---

The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair will advise of the time remaining. The gentleman from New York has 31½minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 16 minutes remaining. The Chair will try to even out the time.

Mr. King of New York: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. Hensarling: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, various news organizations have now confirmed what the Democrats really have in mind with this nonbinding resolution, and that is, choke off funding for the troops.

Though they haven't really said it on this House floor, they have said it to their political base, moveon.org, and I hold the transcript in my hand. Let's listen to the words of our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) who, as we all know, controls our military spending panel.

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

He was further quoted as saying, "We have to be careful people don't think this is the vote."

Last evening, CBS News noted that our colleague's proposal "is a way to get at the same goal without holding a vote to cut funding." Again, Mr. Speaker, that goal is to cut funding of the troops. The goal is to accept defeat.

Now, I know the author of this proposal has served his Nation with great courage and great honor, but I for one fail to see the courage and the honor in this proposal.

The Politico Magazine has called this proposal the "Slow Bleed Strategy." The slow bleed strategy. I wonder who it is who is doing the bleeding.

Mr. Speaker, how does anybody look one of our brave soldiers in the eye and tell them, I don't believe in your mission. I don't believe you can succeed and I have the power to bring you home; I have the power to bring you home today but I am not willing to do it because, if I did, I would have to take responsibility and I am concerned about political ramifications.

Mr. Speaker, if my Democrat colleagues truly want to cut off funding for the troops and withdraw from Iraq, then let them vote on it today. Let them show the courage of their convictions and vote on it today. We cannot accept this slow bleed strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I know that fighting this war is costly. It is costly in terms of blood. It is costly in terms of money. Like many other of my colleagues, I have met with the mothers who have lost sons in Iraq. Their plight is profound; it is sad. But Mr. Speaker, I never, never, never want to meet with the mothers whose children might perish in the next 9/11 if we accept defeat in Iraq.

Iraq must be seen in the context of this larger war we are having with radical Islam. The battle lines are drawn, and whether we like it or not, they are drawn in Iraq. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Osama bin Laden. "The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad. Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

We have to soberly reflect on the enemy that we are facing. Listen to the number two in al Qaeda, al-Zawahiri. "Al Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children." As the father of a 4-year-old and a 3-year-old, I find that to be a chilling statement.

Listen to Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guard's intelligence adviser to the Iranian President. "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

This is the enemy we face, and we face him foremost in Iraq. If we leave Iraq before subduing him, he will follow us to America, make no mistake about it, and the consequences are immense. Read the National Intelligence Estimate. Read the report of the Iraq Study Group.

Iraq has the potential to become what Afghanistan once was under the Taliban, and that is, a breeding ground and a safe haven for the recruitment, training, financing and sanctuary of radical Islamists bent upon attacking our Nation and attacking our families. There will be no greater event to empower the radical Islamists in our defeat in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We are Americans. We can meet this threat. We can work together. Vote against this resolution. Let's support our troops. Let's protect our Nation and our children from this threat.

The Speaker pro tempore: In an attempt to try to equalize the time, I recognize the gentleman from New York.

Mr. King of New York: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to work with the Speaker on this, and I recognize the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for 8 minutes.

Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the manner of our withdrawal from Iraq will dramatically affect the credibility of American foreign policy. Our actions must not lead to anti-Semites masquerading as the President of Iran with the misimpression that his thirst for nuclear weapons can ever end with the realization of his dream of nuclear holocaust, this time engulfing the Jewish national homeland. In the larger geopolitical context, like it or not, credibility is the currency of a global Superpower.

The argument has been made on this floor that our engagement in Iraq has had the effect of diverting our attention from other threats to our security interests such as a nuclear North Korea or the military buildup of China or even a resurgent Russia.

The recent glimmer of hope from the multiparty talks with the hermit kingdom demonstrates that it is possible for our Nation to, yes, walk and chew gum at the same time. The war in Iraq has not come at the cost of disengagement. However, perhaps more importantly, we cannot avoid the fact that the manner in which we turn control over their country to the Iraqis will send a message across the globe to friend and foe alike of whether we are a reliable ally and a predictable adversary.

It is simply not possible for us to divorce our role in the world from our credibility as a Nation. The stakes are great for Iraq, but they are just as great, if not greater, for those of us in the United States, for those of us presently in the United States and for our children and our grandchildren.

Although everyone including the President has acknowledged the fact that things have not gone as planned in Iraq, this should not lead us to overlook the fact that the Iraqi people have chosen their Nation's leadership in democratic elections, three in a row, with more and more people participating, larger percentages of the population participating, in numbers and percentages that frankly would embarrass our country when you look at the turnout we have for elections. Sometimes we explain the low turnout in our elections because of bad weather. Their bad weather was not the question. It was the threat of death if they participated in elections, and yet they went forward to do so.

They ratified a Constitution that represents a dramatic departure from the rule of one of the most repressive regimes of the globe, and we sort of slide by that and say, well, we got rid of Saddam Hussein, but look at the mess those people are in over there. It is a difficult proposition. This President warned us after 9/11 it would be a difficult proposition; it would take fortitude; it would take persistence; it would take resolve.

At the same time, however, it is this very hope of democracy that has led those extremists who fear such a prospect to lash out in a wave of violence. In this regard, we must not fall prey to the error of failing to hold those responsible for violence accountable for their murderous actions.

The idea that we are somehow responsible for violence in Iraq is both preposterous and the crassest form of moral ignorance. Those who commit the murders, those who drill holes in people's brains, screw fellow human beings to walls and consider decapitation a form of religious expression, they are the ones who are responsible for the atrocities and massive human rights violations concerning the people of Iraq.

Charles Krauthammer aptly captures such moral illogic with the query of whether the police in America are somehow responsible and have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year.

The tragic irony of such logic is that it suggests that those who murder in order to manipulate the Western media and public opinion by the spectacle of mangled bodies and blood-stained streets should be able to realize their aim of driving us away from the scene of their crime. We must not reward these thugs by giving them what they want. We are in Iraq to protect the Iraqi people, and the blame for the violence should be placed where it belongs.

As Prime Minister Blair so eloquently stated the proposition: "Here is where we have to change radically our mindset. At present, when we are shown pictures of carnage in Iraq, much of our own opinion sees that as a failure, as a reason for leaving. Surely," Prime Minister Blair says, "it is a reason for persevering and succeeding. What is the purpose of the terrorism in Iraq? It is to destroy the prospect of democratic progress. In doing so, they hope to deal us a mortal blow. They know victory for them in Iraq is defeat not just for Iraqi democracy but for democratic values everywhere."

The challenges before us relate to the formulation of policy, but this should not be considered in a vacuum. The most important asset of the United States in Iraq is the quality of the men and women of our Armed Forces. It is in this regard that the person in charge of the responsibility of implementing our new policy, General David Petraeus, is well-suited to perform such a task.

In addition to his experience in the area around Mosul, he is the coauthor of the recently released Military Field Manual on Counterinsurgency Doctrine. History provides us with examples where military commanders have been brought into a theater of operations in order to turn around what seemed at the time less than promising, as illustrated by the appointments of General Grant, or even General Patton, to name just two examples.

If there ever was a need for such leadership in Iraq it is now. General Petraeus is a critical component to our prospects for progress.

And I know everybody says they support General Petraeus, they support our troops. But it does seem odd that when the other body confirmed General Petraeus unanimously, they followed it up by suggesting what he was going about was a fool's errand. And I know everybody here supports our troops, but listen to what you are saying. On the one hand you say, "Godspeed, General Petraeus," and on the other hand you say, "You are doomed to failure."

The need to meet the challenge of stabilizing Iraq, primarily in Baghdad and Anbar Province, is essential to the orderly withdrawal of American forces. Any precipitous action which fails to accommodate this concern would likely have untold consequences for innocents within Iraq, the broader Middle East, and ultimately the security of the American people.

Again, however, it must be emphasized that the long-term success or failure of democracy in Iraq rests with the Iraqis themselves. As Faoud Ajami of Johns Hopkins University has pointed out, we have given the gift of freedom to the Iraqi people, which, by nature, entails the conclusion that their future is in their own hands.

This new strategy, and I stress it is a new strategy, recognizes that our remaining days in Iraq must be dedicated to making this transition to a new political order possible, not just getting out, but getting out as we succeed in our effort to establish a stable democracy in Iraq.

Mr. Lantos: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my good friend and distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Congressman Marion Berry.

Mr. Berry: I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to keep in your hearts and minds, certainly in your prayers, our men and women in uniform and their families, especially those on the battlefield today; and to reach out to them and their families, and let them know that you understand and appreciate the sacrifice and commitment that they make out of the goodness of their heart.

Our Kansans have done their part to protect our freedom, contributing heavily to the war efforts since the conflict began. Our State alone has roughly 1,500 soldiers currently overseas, we have deployed 15,000 since September 11, 2001; 45 of our Kansans have paid the ultimate price, and 350 more have been seriously wounded. Congress cannot forget the sacrifice of these men and women. We will continue to support our Nation's servicemembers and provide them with every resource that they need.

After listening to President Bush's recent proposal to escalate troop levels in Iraq, I am even more concerned with his failure to recognize the severity of this conflict and what it really means.

Recent short-term troop escalation proposals in Iraq have not stopped the violence from getting worse. President Bush has said nothing to convince me, or almost no one else, that his latest strategy will result in success.

Our military forces deserve a policy commensurate with the sacrifices that they have been asked to make and have made. Regrettably, the President has not provided that policy or plan. Our leaders need to think long term and make strong commitments to diplomacy with all of the other countries in the region and the world community. Our credibility as a Nation must be restored.

As the Iraq Study Group concluded, this is an international conflict that cannot be solved by U.S. military strategies alone. Furthermore, President Bush's proposals will create additional strain on our military readiness, as well as our military personnel and their families.

There is already a shortage of military equipment that jeopardizes the safety of our men and women in uniform. We cannot and should not send more troops overseas without providing the equipment and support they need to safely and effectively accomplish the mission that is charged to them.

I oppose this escalation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. God bless the men and women in uniform.

Mr. Hoyer: Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of time on each side be enlarged by 36 minutes.

I think I have the authority to do that under the rule; it has been done in consultation with the minority leader.

The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo): Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize Mr. King from New York, the ranking member of Homeland Security, for 7 minutes.

Mr. King of New York: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution and in strong support of our troops and their mission.

This resolution is wrong in every respect. It is wrong constitutionally. Never before in our history has Congress attempted to control or restrict battlefield decisions. It is wrong as a matter of policy, and it will come back to haunt us for years to come.

Madam Speaker, wars must not be waged according to opinion polls or applause meters. For instance, just look at the battle of Iwo Jima, an island in the Pacific where in less than 6 weeks, more than twice as many Americans were killed as have been killed throughout the entire Iraq war, and yet Congress didn't jump in to question the policies of the President.

And look at the Korean War. There was no declaration of war. The United States and the overwhelming majority of coalition troops in the field, 36,000 Americans were killed and another 8,000 were missing. More than 70 percent of the American people opposed President Truman and his handling of the war. Yet today, President Truman is honored as one of our greatest Presidents, and the Korean War is looked upon as a key turning point in our struggle against communism.

Madam Speaker, Iraq cannot be looked upon or looked at in a vacuum. This war in Iraq is an absolutely essential component of the war against Islamic terrorism which must be fought in many places throughout the world, including right here at home.

As a Member of Congress who lost upwards of 150 friends, neighbors, and constituents on September 11, 2001, I have seen firsthand how evil this enemy can be. And al Qaeda itself has said that Iraq is a major battleground in this war.

Madam Speaker, we cannot allow ourselves to do anything which would undermine our troops who are the frontline soldiers in this war against Islamic terrorism.

I know that the resolution expresses support for the troops, but talk is cheap and actions have consequences. You cannot support the troops if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in the field. And that is what this resolution does.

Speaker after speaker in support of the resolution has said that the new policy in Iraq will not work. But General Petraeus, who is the author of this policy and who has just been unanimously confirmed by the Senate, has said this policy can work and that his troops can carry it out. By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution are clearly undermining a new commander in Iraq at such a vital time in the conduct of this war.

As the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said earlier this week, "When military decisions are second-guessed by opinion polls or overruled by politicians, it is the common soldier and their families who pay the price. The VFW is very concerned with the tone and timing of this debate. We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed."

Madam Speaker, what makes this worse is that we know today's resolution is only the first step to prevent General Petraeus and his troops from carrying out their mission. The Democratic leadership has admitted, indeed proudly acknowledged, that it is their goal to impose as many conditions as they can to prevent General Petraeus from getting the troops and the reinforcements he needs to win this war.

Madam Speaker, never in our history have the Speaker of the House or the House Appropriations Committee attempted to superimpose their policies on troop training or troop leave, and override the Commander in Chief and the commander in the field.

Madam Speaker, this is not the time for sunshine soldiers or summertime patriots. It is time for Members of this body to show at least a small percentage of the courage shown every day by our troops in Iraq.

If you want to cut off the funding for our troops who will be in the line of fire, don't be cute, don't try to sneak it through the back door. Have the guts to do it directly.

Madam Speaker, this debate is not about this President or this Congress or the next election. It is about our survival as a Nation and our survival as a civilization. Vote for our troops and against this misguided and dangerous resolution.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 10 minutes to my friend and colleague and neighbor from California, the esteemed Speaker of the House of Representatives (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. Pelosi: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his exceptional leadership in the national security of our country.

My colleagues, for 3 days and nights, more than 350 Members of Congress have come to the floor to speak their conscience about the war in Iraq and the President's escalation proposal. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the tenor, for the most part, and the substance of their remarks.

There is one proposition on which we can all agree: Our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. And as the resolution states, Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq. We owe our troops a debt of gratitude for their patriotism, for their courage, and for the sacrifices they are willing to make.

As a sign of our respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.

Thank you.

We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the stage for a new direction on Iraq by passing a resolution with fewer than 100 words which supports our troops and disapproves of the President's escalation proposal. Instead, Democrats have proposed a different course of action to the President.

Over and over again we have suggested a different plan.

One year ago, Senator Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate Democrats to propose our agenda for real security, to project our power and our values, to protect the American people. Consistent with our real security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, starting in July, and the most recent one the end of January, urging him to adopt a strategy for success, containing these elements: change of mission, redeployment of troops, building a political consensus, engaging in diplomacy, reform of reconstruction and a refocus in the war on terror.

In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counterterrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily lives of Iraqis and minimizing the chance of these troops being caught in the crossfire between rival Iraqi factions. Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq beginning within the next 4 to 6 months.

Declining troop levels will require fewer bases, and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced and passed by this House by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and also introduced by Congressman David Price.

A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment. Success in Iraq requires more than military force, and that really is what this debate is about today.

General Peter Chiarelli, a three-star General, until recently the Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq, observed in December, and I quote, "We need to get out of thinking that this is solely a military conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition or Iraqi forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our Nation's strengths--diplomatic, economic, political--must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process."

Unfortunately, there has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically. Iraq's neighbors have the greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an international contact group should be established to support a political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.

Senator Reid and I also wrote to the President that an international conference should be convened to broaden support for the reconstruction effort that is essential if Iraqis are going to be put to work building their country's future.

On the subject of reconstruction, there has been little effective reconstruction in Iraq because of mismanagement and disappearances of funds. That is why we propose that, in order for the reconstruction of Iraq to attract international support, it must be conducted according to practices which are honest, transparent, and accountable.

Reconstruction must be guided by the kind of process set forth in legislation introduced by Congressman Patrick Murphy and the Blue Dog Coalition. The United States should take the lead on accountability in reconstruction. Politically, there has been no sustained and effective effort to engage rival Iraqi factions.

The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq. A good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. That was promised at the time of the referendum over 1 year ago.

The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and to disarm them.

Proponents of the President's escalation are equating the war on terror to the war in Iraq. As our esteemed chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Ike Skelton of Missouri, a great patriot, has observed, "Two conflicts. Two wars. And the two should not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as `the war on terror,' but the wars are truly separate and distinct," Chairman Skelton stated.

The war in Iraq continues to detract from our ability to fight against the war on international terrorism effectively. We need to finish the job started more than 5 years ago in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban and address other conditions around the world in which the appeal of terrorism breeds.

The longer it takes us to resolve the situation in Iraq, the longer resources and attention will continue to be diverted from the war on terrorism. Our ability to respond to the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and other potential crises in the world is constrained severely by the deterioration in military readiness to levels not seen since the Vietnam era.

There we have the six elements that we talked about: change of mission, redeployment of troops, building of political consensus, engaging in diplomacy, reform of reconstruction, and a refocus on the war on terror. By placing so much emphasis, instead, on dealing with the problems in Iraq militarily and not enough emphasis on sustained political and diplomatic engagements, the President's escalation plan repeats past mistakes.

The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success. The bipartisan resolution today may be nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President. We here in Congress are committed to protecting and supporting our troops.

The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon. Our troops are working together to secure our Nation, and we in this House must work together to secure our Nation as well and to do so in a way that honors their sacrifice.

I urge my colleagues to support our troops and a new direction in Iraq by voting "aye" on the bipartisan Skelton-Lantos-Jones resolution.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 6 minutes to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, a prominent feature of this debate has been two sharply contrasting visions of the future. One vision sees no hope for us in Iraq and counsels that we withdraw, just give up. By contrast, the other mission focuses on success. We understand what accepting defeat means for Iraq.

We understand what accepting defeat means for Iraq, the region and our Nation's security interest. We support modifications and strategy to address the enemy's changing tactics, and we are committed to destroying the enemy before the enemy can destroy us. This success policy is rooted in the fabric of the American character, in our belief in the ability of our troops to achieve success in Iraq and Afghanistan and on all the fronts on this global war against Islamic militant jihadists.

The resolution at the center of this debate, Madam Speaker, lacks hope. It accepts defeat. It opposes reinforcements for our troops on the battlefield, reinforcements that strengthens their capacity to confront the enemy and succeed in their mission.

General Petraeus said that he cannot accomplish his mission without the deployment of additional U.S. forces. This resolution, however, announces that Congress will deny the commander in Iraq the means he says he needs to win. This resolution seeks to transform this House into 435 generals.

What is the next step in the strategy, Madam Speaker, after the crippling of our war effort? We know from statements and bills that have been introduced that plans will mandate the nature and the timing of a withdrawal by placing limitations on the funding of our efforts. A vote for this resolution then is a vote to proceed toward defunding of our troops.

Some believe that the impact of these decisions is confined to Iraq, but Iraq is only one front in the global war against radical Islamic jihadists. This is a war without boundaries. This is a war that poses the greatest challenge to our generation.

I will quote al-Zawahiri in his own words. He describes this fight in this way:

" … Afghanistan and Iraq are the two most important fields for confronting the contemporary Crusader war. Therefore, the Muslim nation should support the mujahidin in these two countries with all its power."

Those are al-Zawahiri's own words. He talks about the war in Iraq as being central. He added that Iraq "is the gateway to the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate."

Iran's leader has echoed similar views. He stated, we will soon experience a world without the United States; and he goes on to state, we must prepare ourselves to rule the world.

The enemy understands what is at stake. We must, also.

Once the retreat has started, where will it stop? Afghanistan? The Persian Gulf? The entire Middle East? Once we have abandoned our allies in Iraq, why should anyone in the world believe when we say that we draw a line in the sand and say that we will never abandon them.

Lawrence Haas, a former communications director for Vice President Gore, stated recently, " … our enemies anticipate that Iraq will be the latest chapter in the book of American defeatism. Our withdrawal will embolden them to push ahead, confident that we lack the stomach for confrontation, that our commitments mean nothing, that they can win simply by outlasting us."

A withdrawal in this generational fight will ensure that what is to come will be even worse. While urging a withdrawal, some state that they support the troops. But as leaders of the American Legion and the Veterans for Foreign Wars have stated, you cannot separate the warrior from the war.

My stepson, Douglas Lehtinen, and his wife, Lindsay, proudly served as Marine pilots in Iraq. Lindsay will soon leave for a tour in Afghanistan. Far from seeing their mission as hopeless, far from urging withdrawal, they and their fellow service men and women are committed to victory. They are so confident in that success that they are willing to risk their lives to secure it.

They would tell you that victory can never be ensured but that we can make defeat inevitable by giving our consent. The hopelessness from which this resolution springs is alien to our American spirit and it runs contrary to our history. What Thomas Paine said over two centuries ago stands still today: These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country. But he that stands by it now deserve the love and the thanks of every man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

If you like the status quo in Iraq, Madam Speaker, then you vote "yes" on this resolution. If you favor a mission of success in defeating the Islamic militant jihadists who are our enemies, then please vote "no" on this resolution.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend and our distinguished colleague from California (Ms. Matsui).

Ms. Matsui: Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I am hopeful today. Finally, 4 years into a very controversial war, Congress will begin to fulfill its constitutional responsibility as Representatives of the people. This week, every Member of the House of Representatives has had an opportunity to express their views on the war in Iraq. And today, every Member will cast their vote for or against the President's escalation of the war. This is only right.

For my part, I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. Our need for a change of direction could not be more clear. But rather than change direction, the President proposes that we continue down our current disastrous path, only at a faster pace and with more human life placed in harm's way.

We should be bringing troops home, not sending more there. We should be ending this war, not escalating it. Considering this resolution is only the first step of many Congress will need to take to force a change in direction, but as Thomas Jefferson once said, honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom. Congress writes that chapter with this resolution, but it is only the first chapter.

Sadly, the burden created by the lack of honesty and wisdom this administration has brought to this conflict is shouldered by our brave men and women in uniform. Two years ago, I spoke with a group of women in Sacramento whose husbands were serving in the National Guard in Iraq.

One woman told me she had to buy her husband a Kevlar vest and a canteen before he deployed to Iraq, something all too many families were doing for their loved ones because the military was not providing it. A short time later, the administration assured the public that the issue had been addressed. And yet just this week we heard reports that the Army lacks armored Humvees and other equipment necessary for the troop increase the President is implementing; once again, a failure in vision and planning, and once again, our troops pay the price.

Escalation of this conflict will further increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point. Every Member of this Chamber knows this. Earlier this month, I spoke with a friend and reservist in Sacramento named Richard Beach. Richard shipped out to Iraq 4 years ago as a chaplain in the Army Reserves. He is home now. But he still keeps in touch with his old unit. Richard shared with me a note he sent to some of his fellow members of the 114th.

He wrote, "I remember 4 years ago we were getting ready for our trip to Fort Lewis and then on to Iraq. I hope as the fourth anniversary of the war comes up, you are all in good health and living life to the fullest. I, too, pray that soon this war will end and we will stop sending our soldiers off to war."

Four years later, he reports that many of the same soldiers and their families are making the same sacrifice. But that is a heartbreaking reality here. Implementing the President's policy will mean that members of his regiment along with so many others will have to endure more and more of the back-to-back deployments to Iraq.

The notion of shared sacrifice is something that helped make this country great. Americans are strong believers in shared sacrifice. But all too often in this war, only our troops and their families share the sacrifice. That is too much to ask on behalf of policies that have not worked.

The administration offers us scant reason to believe this troop increase will work when it has tried and failed with several previous troop increases. This proposal offers us nothing but more of the same.

Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. It is our political leadership that has failed. There is a saying, It takes two people to speak the truth: one to speak it and one to hear it. I hope the administration will choose to hear the truth and I hope that we pass this resolution today.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Hoekstra: Madam Speaker, this debate is about whether or not America is a great Nation that will lead in the face of difficulty. We have come up short. This resolution falls short. It is small and not worthy of this House. Why small? Let me begin with a threat that some either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge.

This resolution does not address the fact that the current threat is not just the single front in Iraq, but rather the larger threat of militant Islamic jihadists who hate us enough to want to kill. These militant Islamic jihadists are a fringe element of Islam who have very specific ideas and goals about how to revive Islam, return Muslims to world power, and how to deal with their enemies.

They are committed to a violent overthrow of existing international systems and to their replacement by an all-encompassing Islamic state called the caliphate. In explaining his approach to creating the caliphate, centered in Iraq, al-Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahari, outlined a four-stage plan:

Stage 1, expel the Americans from Iraq in defeat.

Stage 2, create an Islamic religious government in Iraq, developing and supporting it until it achieves a level of a caliphate.

Stage 3, extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq.

Stage 4, clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

I think you get the picture.

Let me also be clear. This jihad is about them, their God, and their religion, it is not about us. These militant jihadists believe that the modern world has forsaken the pure religious life and that only with a caliphate can they return to "pure life."

It is this narrow ideology that poses the direct and real threat to us. It is this ideology that threatens not only us, but also includes the belief that killing other Muslims is justified to achieve their radical goals. Here is the true threat to America and the world, this militant Islamic jihad, a jihad that attacks around the globe, including the United States and Iraq. The resolution we debate today does not address this global problem, this threat to peace and stability. Iraq is not the problem, it is only one front in this larger war.

The second point. This resolution omits specifically all of the men and women of the Armed forces who are defending our freedoms in other theaters such as Kuwait, Afghanistan and Bosnia. It says, by not saying, that this Congress may not support troops who will be sent to Iraq.

Is this intentional? Is this part of the plan to choke off funding for our troops? I also take great umbrage that this resolution omits and completely slights the incredible contributions to this Nation's security of our dedicated men and women in the Intelligence Community, many serving in Iraq, who provide our combat troops with the information vital to their security.

Is this the first step in cutting off their funding, too, returning to the Clinton administration's policies of the 1990s that decimated our intelligence capabilities?

Finally, Madam Speaker, I need to address the issue of the consequences of failure. What happens if Iraq collapses due to a sudden withdrawal of U.S. troops? Our enemies have made it clear that they will fill the void. Surely America is wary of the conflict in Iraq, but the difficulty of this conflict does not justify giving into their strategy; yes, their strategy. They believe that they are winning by wearing America down. Will we quit? Do we understand the consequences?

Make no mistake, this resolution is a dangerous and naive first step to cutting funding to our troops in an unwise withdrawal from the region. Iraq is not a faraway place where the United States has no interest and where we can pull our troops out of without paying a price in the global war against militant Islam.

This debate is not about Iraq, it is about us, us as a Nation of people who will do the right thing. The fundamental question is, Do we have the resolve that will be necessary to defeat radical militant Islamic jihadists that contain bad actors such as Iran, and will we stand and fight for the future of our kids and their kids?

We have faced similar threats before. In 1945 my parents were liberated by Canadians and American troops in the Netherlands. They never forgot the sacrifices that were made by brave soldiers and by a great Nation, a Nation on a great mission.

America did it for them, but it also did it for itself. America recognized that the threat was a direct threat to America and the world. We then led a global effort to victory. Today we face a very different but, again, a very real threat: radical militant Islam. The challenge to this Congress is to rise to the occasion, to help lead America and to help lead the world to victory.

This petty resolution falls far short of that noble and worthy calling. Vote "no." We can and we must do better.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Holt: Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, this week during the debate on H. Con. Res. 63, I spoke of the men and women of our Armed Forces and the sacrifices they have made for our country. I noted that I had visited them in theater, at Walter Reed, and with their families in New Jersey. As I said, the quality of these men and women, and their earnest wish to serve their country, makes this situation in Iraq all the more tragic. I am sure I was quite clear regarding my sentiments, but it would appear that some in this House chose to mischaracterize my remarks.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter, said that I "referred to our wounded folks in Walter Reed as tragic." I want the gentleman to know I said no such thing, and I will ask him to be accurate if he chooses to quote me again.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend and our distinguished collegue from West Virginia, Congressman Mollohan.

Mr. Mollohan: I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution opposing the President's decision to escalate this war. My position on the Iraq war is uncomplicated. I voted against the initial war resolution back in 2002, mostly because I never believed the President made a compelling argument that Iraq posed the sort of substantive threat to the United States that would justify war, and the considerable human, political, and financial costs that it would bring.

I thought it was a bad decision at the time, and I think it is a bad decision today.

In my limited time this afternoon, I would like to comment on a couple of refrains that we keep hearing. The first is the President's repeated criticism that those who support this resolution are prejudging a plan that hasn't even been "given a chance to work." He makes that charge with a tone of wonderment, as though somehow it weren't our duty to anticipate the consequences of different courses of action and to avoid the bad ones before embracing them. If more of us had prejudged his 2002 decision, taking us to war before it was "given a chance to work," we wouldn't be having this debate today.

The difference between today and 2002 is that a majority of this House and this Congress are no longer willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt he enjoyed 5 years ago. We are no longer willing to suspend judgment and trust the decider. That should surprise precisely no one.

For 4 years we have been asked to trust this administration, to trust, as the Vice President emphatically declared, that they knew where the weapons of mass destruction are; to trust that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators; to trust that we had a large enough invasion force to stabilize the country; to trust that the Shi'a would find common cause with the Sunni and the Kurd in a united Iraq; to trust that Iraq's oil reserves would pay for its reconstruction; to trust that Iraq would serve as a beacon of democratic ideals throughout the Middle East; to trust that those early signs of a growing insurgency were nothing more than the "last throes of a few dead- enders."

And now the President asks us not to prejudge his plan to put another 21,000 Americans in harm's way. He asks us to trust him yet again. With respect and humility, Madam Speaker, I ask him, how can we? And how can he even ask it of us? Paraphrasing the President, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me five times, shame on me.

And another criticism of this measure that we have heard repeated over and over this week is that, as a nonbinding resolution, its passage and this debate is meaningless.

Madam Speaker, this resolution is far from meaningless. If need be, Congress will end this war with binding legislation. As even the President acknowledged, we retain the power of the purse, and we have ample opportunity to exercise that power.

But just as wars should be started with a united government, so, too, should wars be ended with a united government. And that is the meaningfulness of this resolution. It is the last chance to draw this government back together on Iraq. It is the last call for us to work together, Democratic and Republican, legislative and executive, on ending this war. It is the last call for the President to come back to the people.

He may ignore that call. He may dismiss this resolution and this debate as meaningless. He may dismiss the voice of the people expressed through 439 newly elected Representatives as meaningless. But if he does, Madam Speaker, he forces us to move forward without him. I hope that doesn't happen.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution, and I urge the President to listen to this debate and to join with us.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, at this time, I would yield 5 minutes to Mr. Hunter of California, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Hunter: I thank my friend for yielding.

This is, indeed, a sad time in our country. Five years ago we came to this floor united. We joined in sending our troops off in this war against terror.

You know, Madam Speaker, for the first number of strikes that were delivered by Muslim extremists in this war, the terrorists chose the battlefields. They chose a battlefield as a Marine barracks in Beirut. And Mr. Skelton and I were there, he shortly after the explosion that killed our Marines, I shortly before that explosion. They chose the Khobar Towers, they chose the embassies in Africa, they chose the USS Cole, and then they chose New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. We chose the next two battlefields, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our Democrat colleagues say that Iraq was the wrong battlefield, and I have heard resonating through the floor over the last 4 days statements that they were tricked, hornswoggled, fooled about Saddam Hussein.

From my side of the argument as to whether or not Saddam Hussein was a dangerous terrorist, I will simply offer all the statements by every Democrat leader in America during the 1990s, when there was no Bush administration to, in the words of my Democrat colleagues, "trick them." I will offer their statements about Saddam Hussein.

Madam Speaker, we have expanded in the last 60 years. We have been in the business of expanding freedom. We understood after World War II that if we didn't change the world, the world would change us. And that lesson was relearned after 9/11.

No one would argue that it is not in our interest to have a Japan on the other side of the Pacific, where we stood up a free government, where we have a free nation, or that it is not in our interest to have a free El Salvador in our own hemisphere, or that it is not in our interest to have those dozens of nations that were behind the Berlin Wall that are now free and working for freedom. Many of them are partners in Iraq. We understand that.

And now we are trying to expand freedom in a different part of the world, a very dangerous part of the world. And we are undertaking the same three-point strategy that we have had for 60 years: Number one, you stand up a free government; number two, you stand up a military capable of protecting that free government; and, number three, the Americans leave.

And we can build on this Baghdad plan, which is right now in the execution phase, this plan of having two or three Iraqi battalions out front, with an American backup battalion to mentor them, and we can rotate every one of the 129 Iraqi battalions through this type of a combat rotation, stand them up, give them battlefield experience, and then the Americans can leave.

Now, Madam Speaker, I have heard it said throughout this debate that there was somehow a smooth road not taken. And let me just say, that is not true. There are no smooth roads in the Middle East. There are no smooth roads to standing up new governments, especially in communities and states where people have been trained to live under dictatorships.

And for those who say if we had just kept Saddam Hussein's army in place, with it is 11,000 Sunni generals, everything would have been fine and we would have had a peaceful situation in Iraq right now, that is nonsense. And for those who said if we had had 200,000 or 300,000 troops, the Shiites and Sunnis would have forgotten their ancient rivalries, that is also nonsense.

What are the facts, the reality, our Democrat friends say we have to be realists here, is this is a tough, difficult road. We are on the second stage right now. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, our troops are in the field already on this plan that is now being retroactively disavowed by the Democratic leadership.

You know, it was in June, I think it was 2130 hours, June 6, 1944, when the first elements of the first aircraft of the Pathfinder companies went out in front of the 82nd Airborne over Normandy, and they shortly were followed by hundreds of airplanes with American paratroopers. The 82nd Airborne going into Normandy had the full support and prayers of everybody in the United States Congress.

Today, you have got an 82nd Airborne Second Brigade now operating under this plan in Baghdad already there in Baghdad. Now, is this going to be the day, I would ask my colleagues, when some trooper from the 82nd Airborne writes on the concrete wall next to his position in Baghdad, "This is where I stood when the United States House of Representatives led by the Democrat leadership rejected my mission"? I hope that doesn't happen, Madam Speaker.

Vote "no" on this resolution.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has.

The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo): The gentleman from California has 29½minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 32 minutes remaining.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. McCotter from Michigan, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. McCotter: Madam Speaker, President Lincoln warned, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. It will become all one thing or all the other."

Today, our House is divided; tomorrow, it will become all one thing or all the other. What are the possibilities?

In our divided House, one side believes we must win in Iraq to avoid a catastrophe; another side assumes we can lose in Iraq without consequence.

One side believes we must support our troops in harm's way and continue their funding; another side claims we can support our troops in harm's way and cut their funding.

One side assumes we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq; another side asserts we can retreat from al Qaeda in Iraq.

And one side believes the American people voted to change course in Iraq to win; another side feels the American people voted to change course in Iraq to lose.

Shortly, we will see how divided we are. One side will vote to support the President's plan to win in Iraq by reinforcing our troops, and then pray to God we are right; one side will vote against the President's plan. And in this question rests the answer to the future of our divided House.

My friends, many of you are about to put yourselves in a precarious position, for no one knows what the future holds. While we may feel sure of our decisions in the evanescent present, the unfathomable vagaries of fate have yet to fully play upon the stage of human history. As a result, many supporters of this resolution made an ominous omission while urging its adoption: In denouncing the President's plan, too few of you have openly hoped our troops' new mission would win the day and prove you wrong.

Being your colleague, I know you share this hope in your hearts. But your fellow Americans in fields abroad and constituencies at home must now wonder, will you cut our troops funding to prove yourselves right?

Sooner than you imagine, this nonbinding resolution will instigate binding legislation to commence a "slow bleed" of funding cuts while our troops battle against the enemy. Again, because I serve beside you every day, I know you abhor the thought of American soldiers being harmed by such an abject betrayal of their trust during combat, but it is upon this crucible of conscience you will be judged by all. And when the time comes to confront the consequences of today's expediency, I pray you make the right decision. If, however, you make the wrong decision, you will not only betray our citizen soldiers' trust, you will disastrously unite this House in a callow contentment with our own liberty and a calloused apathy to others' enslavement.

Could there be any more dishonorable epitaph for our free Republic's revolutionary experiment in democracy? True, some allege I exaggerate the danger, but they have turned a blind eye to the epitaphs of liberty etched above the ruins of nations once gloried, now dead: the Athenian city-state, the Roman Republic, the Weimar Republic.

Thus, even as we today divide in our own House, we remain compelled to unite behind the cause of our free Republic in this dangerous age of globalization, wherein humanity's destiny is daily entwined across the disparate reaches of Earth.

Our cause is this: Our world cannot permanently endure half slave and half free. It will become all one thing or all the other, as it has before in the darkest ages of human existence.

My friends, at this crossroads of our Republic, we must heed the better angels of our nature. We must unite our divided House behind the self-evident truth that all human beings are endowed by their Creator, with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We must extend freedom to the Iraqis and, in so doing, enhance the liberty of ourselves and all free peoples and inspire our fellow human beings caged in tyranny's embrace. And emulating our nation's greatest generations, we must let hope to flow from God's heart to our humble hands so we may, where He allows, emancipate humanity into a new birth of freedom for ourselves and generations unborn.

Madam Speaker, we must reject this resolution, unite behind our heroic troops and, God willing, win our country and humanity's mortal struggle to be free.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of our Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Thompson.

Mr. Thompson of Mississippi: Madam Speaker, 3 months ago the American people sent a resounding message for change. They voted for a new direction in Congress and new direction for the war in Iraq.

In solemn tribute to the sacrifices of the men and women of the Armed Forces in Mississippi's Second Congressional District who have served in Iraq and who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, I would like to recognize some of Mississippi's Second District heroes:

Staff Sergeant Kenneth Bradley. Hometown: Utica, Mississippi; 39 years old; died May 28, 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Larry K. Brown. Hometown: Jackson, Mississippi; 22 years old; died April 5, 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Rapheal S. Davis. Hometown: Tutwiler, Mississippi; 24 years of age; died December 2, 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Captain Kermit O. Evans. Hollandale, Mississippi; 31 years old; died December 3, 2006, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Joshua S. Ladd. Port Gibson, Mississippi; 20 years old; died May 1, 2004, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Master Sergeant Brian McAnulty. Hometown: Vicksburg, Mississippi; 39 years of age; died December 11, 2006, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Staff Sergeant John McGee. Cary, Mississippi; age 36 years; died May 2, 2005, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Staff Sergeant Joe Wilson. Crystal Springs, Mississippi; 30 years of age; November 2, 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Madam Speaker, the Department of Defense reports that as of February 15, 2007, 3,126 U.S. military servicemembers have died as a result of their service in Iraq. More than 25,000 have been wounded.

This bipartisan resolution before us today asks Members a straightforward question: Do you approve of the President's announced proposal on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq?

There is no question that the way forward in Iraq is one of our greatest challenges. The open debate offered here today allows us all an opportunity to express our sentiments on the administration's proposal. The sacrifices, dedication, and patriotism of our elite military and their families deserve no less.

I oppose the President's proposal. Until the President is willing to sit down with Congress and provide accurate data on what is really going on in this war, I cannot in good conscience support putting more men in harm's way.

This administration used bad intelligence to justify the rationale for war, and I fear that they are using bad judgment here today in their call for sending 25,000 more troops into harm's way.

The administration keeps calling this proposal a troop surge. Let us call it what it is. The proposal is a troop increase. Rather than a troop surge, what we need from this administration is a truth surge. The incompetence and misinformation that has gotten us into this mess is not the competence it will take to get us out.

The President and this administration must remain faithful and truthful to Congress and the American people by openly discussing appropriate measures to resolve the situation in Iraq that is worsening daily. The President must allow Congress to do what it was formed to do under the Constitution. His decision to continue in this direction is not democratic and, therefore, does not demonstrate the best example of what we are fighting for in Iraq. We must not allow the President to escalate the Iraq War without specific congressional approval.

Madam Speaker, we must send the President a message he cannot ignore. We must pass the Skelton-Lantos-Jones resolution.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the deputy whip of the minority.

Mr. Cantor: Madam Speaker, just 2 days ago, on February 14, Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, posted a speech on an Islamist Web site where he blessed jihad fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia and urged the mujahadeen all over world to remain steadfast since complete victory was near. He made special mention of those in the Islamic jihadist media and thanked them for their blessed efforts which cause the Crusaders to lose sleep.

There is no doubt about it, Madam Speaker. We are fighting against an enemy that uses every weapon at its disposal to inflict casualties upon our soldiers in the field. This enemy seeks not just victory in Iraq but the reestablishment of a greater Islamic caliphate that would threaten the security of America and freedom-loving people throughout the world.

Today, this House will vote on a nonbinding resolution that disapproves of a surge in Iraq, a resolution that discourages our troops yet fails to satisfy the antiwar movement of America's left.

The resolution will likely pass today with near unanimous support of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Yet, Madam Speaker, I am troubled by their seeming unwillingness to accept the real consequences of this outcome. This from the party of John F. Kennedy, who so inspired our Nation when he said in his inaugural address: "Let every Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to ensure the survival and the success of liberty."

Madam Speaker, we have come a long way since our Nation's 35th President spoke those words 46 years ago.

This debate arrives at an historic time in our Nation's history, not because of the resolution we are considering today but because the results of our efforts in Iraq will have a true impact on the lives of our soldiers and the security of all of us for generations to come.

Recently, I received a letter from one of my constituents who expressed some very real concerns about the Democrats' view of the war in Iraq. He writes: "I am a servicemember that has served in Iraq, training Iraqis. I have 19 years of service. I spent 6 years in the Virginia Army National Guard, and I am entering my 13th year of active Federal service.

"Pulling out of Iraq doesn't send the right message to those we are fighting," he said. "Not enough is being said about what the U.S. will do if we withdraw and what will happen in the midst of a power vacuum … "

The soldier went on to say: "I personally served in the streets of Baghdad in 2006, and I would have felt better serving, thinking that both houses of Congress gave me their full support."

Madam Speaker, what we debate in this House, how we conduct ourselves, does have real consequences. Some of our country's bravest are on the battlefield and on the streets of Baghdad as we speak.

We have seen throughout our history what happens when our resolve is weak. In 1993 this country half-heartedly supported the commitment of troops to subdue the violent warlords of Somalia. The precipitous withdrawal in the face of casualties left a chaotic nation to this day that harbors terrorists and is a feeding ground for instability.

The lessons of history must not be forgotten as we face a determined enemy of Islamic terrorists who are waging a war upon freedom.

Madam Speaker, the American people want us to fight and win in Iraq and bring our troops home. Our soldiers seek nothing more than the support they require to perform their mission and the knowledge that the American people believe that their sacrifice is necessary and noble.

Contrary to some of those on the other side of the aisle who have stood here in this well believing and saying that this debate is a breath of fresh air, our enemies will be the only ones satisfied by this debate. They will have received all the political rhetoric they require to convince their followers that complete victory is at hand. One can only imagine with horror how many Islamic radicals will be inspired to continue the fight after this House resolves that it supports our troops but not the mission we ask them to perform.

To those who support this resolution and oppose any effort to achieve victory in Iraq, I challenge you to be true to your convictions and bring a binding resolution to the floor to cut off funds for our troops, because that is really what this is all about.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this resolution and urge my colleagues to vote "no" and send a message worth hearing to America, our soldiers, and our enemies.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

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

While this resolution may be nonbinding, we will all be bound by its consequences: the immediate and long-lasting consequences, those here and in the combat zone.

Democrats continue to put forward an inherently contradictory message with dire consequences, on one hand offering rhetorical support for the troops and on the other, advancing a slow-bleed strategy that methodically constricts those troops' ability to succeed.

From the testimonials we have heard, it is clear our troops believe their mission is winnable. And the message they are routinely delivering to us could not be more clear. They want a chance to get the job done.

Ladies and gentlemen, our troops are not speaking off of a slickly produced focus group-tested set of talking points. They are vocalizing the overwhelming sentiments that exist on the front lines. We do a disservice to the very troops we claim to support when we advance a slow-bleed strategy that cuts off their lifeline of support.

We don't support them when we choke off the funding they need to succeed. We don't support them when we erect political roadblocks designed to deny them the equipment that they need to carry out their mission. We don't support them when we tie their hands behind their back. And we certainly don't support our troops when we attach strings to the funding needed to ensure that when they need help, it is on the way.

Yesterday the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee unveiled this dangerous slow-bleed doctrine on a Web site, movecongress.org, that is directly affiliated with some of the most extreme elements of the antiwar left. This is a political machine designed to elect and defeat politicians by using our troops as pawns, and now they seek to deprive those same troops of the resources they need to succeed in their mission. According to news reports, these groups are prepared to spend $8.5 million on a national ad campaign to target lawmakers who did not adhere to their extremist, defeatist views.

This resolution is not an earnest expression of congressional sentiment. It is phase one of the far left's plan to elect more of their own. And all of this is for what? To send a message or settle a score with our Commander in Chief? To raise campaign cash?

It turns out our worse fears are true; that this resolution is, in fact, a first, dangerous step to cutting off the funds our troops so desperately need. The remarks of the Defense Appropriations chairman, the remarks of the Speaker with major national reporters lending support to the slow-bleed doctrine; and next week senior House leaders will convene to map out their strategy for maximizing their ability to defund the troops while minimizing the political fallout.

Before you cast your vote today, you should see this resolution for what it is: phase one of a political campaign to strip our troops of the funds they need.

Right now, in some cave in Iraq or Afghanistan, information is being located on a hard drive that talks about a plan for a new attack in America. Right now, somewhere in the Middle East, teenage boys are being groomed to be human bombs to further the aims of these Islamic extremists. Right now, money is being transferred across a global finance network to fund the attacks here on our soil or on other allies' soil who believe in the types of freedom and open society we enjoy, in Madrid, in London, in Hamburg, in New York, in Washington.

Regardless of how many Republicans cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats or how many Democrats cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans, tomorrow morning the terrorists will still wake up with hate on their hearts, plotting the next scheme to bring down our economy, to bring down our system of government, to bring down the lives of innocents.

As recently as last August, as if we didn't learn from the events of 9/11, as recently as last August, there was still an attempt to blow up 10 more airliners using baby food as the means for bringing on the explosive device.

Resolutions like this do nothing to stop that type of hate. They only send the wrong signals to the men and women on the front lines for all of us.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.

Mr. Blunt: I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise again today, as I did at the beginning of this debate, to urge a "no" vote on this nonbinding resolution. We have spent the week discussing the situation in Iraq and trying to find out what the resolution may really mean.

As I said at the start of this debate, it is hard to imagine a less qualified group prepared to determine tactics on the ground than 535 Members of Congress, or 535 members of anything else; how many troops to deploy, where to deploy them, which car to stop. Where does it end?

There is a disagreement on how we should fight this war on Islamic totalitarianism, but this fight is the challenge of our generation.

Madam Speaker, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle supported this mission at the beginning. Now they are ready to give up in the middle of the fight.

Those who join me in opposing this nonbinding resolution have been saying all week, while this resolution will have no impact because it is nonbinding, it is still the first step toward cutting funding for our troops.

Yesterday, we were told that this is the first step toward pulling the rug out from under our troops in the field.

This week, one of the veterans on our side of the aisle was accused of being dishonest in her representation when she said that this resolution we will vote on today did not support those who are deploying. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, said just yesterday, during the unveiling of his strategy to pull the rug out from under our troops, "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment. They don't have the training, and they won't be able to do the work."

He also said, "I think, first of all, we have to be careful that people don't think this is the vote. The real vote will come on the legislation we are putting together. This nonbinding legislation is just an opinion."

I would say this resolution says just enough not to say anything at all. We have already heard the Democrats calling the debate this week the "bark before the bite." Their so-called slow-bleed approach is the bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America's flag overseas.

This nonbinding resolution is the first step in an all-too-binding spiral toward defeat in a fight that we cannot afford to lose.

I am not pleased to vote "no" today, but I will vote "no," knowing that the "no" vote is the right vote.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, as we come to the end of this debate, I want to commend every participant on both sides for conveying powerfully and eloquently their deeply held views.

I started this debate in the firm belief that escalation is a flawed idea. After listening carefully for the past 4 days to all of my colleagues, I am more convinced than ever that escalation is a flawed idea.

Escalation is not only the wrong policy for the United States, it is also the wrong policy for Iraq. If Iraq is to succeed as a stable and prosperous state, it must learn to take responsibility. It must learn to make difficult decisions. It must amend its constitution in the interests of Iraqi reconciliation. It must devise an equitable law for sharing its oil and gas revenues. And it must take primary responsibility for its own security.

Unless we de-escalate, Iraq will never step up to the plate. But that is not the only reason we must de-escalate. Unless we do so, our great Nation will be unable to fulfill its many far-flung global responsibilities. Unless we de-escalate, we will simply lack the resources for critical tasks here at home and overseas.

All of us, Madam Speaker, are passionately committed to supporting and defending our troops. In the coming weeks, my fellow Democrats and I will bring forth specific proposals to enhance this Nation's support and defense of our brave troops.

Madam Speaker, the American people are not well-served by the surge and our present course in Iraq. This omelet cannot be unscrambled. There have been far too many mistakes made to undo the damage.

For the sake of Iraq, for the sake of our own national interests and for the sake of our incomparable troops, de-escalation must begin, and it must begin now.

I strongly support the resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do so.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Rogers of Kentucky: Madam Speaker, I rise today to support our troops and our Nation. It is really that simple.

We in Congress have an obligation and duty to debate the many different issues facing the country. Our words and our actions traditionally make their way to our constituents' living rooms and the national news, but now, with communications being what they are, to our troops in the field through the Internet.

Our words are the guiding principles by which the voters ultimately make their decision on who they want representing them here, and this week obviously is no exception.

Our words will carry on for many months to come. Our constituents are listening, as there is no issue more sobering or more somber than this one.

Over the last 4 days, though, I have been struck not so much by the rhetoric on display here but the effects this debate will have on the morale of our troops. Our words have carried much further than those living rooms this past week. This debate will inevitably make its way to our troops there in Iraq standing watch in some remote outpost, training Iraqi security forces.

This debate will inevitably make its way to the parents of our troops, their spouses, their children. These children will remember parts of this debate and will grow up learning just how much their country supported their parents during these trying times.

The talk also goes to the enemy, who is watching and listening to us in the caves, on the battlefield, the terrorist cells wherever they may be. They monitor what we are saying to learn of our resolve. So even if we just talk, we ought to be very careful what we say. The world is watching and listening.

And since we have the power to fund our military, I want to talk briefly. We have one Commander in Chief. The President's premise for going to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq has always been to go on the offensive. It is hard to prove a negative, but it is obvious we have not had one terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. That is not all because of our decision to go to war in Iraq, but it is one of the reasons.

Everybody ought to know by now the basic mindset of the terrorist jihadists. They are attracted to volatile parts of the Middle East, where broken regimes make it okay to practice hatred and violence. They are looking for safe sanctuary that provides secrecy, communications capabilities and a basic infrastructure with which to concoct their next scheme. They plan and plot and wait to pounce in various hot spots around the world, just as they have done in Kenya, Tanzania, the USS Cole, Bali, Madrid, London. It is a low-grade world war.

If we finish this job, Iraq might be a place where people are more concerned with getting to work and raising a family than one where terrorists can plan attacks and sectarian violence is rampant. It won't be perfect.

And let's be honest about what is called sectarian violence. Where did that come from? A lot of it from terrorist organizations, al Qaeda foremost. It is provoked and prodded along because our enemies know it will test our resolve. Listen to the tapes of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari. They talk about it all the time.

What they want for themselves is for the U.S. to give up. They call us a paper tiger, a country that gives up when support wanes or when the going gets difficult. In their view, after we give up, they will claim victory and turn Iraq into a terrorist factory of training camps, weapons making and surveillance operations, all designed for the express purpose of waging the next attack in the U.S. or otherwise advancing this low-grade world war.

The President knows this, and we need to end this war. He has taken the input of others and readjusted our strategy and, as we speak, is readjusting our tactics. The Iraqis must take charge of their own security.

Our military is pressing for action, action from our own troops to quell the violence and action to get the Iraqi security forces trained, equipped and ready to act.

I hope to bring the Kentucky troops home, but not until the work is done. Oppose the resolution.

Mr. Lantos: Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan resolution, and I am pleased to yield 5½minutes to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to Chairman Skelton and Chairman Lantos for giving me the opportunity and the privilege to be part of this resolution, first of all, to thank our men and women in uniform for their service and, secondly, to question whether the sending of 20,000-plus troops to be policemen in Baghdad is the right thing or the wrong thing to do.

I think this has been a great debate, no matter which side of the aisle you have been on or which position you have had.

Madam Speaker, I want to say again, as I did 2 days ago, I know we cannot live in the past, but I will tell you, my heart has ached ever since I went to a Marine's funeral in April of 2003.

Michael Bitz died a sergeant, a sergeant who left a wife and three children, twins that were born 2 weeks after he was deployed. He never saw them. At the funeral, the wife read the last letter word for word. She cried, and I cried too, by God.

Then I started questioning. The intelligence given to the Congress and the American people, was it verified? Was it true? Then I started speaking out and asking for those who were on the inside, and I am going to read this to you today very quickly.

General Gregory Newbold, Marine general, and as far as I am concerned, he is a hero because he gave up a third star because he could not sit there and see the manipulation of the intelligence to send our troops to Iraq, and I quote very quickly from an article that he wrote for Time magazine, April 9, 2006.

"Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq War. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieutenant Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war."

I further read from his writing to Time magazine. "From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq, an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat, al Qaeda. I retired from the military 4 months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy."

He further stated, "To be sure, the Bush administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress, from both parties, defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight."

These are not my words. They are the words of two-star Marine General Gregory Newbold who gave up the third star because he could not stay and see what was happening to our military and to this country.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of this resolution. Debate has never hurt anyone. In fact, at the Armed Services meeting 2 weeks ago, a question was asked, either by my side or your side, Would this demoralize the troops? And General Pace and Secretary of Defense Gates said, no, it will not; they are smart, they understand. This is what freedom is all about is debate, disagreement, and discussion.

Madam Speaker, our troops have done a magnificent job, and they cannot afford to continue to be policemen in a civil war. It is not fair and makes no sense at all.

Seventy percent of the American people are opposed to this surge, and Madam Speaker, I want to read Retired Army Lieutenant General J. Garner, the first U.S. official in charge of postwar Baghdad. Madam Speaker, he said, "I don't know that the Iraqi Government has ever demonstrated ability to lead the country, and we shouldn't be surprised. You'll never find, in my lifetime, one man that all the Iraqis will coalesce around. Iraqis are too divided among sectarian, ethnic, and tribal loyalties, and their loyalties are regional, not national."

Let's pass this resolution, and God bless our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Carter: Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the minority leader.

Mr. Boehner: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for yielding and thank him and all of you for, once again, to have an opportunity to come and speak on the floor on this resolution.

The resolution before us is nonbinding, but it is the first step down a very treacherous path, a path that, if followed, will endanger Americans for generations to come.

Iraq is the central front in a global war between the United States of America and radical Islamic terrorists, a war that began long before the horrific events of 9/11, a war the American people did not seek and did not start.

It is mind-boggling to consider how fanatically committed our enemies are to destroying America, even at the cost of destroying themselves in the process. Our enemies recruit young people, fill them with hate and rage, and then send them on suicide missions to kill innocent victims. We face an enemy that loves death more than it loves life.

As Americans, we cherish freedom and democracy. Ours is a way of life. Theirs is a way of death, of murder, of suicide.

The global reach of radical Islam stretches from North Africa, through the Middle East, to South Asia, to Indonesia and to the Philippines.

The other side wants Americans to believe that the war in Iraq is different from the war on terror. They even say that we are not fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, ignoring the fact that al Qaeda has made it the central front in their war against America.

According to the experts, and according to their own words, radical Islamic terrorists will never stop fighting until much of the world is under Islamic law.

In 2004, Osama bin Laden said the following about the conflict in Iraq: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic Nation … and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

And our enemies are watching this debate, and through the Arab media we know what they are saying.

Recently, the second-in-command of al Qaeda issued a warning to moderate Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan who are working and dying to build peace and security, and he said this: "These traitors in Iraq and Afghanistan must face their inevitable fate, and face up to the inescapable facts. America is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam."

The consequences of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic for America and the world.

Last month, General Petraeus spoke of the very real possibility of Iraq's neighbors taking sides in sectarian violence.

Failing in Iraq would jeopardize Israel and greatly benefit Iran, a nation governed by a fanatic and actively building nuclear weapons.

The battle we fight in Iraq is the biggest part of our global war, and if we leave, the fight will, in fact, follow us home. And what we will leave behind is chaos, the same kind of chaos we left behind in Vietnam, the same kind of chaos we left behind in Lebanon, and the same kind of chaos that we left behind in Somalia.

Who does not believe that we will not see chaos in Iraq, destabilizing the Middle East and jeopardizing the very safety and security of the American people?

As Americans, we are fortunate in so many ways. We have so many blessings, including a great and proud history to inspire us. Earlier this week, I talked about President Lincoln and the challenges he faced during some of America's darkest days. During the Revolution, America faced down what was then the most powerful empire in the world, with a rag-tag army. We survived a Civil War that would have permanently divided any other Nation.

After a crippling depression in the 1930s, we defeated Japanese imperialism and Hitler in Germany. We then defeated the Soviet Union and their communist empire in a test of wills that lasted for a generation.

The greatness of America is exemplified in a simple short letter about duty and sacrifice. The letter was written by Marine Staff Sergeant Daniel Clay, the husband of my former staffer, Lisa Bell Clay.

Sergeant Clay was one of 10 Marines who were killed in Fallujah a little over a year ago, and he left behind this letter to his family in case he did not come home.

In it, he said, "What we have done in Iraq is worth any sacrifice. Why? Because it was our duty." He says, "That sounds simple. But all of us have a duty. Duty is defined as a God-given task. Without duty, life is worthless."

Our troops are not the only Americans who have a God-given task. If a noncommissioned officer can understand his duty, then certainly Members of Congress can understand theirs.

Congress has a duty to protect the American people now so that the next generation can enjoy prosperity and freedom.

Congress also has a duty to the men and women in uniform when we send them into harm's way, a duty to provide them with the full support and resources they need to accomplish their mission and return home safely.

My friends on the other side have described this nonbinding resolution as their first step. It is a first step. It is the first step in a plan to cut off funding and reinforcements for American troops in harm's way.

The next step is to micromanage the war through the budget process. To quote the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who said yesterday, "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work."

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, and it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely.

The American people will not support a strategy that involves pulling the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting off their reinforcements and forcing them to face an enemy without our full support.

This resolution is nonbinding, but it is the first step toward a tragic, unthinkable goal.

Four years ago, this body agreed that fighting this war was a worthy cause. There have been setbacks where Members on both sides of the aisle are rightly dissatisfied with the results. But this is war. We face a sophisticated, determined enemy who wants to annihilate our way of life.

We have a duty to stand and fight against those who seek to destroy America and the freedom that defines us. Our troops are committed to fighting and winning this global war. We owe them our unfailing support.

I urge my colleagues to stand with the marines, the soldiers, the sailors and the airmen and vote down this resolution. I urge my colleagues to think about our duty, our duty to support our troops, our duty to protect the American people, and our duty to leave for our kids and their kids a safe, free, and secure America. Our soldiers are dying around the world to protect us, upholding their duty. Do we have the courage to uphold our duty?

Vote "no" on this resolution.