. We mobilized the world. And since that time came the invasion of Iraq. And because of the mistaken decision and the poor way in which it is carried out, I do not think there has been a time in recent history when America has been less able to accomplish in the world the things we want to accomplish.

So then the question is, okay, but isn't this escalation going to change that?

There is zero reason to think that. First, we are told this is what the administration says. If ever any group of people forfeited their right to be listened to, it is the collection of people who have shown an aggressive incompetence with regard to Iraq. Can anyone think of a single decision from the invasion forward that has been correct, that has been borne out by events?

So why do you take people who have been wrong about everything, wrong about the politics, wrong about the military situation, wrong about the economy, and then you say, oh, but this time we think they got it right. Maybe it is the theory of random occurrences, that people, having been wrong so often and so consistently, they are owed one. But that is not a basis on which we ought to be making a decision.

This war in Iraq continues to hurt rather than help our efforts overall. If I thought we were doing some good there, then it would be a different story. But the causes of the disaster, in addition to the rampant incompetence of this administration at virtually all levels, the cause of the disaster is internal, it is ethnic and political and a whole range of other things within Iraq. It is not a lack of American firepower.

So to try to resolve this disaster by taking the advice of people who created the disaster and have been wrong about it would be a terrible error, and I hope the resolution passes.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, let me just take 2 minutes to respond to my colleague who has just made a number of points.

First, there are a number of live Democrats that I like to refer to. When somebody asks me whether or not Saddam Hussein was indeed a dangerous terrorist in and of himself, I like to take the words of all of the Democrat leadership of this country in the 1990s, when, in their words, there was no Bush administration to trick them, who made that point very, very forcefully.

Secondly, the invasion of Iraq and the taking of Baghdad in record time with very low casualties has been described by most military leaders as being a remarkably efficient and effective operation. In fact, while we had people saying that our troops would be bogged down, the same talk shows would be interrupted with a news flash that Tommy Franks had taken yet another stronghold of Saddam Hussein.

We took Baghdad with very low casualties, very, very quickly, in a very effective and efficient military operation.

Lastly, I don't think that the gentleman can say that there have been no ripples, no ripples whatsoever in the Middle East with respect to freedom and democracy and people wanting to be free as a result of the elections in Iraq. There clearly was action in Libya where they moved lots of parts of their nuclear weapons program which are now residing in the United States, I think as a result of American actions there. Clearly actions toward freedom, toward ejecting the Syrians from Lebanon and moving toward multiparty elections in Egypt. All imperfect to be sure but nonetheless reactions from our operation in Iraq.

Lastly, I would just say to my colleague let me just say to my colleague, there are no smooth roads. The smooth roads not taken, that have been held out by the armchair critics, like we should have kept Saddam Hussein's army in place, that was an army with 11,000 Sunni generals. What are you going to do with an army with 11,000 Sunni generals? Certainly not establish stability in a country in which you have a Shiite majority.

The idea that we needed to have 300,000 Americans in Iraq and yet at the same time put an Iraqi face, as a number of the critics have said, on the military apparatus.

So I think a number of the gentleman's points have been strongly disproven by the American operation in Iraq. We are in the second period right now of a three-phase operation: stand up a free government; stand up a military capable of protecting that free government; lastly, the Americans leave. Let's give the second phase a chance to work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Will the gentleman yield to me 15 seconds to respond?

Mr. Hunter: I like a full debate. If the gentleman will hold on.

The Speaker pro tempore: Who yields time?

Mr. Hunter: Let me allow the gentleman from Missouri to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 30 seconds.

Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: If the gentleman from California wants to claim Iraq as a success, he is entitled to do that. I must say that the initial victory was a very deceptive one, because it led to the current situation. But the biggest difference between us, I guess, is when he cites Lebanon as one of the successful ripples, as he says. In fact, the terrible tragedy that went on in Lebanon that was initially something that was promising, we have had that war with Hezbollah in control in Israel, I think Lebanon is a further sad example of the extent to which this misguided and badly run operation in Iraq has sadly strengthened the most radical and anti-American forces in the Middle East, not weaken them.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 15 seconds to make a response to that last point.

My last point wasn't that Lebanon is California or New York or Massachusetts. My last point was that the free elections in Iraq inspired the Lebanese to work to eject the Syrian influence, which I think the gentleman would agree was not a good influence in Lebanon. It inspired people to want to be free.

Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Does the gentleman consider Lebanon or Syria free today?

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Hunter: If the gentleman gets more time, I will be happy to engage with him.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Wilson of South Carolina: Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for your leadership, your military service, and your son's military service.

Mr. Speaker, complete discussion regarding the way forward in Iraq is certainly appropriate. In fact, it's our duty as elected public officials. It is sad that the resolution before us offers no solutions. It is contradictory to say in one paragraph that we support the troops and in the next paragraph oppose reinforcements for them. As the parent of a son who served proudly in Iraq and three others in the military, I want to fully support the troops.

Al Qaeda spokesman Zawahiri has made it clear that Iraq is the central front in the global war on terrorism. In a January 22, 2007 transcript, Zawahiri boasted, "The backing of the jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is to back the most important battlefields." The enemy know Iraq is the central front of the global war on terrorism.

We must put our trust in the commanders on the ground who are living the situations we are merely debating. General David Petraeus in Baghdad is an accomplished general with a proven record of success. He has expressed his confidence that victory in Iraq can be achieved-- provided he has the personnel required to do so. General Petraeus has just been unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to lead our troops in Iraq. We need to support him with reinforcements.

In my six visits to Iraq, I have gone to encourage our troops, but each time it is them who have encouraged me. They know firsthand that the enemies fighting us today in Iraq want to fight in the streets of America tomorrow. We must face them today to protect American families.

In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September 11.

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

The question is, where are we today? We are looking at this conflict today and the consequences that it has upon tomorrow and tomorrow's military readiness.

I spoke about the lack of readiness last summer. Others did as well. We had a hearing on it a good number of months ago, our committee responded, and we thank the gentleman from California for helping in that massive effort to re-equip our Army as was necessary, and hopefully we will be able to do more in the future.

But where are we today? Yesterday regarding the issue of readiness of our Army, the Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker, said that the increase of 17,500 Army combat troops in Iraq represents only the tip of the iceberg and will potentially require thousands of additional support troops and trainers as well as equipment, further eroding the Army's readiness to respond to other world contingencies.

In the last 30 years, there have been 12 military engagements, some large, some small, that our country has engaged in. The Pentagon says they would only need some 2,500 support troops for the 20,000-plus combat troops. The Congressional Budget Office says there is going to be a necessary 13,000 in additional support troops. But the issue of readiness is real, it is there today because of additional combat troops, and that is what we are debating today. That is exactly the issue today. The readiness of tomorrow is contingent upon what happens today.

I yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Stupak: Mr. Speaker, as we wind up this debate on escalating the war in Iraq, I wish to thank Speaker Pelosi for allowing Members of Congress to express themselves on the most serious debate that will occur in the 110th Congress. Perhaps more importantly, we should thank the American people for voting for a new majority which has allowed a free and open debate on the President's plan to escalate the war. With their votes, the American people have clearly demanded a new direction for the war in Iraq. Today's debate symbolizes more than just a debate on escalating the war, the debate symbolizes a new direction for America's policy in Iraq driven by the American people, not by a President who has lost touch.

In October of 2002, just before the general election, President Bush insisted a vote be held on Resolution 114 which would allow the use of Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in Iraq. At that time, I argued that the United States did not have the moral, legal and ethical authority to go to war with Iraq and that our Nation would lose its moral authority to speak out against aggression throughout the world.

It would be very easy for me to stand here and remind my constituents that I voted against the war in Iraq. It is sufficient, however, to simply note that the evidence to justify the war has been repudiated. Rationale for this war has been inadequate. And our Nation's credibility has been eroded.

While some of us opposed the war in Iraq, our support for our troops has never wavered. Congress has appropriated the supplies and the resources to assure that our troops have what they need to accomplish their mission and return home safely. We know too painfully that more than 3,100 Americans have not returned home and more than 23,000 have been wounded. We have visited with the wounded and comforted the families of the fallen. We simply cannot allow the President to continue to fight this war as if there were no consequences for our troops, their families and our country. By standing up against this escalation of the war, we are supporting the troops.

Because of this war, many lives have been shattered and broken. I speak of the lives of family members who have lost loved ones. I speak of the brave troops recovering from their wounds at Walter Reed Army Hospital or the recently dedicated amputee clinic in Texas. As a Nation, we are comprised of a reasonable, noble, compassionate and determined people.

I believe that it is not in our Nation's best interest to leave a shattered and broken Iraq behind. Still, we cannot continue with a policy of military might and no diplomatic foresight. Instead of military escalation, our Nation should embark upon a diplomatic and political escalation. The current administration with its "military might makes right" philosophy is no longer applicable in Iraq. This administration has not seriously focused on the diplomacy and political persuasion necessary to end this war.

I am struck by the recent news out of Korea. It is reported that after years of negotiation, the administration may have reached an agreement with North Korea on its nuclear threat. The journey was long, discussions were difficult, diplomacy was frustrating, but we may have accomplished our goal without having to go to war. There is a lesson to be learned here, reflected in the words of an American journalist, Anne O'Hare McCormick, who said:

"Today the real test of power is not the capacity to make war but the capacity to prevent it."

I call on the Bush administration and this Congress to escalate diplomacy. I call on the Bush administration and this Congress to escalate political pressure. This war is a mistake and what we need now is a President who has the courage to admit his mistake. We need a President who will bring peace and stability to Iraq through diplomacy rather than military force.

In an earlier time, in an earlier war, a young man spoke out. That young man was Bobby Kennedy and his words have lived with me for many years. So to our service men and women, to my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, and to those whose hearts are burdened by war, I leave you Bobby's challenge:

"Diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped each time a man stands up for an ideal or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest wall."

Our vote for this resolution will not stop the war in Iraq. It will not restore the shattered and broken lives here in America and in Iraq. It will not bring peace and stability to Iraq. But it will send a tiny ripple of hope.

I still believe in that tiny ripple of hope.

I still believe in diverse acts of courage.

I still believe in the greatness of America.

Mr. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for 4 minutes.

Mr. Kirk: I thank the distinguished chairman.

Our uniformed men and women have given great service to the Nation by ending a tyrant's rein and fostering elections in a region that only knew dictatorship. In my judgment now, the time for decisive military action led by American and British forces is ending and the Iraqi stage should be delivered to new political leaders to work out their own differences. I will support the House resolution that recommends against the troop surge because the United States should increase the responsibilities of the elected Iraqi government to solve its own problems while reducing the number of American combat troops sent overseas.

I did not come to this conclusion lightly. The long-term security of our country depends on the United States not being defeated in the Middle East. To prevent the collapse of democracy, tolerance and supporters in our region, we need a policy that relies on America's key strengths and builds additional support among our citizens and allies.

Looking back on the last years, our troops in Iraq achieved two major objectives: First, they ended the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, a leader that invaded two separate United Nations member countries and ordered the murder of several hundred thousand Iraqis. Second, they backed the United Nations' sponsorship of Iraq's three national elections that approved a new constitution and government.

Iraq is no longer a military threat to her neighbors or minorities, especially her Kurdish families, who no longer fear that a third genocide campaign will be launched by their very own government. These are major achievements, worthy of the bravery and sacrifice of Americans in uniform.

But Iraq now faces new challenges that should be solved by Iraqis, not the U.S. military. Iraq's government, led by a Kurdish president and a Shia prime minister, faces a daunting enemy composed of people that would restore the old dictatorship, or worse. But this struggle is primarily political, not military. Foreign troops, be they American or British or otherwise, are not well-suited to advance the elected government's writ.

In the coming months we should build a longer term plan for the United States and our allies in the Middle East. Man for man, Iraqi combat troops operating under the authority of their own elected government are better suited for this mission than Americans on the front lines of Iraq.

The U.S. military can offer unique advantages to the Iraqi government in our ability to provide the Iraqi army and police with logistics, communications, training and intelligence, in a way that only Americans can provide. Over the coming months, Americans should be focused on these missions, making sure that our Iraqi allies are more effective in extending the authority of their government. By winding down the combat duties of Americans, we will dramatically lower the risk to our men and women stationed overseas while providing a decisive advantage to the elected government of Iraq. This is how to win the battle and secure a lasting government for the Iraqi people.

Our plan should be strengthened by a diplomatic initiative among Iraq's neighbors and the World Bank to support the elected government in its plans for reconstruction. To date, the World Bank has been "absent without leave" in delivering help to this founding member of the International Bank For Reconstruction and Development.

Our efforts, based on the key American advantages, while reducing the number of American combat troops, will improve the prospects for peace and build support for our goals here and among our allies.

Mr. Speaker, I join with many Members today to say if it were up to us, we would recommend a different course of action that involves less risk to Americans. As a military man, I am fully aware that the Constitution does not place 535 Members of Congress in the direct military chain of command, and Americans who wear the uniform are also not shy in debating various courses of action. They have as many opinions on various issues as any civilian community, and that is their birthright as Americans. But as volunteers who wear the uniform, they take on an additional heavy obligation to make a decision, to bring an end to the debate, and to confront the enemies of the United States as brothers and sisters united by a common bond.

In coming days, our troops will face danger, not as Democrats, Independents or Republicans, but as Americans.

We in Congress should draw on their strength once our decision is made. When a course of action is set, we are not neutral in the contest. If Americans are engaged in combat, we are for the Americans winning. We will give them the tools to bring an end to the conflict as rapidly as possible. The debate in Congress will soon close and the course will be set. For those Americans who serve farthest from home, they should know that after a vigorous debate, their democracy will make a decision, and we will back those charged with its implementation with everything needed to succeed.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the chairman of the Budget Committee and also a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Spratt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and rise to support the resolution and to talk about something the President seldom mentions, the cost of the war in Iraq. In deciding what we should do, cost is not the determining factor, but it is considerable, and with costs overall approaching $500 billion, it has to be a factor.

During the first Persian Gulf War we had real allies, Britain, France, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, and our gross cost was around $80 billion in current dollars. But Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States contributed in kind about $16 billion, and allies like Germany and Japan and Saudi Arabia contributed in cash around $60 billion, so the net cost to the United States was a mere $4 billion.

Because we had allies willing to share the burden, the cost of the first Gulf War was minimal. But in this war our President was able to enlist only one major ally, Great Britain, and he chose to go it alone with a motley coalition. That is one reason this war is proving more costly than the first, in lives and in dollars.

So far, over 3,100 service men and women have been killed in action; so far, over 23,000 have been wounded in action, many of them grievously; and so far, Congress has appropriated $379 billion for the war in Iraq.

As we speak, two supplemental appropriation bills are on deck. One is to cover operations in Iraq for the rest of fiscal 07, and it provides $100 billion to the $70 billion provided last year. The other supplemental is to cover operations in Iraq during fiscal 08, and it provides $145 billion. These bills, when passed, will push appropriations for the war in Iraq over $600 billion. $600 billion. When the 08 supplemental is added to the 08 base budget, these two will push appropriations for fiscal year 2008 alone to $643 billion. In constant dollars, that is more than we spent at the peak of Korea or Vietnam.

In a few weeks we will enter the fifth year of our engagement in Iraq. You would think after 5 years spending would come down. But spending over this time has not come down, it has gone up. Three years ago, 2004, the Pentagon was obligating money for Iraq at the rate of $4.8 billion a month. Today the Pentagon is obligating money for Iraq at the rate of $8.6 billion a month, and considering the supplemental for 07, with $170 billion, and the surge in Baghdad, the obligation rate will probably rise to $10 billion a month by the end of this year.

To support this surge, the President has called for five brigades, 21,500 additional troops. He sends a supplemental of $3.2 billion to pay for these troops. The CBO says, how about the support troops? How about the staff? This will cost billions more.

CBO has also looked out 10 years and tried to figure what future costs might be. By its estimation, future operations in Iraq and Afghanistan together could come to $824 billion between 2008 and 2017. Mind you, this assumes that the troops deployed in these theaters will be declining from a little over 200,000 today to a steady state of 75,000 in 2013.

If future costs are split 75-25, then over the next 10 years that is another $600 billion in store for us. Surely, surely at this juncture, as spending surges head upwards to more than $10 billion a month, surely we should ask whether we want to raise our commitment of troops and thrust them into a civil war with no clear exit, no timetable for completion, and, worse still, an urban war.

The Pentagon will say they can't see past 2008 and they don't know what the budget is for the outyears, and they will probably dispute this end state of 75,000 troops in the two theaters 10 years from now. And I hope they are right.

But there are other costs, the cost of "reset," of refurbishing or repairing our equipment, which our commanders have told us could easily be $60 billion to $70 billion. And I haven't talked about the toll on our troops and their families, where some will soon be going for their third tour. The dwell time between tours is now 1 year instead of 2 years.

Whenever you go into the field to visit these troops, you have to be impressed with their attitude, with their readiness to serve and their willingness to sacrifice. I have always come away from these experiences saying thank God there are such Americans. They deserve our admiration and support, but they also deserve something else. They deserve not to be asked to do what Iraqi troops and Iraqi police should do themselves.

For the past 2 years, the Bush administration has said to us just forebear, just wait, because we are training Iraqi forces, and as soon as these forces are stood up, ours can be stood down. Well, 118 Iraqi battalions have been stood up, and none of ours have been stood down.

In the Defense Authorization Act for 2006, Congress enacted this policy into law. We called for 2006 to be a year of transition. The resolution before us embodies that notion. The resolution heeds that advice. It does not call for pulling out our troops. It does not call for cutting off our funds. It says simply but solemnly that we disagree with the surge of our troops, thrust into what the Intelligence Estimate has called "self-sustaining sectarian violence," especially when there are more than 118 Iraqi battalions trained to take on that task.

It is time for them to stand up and us to stand down, and Baghdad is a good place to start.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. McKeon: I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63 and in support of a just cause that is facing a critical turning point. The outcome hangs in the balance, and, Mr. Speaker, we should not kid ourselves into believing that victory is foreordained.

Churchill once said that there would not be war if both sides did not believe that they could win it. The enemy we face in Iraq and in the broader war against the radical Islamists is driven by an apocalyptic vision of God, and because such apocalyptic visions are rooted in faith and not facts, they are very hard to dispel. We, therefore, face an opponent who is neither open to reason nor to compromise, nor will he necessarily be defeated by calculations of military strategy and prudence.

We face the paradox of a perilous time. At the opening of the 21st century, we are opposed by an adversary who preaches the savagery and barbarism of the 12th century. We face in Iraq an enemy that will allow us absolutely no quarter, and, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that I think we in this chamber, and, indeed, even in the country at large, have been slow to grasp that fact.

However, the difficulty of the fight should not dissuade us from waging it if the cause is just, and the cause is just.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the sad duty to attend the funerals of several of the servicemen killed in Iraq who come from my district. There are those who say that we should not withdraw from Iraq because to do so would mean that they died in vain. That is not correct. Nothing that we have done or will do will ever subtract one ounce from the valor and nobility of those who have died in the service of their country.

As Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, "We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

However, we should pause to note that our service men and women are fighting and sometimes dying because they know the terrible price that will be paid if our adversaries prevail. They have seen, as I have seen when I traveled to Iraq, what a world our enemies would have us live in. It is a world filled by a grotesque and distorted vision of God. It is a world of slavery and submission, where the Almighty is not a benevolent and loving creator of his children, but rather is a pagan idol that demands blood sacrifice and glories in the murder of the innocent.

You need look no further than the carnage in Baghdad, or Kabul, or Mogadishu, or never let us forget the Twin Towers, to see the truth in that axiom. That is what our enemy, for all his talk of God, seeks to do, and we are all that stands between our adversary and the realization of this nihilistic vision.

Mr. Speaker, there are those in this House who are far better versed than I in the strategy and military calculations that are the essence of this conflict. There are those who say that we mistakenly entered the war in Iraq on the basis of flawed intelligence. This, I think, underestimates the nature of our adversary.

Given the expansiveness of our enemy's nightmare vision, I think it is safe to say there would have been a war in Iraq no matter what we did. That, of course, will be for historians to decide. But this much I do know: We stand for hope. We fight for peace in a world that is free. We sacrifice now so that the little children that I met when I was in Iraq might live in a better world tomorrow, and because they will have a better world, we Americans will live in a safer one. To quote DeGaulle, "Behind this terrible cloud of our blood and tears here is the sun of our grandeur shining out once again."

Mr. Speaker, I do have one concern. I think that we in this Congress have allowed too wide a gap to develop between the society we help to govern and the war we have been compelled to wage. We have to correct this, because we will not win this war in Iraq or beyond unless we as a Nation come to grips with what we face and begin to act accordingly.

We must never forget, to quote Lincoln again, "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed." Right now I look around me and I see a Congress and a country distracted, and nothing could be deadlier to our security and our hopes for a better future.

To some extent, this is understandable. America is and has every right to be tired of conflict. In 1917, for the first time we went "over there" to make the world safe for democracy. In 1941, in Churchill's evocative phrase, the new world stepped forth, yet again, to the rescue and liberation of the old.

Then after 1945, we stayed on to wage the long twilight struggle that came to be called the Cold War.

Then, in 1989, a miracle. We stopped holding our breaths. The Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union disappeared. The hair trigger nightmare of the nuclear world seemed to recede. We came off of the figurative tip-toes on which we had been standing for nearly 50 years. We had grown so accustomed to it that when the Cold War ended, we scarcely realized just how nerve wracking, and what a strain, it had all been.

Now here we are again. More war, more sacrifice, more death. It is not a pleasant picture but it offers this. It offers hope. It offers an alternative to yet another in a long line of obscene and perverted visions that seem to be forever conjured in the minds of men.

Mr. Speaker, I have dared to say today something that very few of us seem to be willing to say. We could lose this war.

There is nothing in the stars that says we must prevail. In history, freedom is the exception, not the rule. So I say to my colleagues, we must press on in Iraq. We must fight wisely, but we must not falter.

Churchill once said in the midst of another terrible war, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of this House and of this Congress and of this Nation to give our men and women the tools they need to see this conflict through to the end. We must send them the reinforcements they need to win this war--and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided resolution.

Most of all we must stand together. That way, when our children and grandchildren look back at this moment in history, they will say that at the threatened nightfall the blood of their fathers ran strong.

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

The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman has 3½minutes remaining.

Mr. Skelton: The gentleman my friend, Mr. McKeon, raised a very interesting issue about who is really involved in this war in this country. My opinion is those in uniform and their families.

All one has to do is to go to Walter Reed and the Bethesda hospitals, go to visitation or a funeral, and those are the ones, and the saying good-bye to the National Guard and Reserve units, the active duty units, the farewells and the welcome homes, those and their families are those that are involved.

And I am afraid the gentleman is correct, that they are the only ones that are actually involved with this war.

Mr. McKeon: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Skelton: I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McKeon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I have great respect for him, and I know of his strong dedication to the troops and to the people serving.

I had in my office yesterday a constituent, a young man that played football for my brother at home. I introduced him to the chairman. He has spent the last 3 years at Walter Reed. He says he is like one of those dinosaurs that has a big mouth and two hands that he can't use, and he does struggle, and he has a bad leg. He was a master sergeant and he protected his troops but he took rounds from mortar. In talking to him he said, this debate is very distracting and hard for the morale of the troops.

I pray that they will understand that all of us have different feelings, but we do understand their devotion and their commitment to duty, and they understand our commitment. We just see things differently, and at the end of the day, I hope what we end up doing is what will be best for our troops and for our country and for the world.

Mr. Skelton: Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. He reiterates what I have been saying, that it seems like the members in uniform and their families are the ones truly involved in this war.

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

The Speaker pro tempore: Under the rule, that will be the order.

Mr. Skelton: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Ms. DeGette: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.

I fundamentally disagree with the President's plan to add thousands of troops to the Iraqi conflict. It is time for a new course in Iraq, a rational course, a more humane course of action. It is long past time to start a phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about policy and direction. Surely, the facts on the ground cannot be used to support continued or increased combat involvement in Iraq. Iraq is in a civil war. That is the truth, and it is time we accept the implications of that fact. Our soldiers have no business acting as unwanted umpires or surrogate police officers.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate concludes the term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict. If this is the state of the current conflict, what do we expect the U.S. military to do about it? Settle centuries of theological or religious disagreement? Become diplomats? Whose side do they choose and what would their mission be?

I do not believe combat forces permanently stop such conflicts. The troops themselves tell us they are untrained for this role, a role that puts them at extreme risk.

Yet, the President mistakenly continues to believe we are fighting illusionary battalions on phantom battlefields. So, in his mind, we need more troops for victory, a surge that will overwhelm and destroy.

Well, that is how he sees it, but he ignores the evidence and reports of our generals, our troops, our Iraq Study Group, our diplomats, most of our allies, the views of the Iraqi people and anyone else who actually tries to find out the nature and state of the conflict.

He rapidly and recklessly proceeds ahead with one policy shift after another.

He searches for a light at the end of the tunnel, but there is no light. It was extinguished long ago. There is only darkness and despair. The chaos deepens daily, and the President sits in the Oval Office hoping that somehow, somehow it will turn out all right in the end.

This is neither policy nor leadership. The administration's policies are the stuff of dreams and fantasies, not hard core determinations of our Nation's interests or the best course for addressing strategic threats.

Mr. Speaker, hope is not a strategy. The escalation of troop levels makes no strategic sense. We must not hesitate to describe the President's policy in words that are honest and clear. We confront a policy that is wishful thinking, not realistic assessment. The administration's policy is like a conjuring trick of denial, delusion and determined folly, which will only deepen the disaster. We are given the vision of a make-believe story instead of a responsible and realistic policy.

Civil wars are solved through diplomacy, negotiation and political compromise. These are the types of developments identified by the NIE that will make a difference in Iraq. While the NIE warns against the rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, American forces can come home in a careful, safe and deliberate manner.

As the Nation's Representatives, it is our constitutional duty to stop this madness. It is our constitutional mandate to conduct oversight, and it is our constitutional imperative to act. That is what the Founding Fathers wanted. They constructed the Constitution to provide checks and balances. They did not give the President a blank check.

The Constitution is a sacred document to this body. We swear to uphold it and to defend it. We do just that when we demand accountability from the President. We honor our constitutional requirement when we scrutinize policy. We defend our constitutional process when we demand that the President listen to the American people and end unilateral actions that undermine our Nation's strength and place our troops in an untenable, lethal and unwinnable situation.

Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to ignore my oath to the American people. I did not come here to watch our Constitution be rewritten by presidential arrogance and disregard. And I did not come here to relinquish my sworn duty to protect and defend this sacred document. I did not come here to ignore the American people who want this war stopped now.

Mr. Speaker, support this resolution and begin a phased withdrawal.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5½minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

(Mr. Bartlett of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Bartlett of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, when the original resolution that brought our military to intervention in Iraq came to the Congress, I interpreted it as asking the Congress to turn over to the President our military to use anytime he wished, anywhere he wished, against any country he wished, now and forever more.

Feeling that this was patently unconstitutional, I was very pleased when the International Relations Committee, chaired at that time by Henry Hyde, revised the resolution and narrowly focused it on Iraq. That resolution had strong encouragement for the President to obtain a U.N. resolution so that when we went into Iraq it would be a part of a U.N. coalition. The U.N. would own that war; we wouldn't own it.

When the President did not get the U.N. resolution so strongly encouraged by that original resolution that we voted on, I then voted for the Spratt substitute because I felt that if we were going to send our young men and women into war, that it needed to be with the full support of the American people through their elected officials, and we needed to have that additional debate. That didn't happen. I felt that we went in with unrealistic expectations.

There is no country around Iraq that has anything like the government that we would like for them to have. Several of the countries have dictatorships. We call them royal families. Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Kuwait, but they are dictatorships. Several countries, Jordan and Syria, have kings. Iran is essentially a theocracy ruled by the mullahs. The only country that comes even close is the vestiges of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, where they have a sort of democracy, but several times in the last few years the military has thrown out the civilian government, telling them they need to start over, hardly the kind of government that we have in this country and that we envision for Iraq.

So I thought that there were very unrealistic expectations. That was a very steep hill to climb; that success was unlikely, and therefore, I wanted to go in under a U.N. resolution.

What now? I hope I am wrong, but I believe that there will be one of two likely outcomes, either another strong man, hopefully more benevolent, than Saddam Hussein, or three loosely federated states with an overarching entity that pumps the oil and distributes the revenues on a per capita basis.

Now, we have a resolution before us and how should one vote? If you believe that the President is the Commander in Chief and has a right to pursue the war in the way he chooses, then you would vote "no" on this resolution.

If you believe that this resolution sends the wrong message to the enemy that we are losing our resolution, our resolve, then you would vote "no."

If you believe this sends the wrong message to the troops, I know the first clause says we support our troops, but then one might argue that the right hand is taking away what the left hand gave because in the second clause we say that we do not support the surge, which some may interpret as not supporting our troops; then you would vote "no."

But if you believe that the Iraqis need to stand up so that we can stand down, then you would vote "yes."

If you believe that the surge will not help, which is very likely, then I think you need to vote "yes."

If you believe the surge might actually hurt by placing more of our brave young men and women in harm's way, I understand that a fair percentage of the violence over there is directed against us, if that is true, then how do we reduce the violence by putting more of us there, then you would vote "yes."

If you want to send a message to the President, the Congress and the American people, that this war can't go on forever, then you would vote "yes."

If you want to send a message to the troops that we are watching, that you won't be there forever, that you have the support of your citizens and your Congress, then you would vote "yes."

This is obviously a very complex vote. Whether you vote "yes" or whether you vote "no," there will be unintended, unwanted messages that will be sent. Being required to vote either "yes" or "no" on a resolution like this is a little bit like requiring the husband to answer the question, "yes" or "no," "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If that is true, then perhaps the best vote on this is a "present" vote.

It is so true here that what you see depends on where you stand. There has been a lot of quite intemperate rhetoric on both sides. It is hard sometimes to imagine that we are debating the same resolution.

It is so true here that he who frames the question determines the answer.

Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be here. After the debate, this vote is somewhat irrelevant. Indeed, the listening Americans have each cast their own vote. In spite of all the divisive rhetoric, I want one thing to be certain, that all 435 of us want only what is best for America, what is best for our troops, a good and bright future for the Iraqis and especially want to assure our brave young men and women there that they have the total thanks of a grateful Nation.

Mr. Larsen of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Snyder: Personally, Mr. Speaker, I wish this resolution of disapproval articulated our disapproval of the administration's failure to accomplish certain chores in preparation for our fine troops undertaking this new mission under General Petraeus.

Everyone, including the President, now acknowledges mistakes over the past 4 years, but those well-documented errors are not the mistakes I am talking about. Now, today, mistakes are being made. Now, today, high-ranking officials in the administration fall short in their performance.

Why, after 4 years of the Iraq war, is the Secretary of State unable to get the appropriate reconstruction, economic development, and other necessary personnel to Iraq? Why did the State Department recently have to request the Defense Department to help fill in these necessary positions? Why have the efforts of political reconciliation been so ineffective? Why has the American diplomatic effort in the region been so ineffective? Where are the trained police and judges who will need to deal with all the detainees to be arrested in Baghdad? Why aren't an adequate number of property detention facilities not available for these future detainees that are sure to come from an aggressive effort to decrease the violence in Baghdad?

General Petraeus, clearly one of America's finest military leaders, during his recent opening statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee, felt an obligation to plead for the help and commitment from other U.S. government agencies commensurate with what our troops give 24 hours a day, day after day, week after week, month after month.

I have had references being made to Winston Churchill, but I remind those speakers who make such comparisons that we are not a parliamentary system. If we were, the Secretary of State and other high-ranking officials would be gone because of their failures. We are, thankfully, the American system; and in our responsibility to support our troops, we know we must not just equip and train them. We know that all agencies of American government, the nonmilitary agencies, must pull their load if our fine troops are to be successful.

So we now have a situation where our new commander on the ground, General Petraeus, says he needs the additional troops. On the other hand, he says he needs all the other agencies of government to step forward with, in his words, "an enormous commitment."

It is clear this commitment of other agencies is not yet being made. Regardless of the result of this vote today, our troops will still be in Iraq needing the commitment of all government agencies.

The House leadership has stated that this resolution today is the first step of other legislation to come. This other legislation to come must address the issues of the shortcomings of other agencies of U.S. government, the nonmilitary agencies of U.S. government. Our troops deserve the help.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) 7 minutes.

Mr. Walden of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, since learning we would consider a resolution regarding troop levels in Iraq, I have spent considerable time listening to veterans of this war and other wars questioning some of America's top national security officials, reading every e-mail, literally every letter on this most serious issue of this day that has come into my office from my constituents. I have listened to voices of leaders of other nations who surround Iraq. I have read the National Intelligence Report. I have read the Iraq Study Committee Report. I have been given books such as "Fiasco" to digest, and I have reached out to the parents of brave Americans who are on their way into this conflict, and I have heard from the parents of sons who were lost in this conflict. I have heard strong opinions on both sides of this issue, and I have reflected upon my own vote to authorize the war in the first place.

To say the least, it has been an agonizing experience. Agonizing, because I want to do what is right for America with minimal sacrifice to the brave Americans who wear our Nation's uniform. I want to do what is right to protect our freedom and our security.

I will always remember the days and nights when the smoke from the burning Pentagon wafted into the apartment I lived in just blocks from that building. I remember the images of that day when rescue personnel were trying to save lives, only to lose their own. I remember the pledge I made to myself that I would never let that happen to America again if I had my way.

So I supported implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report. I supported efforts to improve our intelligence gathering and processing efforts so that America does not miss key indicators of danger or, worse, misinterpret the data that is gathered.

Policymakers must be given accurate, reliable intelligence if we are to make responsible decisions. Had Congress been given an accurate intelligence assessment, I doubt the vote to invade Iraq would ever have come to this floor in the first place, and I certainly would not have cast the vote I cast because the threat was not what we were told it was, despite the horrific brutality of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen sons.

Unfortunately, though, we cannot edit history; we cannot change the

past. Our responsibility is to the present and even more so to the future, America's future.

In some areas of the world, America has made strong diplomatic progress on the most difficult issues facing our planet. I speak of the recent agreement with North Korea coming out of the Six Party talks. I am reminded of the willingness of Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction and come into line with the world community. And while much work remains regarding Iran's nuclear development, America's work with other countries and through the United Nations is having an effect on Iran.

Meanwhile, our troops and our work internationally in Afghanistan continues to show progress, even in light of the recent resurgence of the Taliban. Consider the historic role NATO is playing to bring peace and stability to that far-off land.

So if we are accomplishing good in Afghanistan and elsewhere, why is the situation in Iraq still such a mess? And what can or should America do there now that will hasten Iraq's move towards stability and hasten the bringing home of our troops to America?

As my colleague from New Mexico, Heather Wilson, so eloquently and forcefully asked this week: What are America's strategic interests in Iraq, and how can we best achieve them?

These are the serious questions of our day, and these are the issues tragically missing from this nonbinding resolution.

In this new world where war is not waged by armies in uniform with codes of honor but by terrorists who blow up food markets and behead journalists, how do we respond in an effective way to prevent the insanity from coming again to our shores? How best do we prevent a whole region from ripping apart at the seams and perhaps taking much of the world with it?

While Congress has a clear constitutional role and responsibility when the Nation is at war, where is the line that Congress should not cross? Are we really best equipped to decide precisely how many reinforcements are sent into which battle? Isn't that a decision best left to the commanders in the field? Can Congress really give General Petraeus a unanimous vote of support to lead our effort in Iraq and then turn around and deny him the strategy he told us he believes is necessary to win?

A former colonel in the Air Force wrote to me recently on this very topic. She said, "Some in Congress say they support General Petraeus but don't want them to undertake the mission they were confirmed to do. It seems right out of Alice in Wonderland."

And if Congress is going to make these decisions, then have we really carefully analyzed where the other 134,754 troops in Iraq are, what they are doing, and what they should do?

Another of the e-mails I received was from a veteran of the Vietnam War who, like many other veterans of that conflict, urged me to vote against this resolution; and he wrote, "Our troops need unqualified support. They don't need to be told they are participating in a lost cause."

Indeed, this two-sentence nonbinding resolution does send a very mixed message to our troops. Moreover, this resolution is a lost opportunity to address at least five major issues that a serious Congress needs to address.

First, this resolution fails to even mention the Iraqi role. Where is the siren call for the Iraqi government to keep its word and perform as promised? We cannot expect for long to do for Iraq what it is unwilling to do for itself.

Second, this resolution fails to even mention the need for this administration to embrace the Iraq Study Group Report's call for aggressive diplomatic initiatives with Syria, Iran, and other nations in Iraq's neighborhood. Where is the call for enhanced diplomacy?

Third, this resolution fails to even mention the need to replenish the equipment that our National Guard units have left behind while serving our country overseas. My State's own National Guard's ability to conduct training is deeply affected by lack of equipment.

Fourth, this resolution fails to call on Iran, Syria, and other nations to stop directly or indirectly supplying the weapons and explosives to those who detonate car bombs in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, killing women and children as they try to buy food in local markets. Where is the condemnation of their actions?

Fifth, this resolution fails to define what our strategic national interests are in Iraq and how we can best achieve them.

I know that I stand alone in my State's delegation by opposing this resolution. I have been told by some I should just vote for it. It would be easier politically for me because then the problem is off my back. It is someone else's. They will own it. I cannot do that and look at myself in the mirror.

I cannot ignore the counsel recently given to us by diplomats in the region whose advice we ignored when America took on this challenge in Iraq and who now counsel us with most seriousness in the strongest of terms against leaving Iraq before the country is stabilized. They have made it clear to this Member of Congress that failure in Iraq will have grave and dangerous consequences to the entire region. In short, we broke it, we need to fix it before we leave it.

But fixing Iraq does not mean ending religious differences, differences that have ripped apart that region for 1,300 years or more. Fixing Iraq does not mean installing our form of democracy. Fixing Iraq means ensuring a new terrorist haven is not created or allowed to be created from which they can train and plan safely to carry out attacks against the West. Fixing Iraq means ensuring their government can stand on its own and not collapse into a sinkhole that drags other nations in the region into an abyss.

Given the glaring shortcomings of the non-binding resolution we have before us today, I will vote "no" for as many of those who served in Vietnam have told me its message does undercut our troops. Moreover, it fails to call for the increased diplomatic initiatives in the region, it fails to call for Iraq to do its part, it fails to define our strategic national interests of stabilizing Iraq so as to prevent the creation of another terrorist training haven, and it fails to address the very real needs of our National Guard.

It is unfortunate that the opportunity to actually affect these very serious policy choices was not allowed on the Floor of the House today. It is, indeed, a missed opportunity for America.