Expressing the sense of Congress on the new strategy in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time and for her outstanding leadership on our committee.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. There is no issue more serious or more urgent. The American people said loud and clear in the last election that they consider bringing this war to a close to be the singular imperative of their leaders. Yet rather than beginning to bring the troops home, the President has proposed escalating this conflict.

The American people deserve to know where their elected representatives stand on this, the most critical issue at this moment in history. This week the people will get their answer.

Mr. Speaker, here is where I stand: I opposed this war from the beginning, and I support several responsible proposals to bring this war to a close. I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. It will most likely result in an increase in violence while only postponing the hard political choices the Iraqi people must make. It will also increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point.

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to make clear that Iraq has spiraled into civil war because of the failure of this country's political leadership, not our troops. Our brave men

and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. The real tragedy is how ill served they have been by their political leadership.

I have heard firsthand from many families in Sacramento the impact this has had on their lives. Linda, a concerned mother, told me about her son, Nicholas, who serves as an Army sergeant in the 82nd Airborne in Germany. Shortly, he will be returning to Iraq for his third tour. And there are some 30 soldiers in the Sacramento area who have died in this war. I have met several times with members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Every Member knows what I am talking about. We have all done it. We all know the pain.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this administration has failed to meet the most basic requirements of responsible leadership. As a result, it has abdicated any claim to deference from this Chamber on this war and has certainly relinquished the moral authority to send men and women into this catastrophe.

Undoubtedly, this Chamber will need to take more forceful action if we are to bring this war to a conclusion. But today is an important first step.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to oppose this gravely mistaken proposal to escalate the war.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. There is no issue more serious . . . or more urgent. The American People sent a message in the last election. That message was that they consider bringing this war to a close to be the singular imperative of their leaders.

Yet rather than beginning to bring troops home, the President has proposed escalating this conflict . . . sending tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq.

Rather than change direction . . . they would instead continue down our current, disastrous path . . . only at a faster pace and with more human life placed in harm's way.

This week, every Member of the House of Representatives will have an opportunity to let their constituents know where they stand on the President's proposed escalation. That is only right.

The American people deserve to know where their elective representatives stand on this, the most critical issue at this moment of our history.

Mr. Speaker, here's where I stand. I opposed this war from the beginning, and I support several responsible proposals to bring this war to a close.

I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. His stubborn insistence on pursuing the present course has been rejected by our military leaders . . . the independent Iraq study group . . . and a strong majority of the public. And with good reason.

This escalation will most likely result in an increase in violence while only postponing the hard political choices the Iraqi people must make.

Escalation of this conflict will also increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point.

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to make clear that Iraq has spiraled into civil war because of the failure of this country's political leadership . . . not our troops.

Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. They courageously put their lives on the line every day for us.

The real tragedy is how ill-served our men and women in uniform have been by their political leadership.

I have heard firsthand from many families in Sacramento about the impact this has had on their lives.

In 2005, I spoke with a group of women whose husbands were serving in the National Guard in Iraq.

One woman told me she bought her husband a Kevlar vest before he deployed . . . something all too many families were doing for their loved ones because the military wasn't providing it. Imagine the stress . . . sending a loved one into danger without the confidence that he would be given the needed equipment for protection.

And I have heard countless stories about the hardships being created by the multiple tours this conflict has demanded.

Linda, a concerned mother from Sacramento, told me about her son, Nicholas, who serves as an Army sergeant in the 82nd Airborne in Germany. He lives on-base with his wife and two children, ages four and five. Another child is on the way.

Nicholas recently learned that he was going to have to return to Iraq for his third tour.

Linda wrote me and said that his family . . . and I'm quoting . . . ``. . . will be all alone in Germany when he leaves and each time he has gone, the children have terrible nightmares and anger issues because they do not understand the long separations.''

Another Sacramento couple that wrote me are the proud parents of three Army soldiers . . . one is currently serving his second tour in Iraq . . . the other two have already completed two tours in Iraq. They ask . . . will their sons be asked to go back a third time?

My friend Richard Beach served as a chaplain in the U.S. Army Reserves in Iraq. Richard served in Iraq early in the conflict, and realized that four years since he went there, many of his fellow reservists are still serving there.

Richard shared with me a note he sent to some of his fellow members of the 114th. He wrote . . . and I quote . . . ``I remember four 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 . . . and still many of the same soldiers and their families are making the same sacrifice. But that is the heartbreaking reality here.

There are some 30 soldiers in the Sacramento area who have died in this war. I've met several times with members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Every member knows what I am talking about. We've all done it. We all know the pain.

The notion of ``shared sacrifice'' is something that helped make this country great.

But with this administration . . . only our soldiers and their families share in the sacrifice.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this country has tried troop increases before . . . to no avail. Sadly, this administration simply lacks credibility when arguing that this proposal will work.

As a result of this administration's failure to meet the most basic requirements of responsible leadership, it has abdicated any claim to deference from this chamber on this war . . . and it has certainly relinquished the moral authority to send additional men and women into this catastrophe.

Today's step is only a first step. Undoubtedly, this chamber will need to take more forceful action if we are to bring this war to a conclusion. But it is an important first step.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution . . . and to oppose this gravely mistaken proposal to escalate the war.

Mr. Speaker, last night I testified before the Rules Committee asking that the Iraq Study Group report be made in order for debate today. The Iraq Study Group offers the way forward, a new approach, and is authored by former Secretary of State Baker and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Lee Hamilton. Yet there has been no vote allowed. The American people have been shut out with regard to having a vote on the Iraq Study Group report. You cannot pick and choose with regard to the Iraq Study Group.

Let me read you some of the comments that have been made by the members who served on the Iraq Study Group. Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker: ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation.

``Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable.''

That is the Iraq Study Group. Members on both sides have said they support the Iraq Study Group, and yet there is no vote allowed on the Iraq Study Group.

``In this consensus report,'' Hamilton and Baker go on to say, ``the 10 members of the Iraq Study Group,'' bipartisan, five and five, ``present a new approach because we believe there is a better way forward.''

The better way forward, and the gentleman who just spoke mentioned the Iraq Study Group, is the Iraq Study Group, and yet the Rules Committee last night foreclosed a vote on the Iraq Study Group which is bipartisan.

Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker, Leon Panetta, Bill Perry, Ed Meese. Ed Meese's son is one of the colonels with General Petraeus. Leon Panetta, who served here in the Congress, but yet for some reason the American people are not to be given an opportunity whereby their Congress can vote on the Iraq Study Group.

There are good people on both sides. Every resolution should be in order. God bless you, what you are offering is fine, but give the country, give the American people, give us an opportunity to vote on the Iraq Study Group. You cannot pick and choose.

I urge a defeat of the resolution and urge that we allow this to be voted on whereby we can have a successful policy to bring this country together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule and against the underlying resolution.

I've been to Iraq three times since the United States sent Armed Forces there. I continue to be deeply concerned about the violence that continues to take the lives of U.S. personnel as well as innocent Iraqi citizens.

That's why, upon my return from my third trip in 2005, I worked to promote an independent, bipartisan review of ongoing operations in Iraq--what I called ``fresh eyes on the target. ``

I initiated the legislation authorizing and funding the Iraq Study Group, which was set up through the U.S. Institute of Peace. The 10- member group--5 Republicans and 5 Democrats--was led by cochairs James A. Baker III, the Nation's 61st Secretary of State and honorary chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, our former colleague in this House and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who also cochaired the 9/11 Commission.

The other members of the study group included: Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former Secretary of State; Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., former advisor to President Clinton; Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General; Sandra Day O'Connor, retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Leon E. Panetta, former White House chief of staff for President Clinton; William J. Perry, former secretary of Defense; Charles S. Robb, former Governor and Senator of Virginia, and Alan K. Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming.

After more than 8 months of work, the panel presented its report last December 6. The Iraq Study Group was a truly bipartisan group who came together--like this body should be coming together--and offered the way forward in Iraq.

I believe the group's work provides an important framework to move forward in Iraq and on January 24 I introduced H. Con. Res. 45, expressing the sense of Congress that all the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group become the new baseline strategy for dealing with Iraq. That's the resolution we should be advancing today.

In my car coming to the Capitol this morning I heard a member of this body on a radio interview say he's voting for H. Con. Res. 63 because what we're looking for is a new solution for Iraq. We have that. It's the Iraq Study Group report. Look at the cover of the report--``The way forward--A new approach.''

The Iraq situation has created a bitter divide in our country. We all want to see an end to the fighting in Iraq and stability there, as well as an end to violence perpetrated by terrorists around the world. I continue to pray for the protection of the American service men and women and civilians who are putting their lives on the line every day and also for their families here at home who continue to make tremendous sacrifices.

The Iraq Study Group met the test of developing a bipartisan consensus on how to succeed in Iraq. When our country is divided we are weak. When we are together we are strong.

I want to read from the letter penned by Secretary Baker and Congressman Hamilton as the prelude to the Iraq Study Group's recommendations:

There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq.

However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the

situation and protect American interests.

Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the

situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate

regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan

approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a

lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that

prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is

adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress

must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright

with the American people in order to win their support.

No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at

this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or

a slide toward chaos. If current trends continue, the

potential consequences are severe. Because of the role and

responsibility of the United States in Iraq, and the

commitments our government has made, the United States has

special obligations. Our country must address as best it can

Iraq's many problems. The United States has long-term

relationships and interests at stake in the Middle East, and

needs to stay engaged.

In this consensus report, the ten members of the Iraq Study

Group present a new approach because we believe there is a

better way forward. All options have not been exhausted. We

believe it is still possible to pursue different policies

that can give Iraq an opportunity for a better future, combat

terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the world, and

protect America's credibility, interests, and values. Our

report makes it clear that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi

people also must act to achieve a stable and hopeful future.

What we recommend in this report demands a tremendous

amount of political will and cooperation by the executive and

legislative branches of the U.S. government. It demands

skillful implementation. It demands unity of effort by

government agencies. And its success depends on the unity of

the American people in a time of political polarization.

Americans can and must enjoy the right of robust debate

within a democracy. Yet U.S. foreign policy is doomed to

failure--as is any course of action in Iraq--if it is not

supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our

report is to move our country toward such a consensus.

This last sentence is the essence of what we should be addressing this week. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group provide the blueprint for a consensus. The work has been done. The recommendations have been made. Now is the time for implementation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York, Representative Ed Towns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, Representative Corrine Brown.

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, a member of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Chandler).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention, logic was mentioned, and I recall in studying logic, with the square of opposition, that you

do not do something over and over again and come out with a different conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), a member of the Budget and Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Iraqis are deciding now to start to defend themselves. I think it is wonderful. I wish it had happened a number of years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota, a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Representative Stephanie Herseth.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman, a member of the Rules and Agriculture Committees, from California, Representative Dennis Cardoza, for 5 minutes.

I appreciated having the opportunity to control the time in the past several hours, and perhaps might request from the chairman perhaps an additional 2 minutes as I respond and wrap up.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I listened with great interest to the George Washington story, and there is no question that there were tough times. But George Washington had some pretty intelligent advisers. You know, the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, he had people like Adams and Washington. You had people like Crispus Attucks, the first person to die in the Revolutionary War and in the Boston Massacre on May 4, 1770.

You had people who participated in the Boston Tea Party because they said taxation without representation is tyranny. It was Christmas Eve in Pennsylvania when George Washington came across the Delaware and attacked the Hessian soldiers on Christmas Eve because they were unaware that this attack was coming. George Washington came from New Jersey, Morristown, Newark, and went on through and did have a victory.

But let me say the difference, when George Washington was fighting, there was a clear and present issue. We were fighting for independence. We knew exactly what it was. We were being held bondage by the British, that Union Jack.

But what do we have here? We have, following 9/11, support from practically every country in the world. But then we went on and Osama bin Laden said he did the bombing, he took credit for it, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the final plane that was brought down on the way to the Capitol and the White House.

Then we said that we were going into Iraq. First of all, it was because there were weapons of mass destruction. Then it was the fact that we had to have a regime change. At one point we talked about we had to remove Saddam Hussein.

We kept looking for reasons, and that is a big difference. We had the preemptive strike, and then we tried to come up with the reason that we were doing it, and it continued to change, one reason after another.

There is a great sense of sadness among those of us who foresaw over 4 years ago the tragedy that is now unfolding in Iraq. On October 8 and 9, 2002, I stood right here in this very well at the House of Representatives, and I managed the time those 2 days in opposition to the preemptive first strike for Iraq. It was in the 107th Congress, and now we are in the 110th Congress, and the war that we assumed would be swift and certain now continues to rage.

I am looking over the remarks I made at that time. It saddens me that the argument of those of us who oppose the war fell on deaf ears. At that time, I stated that a unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States of America. I stated that results of substantial losses of life will occur, that there will be a destabilization of the Middle East region and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities.

It saddens me beyond words that 3,122 Americans had to sacrifice their lives and over 23,000 have been wounded for a war that did not have to be fought. Included in this number are 50 fatalities from my home State of New Jersey and 366 wounded. Estimates are up towards 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children have been killed.

After the administration has been proven wrong on every prediction from the length of the war to weapons of mass destruction to the strength of the insurgency, we are now being asked to trust their judgment on a new strategy, which would put 20,000 more American lives on the line. This plan will not provide lasting security for Iraqis. It is not what the American people have asked for in November.

Haven't we learned anything from our mistakes yet?

Recent so-called short-term troop surges in Iraq have not stopped the violence from getting worse. There is nothing to suggest that this time will be any different.

For example, we had Operation Together Forward from June to October 2006. In June, the Bush administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing the presence of Iraqi security forces. That plan failed, so in July, the White House announced that additional American troops would be sent into Baghdad.

By October, a U.S. military spokesman, General William Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop Increases was a failure and had not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the level of violence. Regardless of how the administration intends to increase the troops in Iraq, the result will be the same.

There is additional strain on our military personnel and their families, and personal lives will be upset by unexpectedly early deployments of family members or unexpected delays in their homecoming. This is an additional burden to our military families that they should not have to bear.

By extending operations, we undertake a strategic risk. Our ability to meet potential future challenges is strained under the current operational demands. Increasing these demands only increase the risk to our future capacity.

I had the privilege of serving in the past as a congressional delegate to the United Nations. I strongly believe in the power of democracy. If we had allowed the United Nations inspectors to complete their work before the war instead of suddenly ordering them out of Iraq, I believe things would have turned out much differently. Instead, the administration proceeded full speed ahead towards war, as they disseminated faulty intelligence and relied on scare tactics to garner support.

I believe the time has come to begin an orderly withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. This approach would send a message to the Iraqis that they must take more responsibility for their own security and would reduce the strain on the American military.

The administration should listen to the Baker-Hamilton commission, which has offered a stinging assessment of virtually every aspect of the U.S. venture in Iraq and called for a reshaping of the American presence and a new Middle East diplomacy initiative to prevent the country from sliding into anarchy.

I conclude by saying I have heard my colleagues on the other side warn about Iraq falling into chaos and dangers of the United States losing our standing in the world. Sadly, Iraq already is in total chaos, and, unfortunately, the United States, a country we all love, has suffered much loss and prestige around the world.

In the debate before the war those of us who predicted the outcome did not prevail. I pledge with my colleagues to listen this time to vote against escalation of the war and support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our troops who are faithfully serving our Nation in harm's way. Therefore, I must oppose this resolution brought to the floor by the Democrats because it offers no plan, no strategy, and no hope for victory. In fact, it does nothing but risk demoralizing our troops.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that Republicans and Democrats alike recognize mistakes have been made in Iraq and neither side of the aisle is happy with where we are today. But rather than offering solutions to move us forward or engage in a productive debate on alternative strategies, the Democrats have decided to propose what certainly seems to be a politically motivated resolution.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, what are we really accomplishing with this resolution? The answer is nothing. With this shameless stunt, the Democrats are locking down this body for 36 hours maybe in hopes of scoring political points by criticizing the President. But by using our troops as pawns in an attempt to gain political leverage, this resolution serves only to weaken troop morale while giving hope and comfort to the enemy.

In doing so, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have done nothing to end the war or help our troops achieve victory.

Mr. Speaker, seeing as the Democrats have hijacked the Floor all week to debate this resolution, surely they must have an alternative to the President's plan. I will bet the American people are as eager as I am to hear about this new plan for success, their plan. Certainly my constituents in the Eleventh District of Georgia are waiting.

So what is their magic alternative? Mr. Speaker, here it is. It is the same on both sides. They don't have one. We have heard from members of the Democratic team threaten to cut funding, to cap troop levels or to compel a forced withdrawal. But where are those ideas in this resolution? I have read through its two brief paragraphs and I can assure you they aren't to be found.

Sadly, the Democrats lack the political will to fully engage in a meaningful debate on Iraq policy. They have refused to allow a vote on funding for the war which would give Members an opportunity to show support for our troops with actions and not empty words.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership is afraid to ask their Members to put their money where their mouths are and either vote yes or no to fund our troops and the mission. Isn't this why they have denied Republicans an opportunity to offer an alternative bill, or even a motion to recommit? They were for that last Thursday,

before being against it tonight. Sound familiar?

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, calls for funding cuts and troop withdrawals are good enough for newspaper headlines, but they are not good enough for votes on this House floor. Let me remind my colleagues that sound bites for the nightly news will do nothing to win this war against terror.

Mr. Speaker, America has a long tradition of standing on the right side of this fight for freedom, even when it is a difficult stand to make, and the right course of action today is to stand by the Iraqi people until their government, their police and military can ensure the security of their own nation.

As in any war, there have been setbacks in Iraq. But as in past wars, we will move forward with victory as our goal. This Democratic resolution is a thinly veiled attempt to sound the retreat. That amounts to an unacceptable act of playing politics with our national security.

Mr. Speaker, as you have heard over the past 2 days, this is a serious debate, with very serious ramifications. It is not simply a simple resolution as the Democrats would like to characterize it. But on one hand, we have a shot at victory. We have an opportunity to push back the cause of radical terrorism. On the other hand, we have a two paragraph, nonbinding resolution that is essentially a vote of no confidence in the commander in chief.

This is not the time for our majority party to cave in to their anti- war supporters of the liberal left and play politics with the security of the United States. This is a time for bold leadership and bold plans. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, neither is on display here today.

I hope for the sake of the American people, our troops and freedom- loving nations around this world, that this resolution's flimsy words are not taken as a substitute for America's long tradition and commitment to achieving victory.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to point out to my colleagues this poster on my left. These brave soldiers, Paul Saylor from Breman, Georgia; Justin Johnson from Rome, Georgia; Lieutenant Tyler Brown, a Georgia Tech graduate, the president of the student body; and Hayes Clayton, III, from Marietta, Georgia, all died for their country.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot turn our backs on them. We cannot say to their moms and dads, their brothers and sisters, their wives and their children, that we supported sending them into harm's way and they gave their lives for their country, and now we are saying it was for naught, it was for nothing, it was not worth it. We can't let that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in voting down this meaningless resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our troops, who are faithfully serving our Nation in harm's way. Therefore, I must oppose this resolution brought to the floor by the Democrats because it offers no plan, no strategy, and no hope for victory. In fact, it does nothing but risk demoralizing our troops.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that Republicans and Democrats alike recognize mistakes have been made in Iraq, and neither side of the aisle is happy with where we are today. But rather than offering solutions to move us forward, or engaging in a productive debate on alternative strategies, the Democrats have decided to propose what certainly seems to be a politically motivated non-binding resolution.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, what are we really accomplishing with this resolution? The answer is nothing. The Democrats are locking down this body for 36 hours--maybe in hopes of scoring political points by criticizing the President. But by using, our troops as pawns in an attempt to gain political leverage, this resolution serves only to weaken troop morale, while giving hope and comfort to the enemy.

And in doing so, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have done nothing to end the war or to help our troops achieve victory.

Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats have hijacked the floor all week to debate this resolution, surely they must have an alternative to the President's plan. I'll bet the American people are as eager as I am to hear about this new plan for success. Certainly my constituents in the 11th District of Georgia are.

So what is their magic alternative? As far as I can tell, Mr. Speaker, they don't have one.

We've heard members of the Democrat team threaten to cut funding, cap troop levels, or compel a forced withdrawal. But where are those ideas in this resolution? I've read through its two brief paragraphs, and I can assure you--they aren't to be found.

Sadly, the Democrats lack the political will to fully engage in a meaningful debate on Iraq policy. They've refused to allow a vote on funding for the war, which would give Members an opportunity to show support for our troops with actions, not empty words.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership is afraid to ask their members to put their money where their mouths are and vote ``yes'' or ``no'' to fund our troops and their mission.

Isn't this why they've denied Republicans an opportunity to offer an alternate bill, or even a motion to recommit with instructions?

They were for that last Thursday before now being against it. Sound familiar?

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, calls for funding cuts and troop withdrawal are good enough for newspaper headlines, but not for votes on the House floor. Let me remind my colleagues that sound bytes for the nightly news will do nothing to win this war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Los Angeles.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today as a result of the meeting in the Rules Committee last night where members of the Republican minority tried to speak about our desire to have more added to this ``simple resolution,'' as it is being called by the minority. And that it is, a simple resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we implored upon the committee to make in order more amendments which would specifically speak directly to the needs of trying to provide direction and to work with the President of the United States on where we are in Iraq. In fact, on March 15, 2006, Members of both parties from this body supported the creation of a bipartisan Iraq Study Group to review the situation on the ground and to propose strategies on a way to move forward.

For more than 8 months, the study group met with military officials, regional experts, academics, journalists and other high-level officials. This study group included James Baker and Lee Hamilton as cochairmen. It included Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb and Alan Simpson.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the things which were embodied within this Iraq Study Group report, which came out this last December, embody the kinds of things that the President of the United States is attempting to do now in Iraq. The President stood before each and every one of us as we sat in this Chamber just a few weeks ago and he outlined very clearly the changes that are taking place and his willingness not only to work with this body, but willingness to be more specific.

I would like to read some of the things from the Iraq Study Group report that we will not be hearing as the voice of the United States Congress. That is, that the United States should work to ``provide political reassurance to the Iraqi Government in order to avoid its collapse and the disintegration of the country.''

America should ``fight al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq using more special operations teams.''

We should ``train, equip and support the Iraqi security forces.''

And we should ``deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran.''

But there is more. The ``more'' is ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up training to equip the mission.''

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is what this resolution, that is nonbinding, is all about is to politically neuter the President of the United States, and, I believe, our forces and our mission in Iraq. It is about trying to do something that is politics, rather than policy.

The Rules Committee last night heard from several of our colleagues, one of them Sam Johnson, who brought forth an amendment that would clarify that Congress and the American people support our troops and the funding for our Armed Forces that are serving in harm's way to make sure that we do not put that element at risk.

Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, brought forth the things that I just spoke about. He brought to the Rules Committee the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, with this emphasis on providing American commanders in Iraq with the strategic and tactical means to support this war. However, my colleagues on the Democratic side have decided that what they

want to do is they want to have this be all about politics and not about policy. They are after a simple answer.

Last night, the Rules Committee met--and after hours of testimony from members from both parties, the Democrat members of the Committee voted along party lines to shut out every opportunity for amendment to the Resolution that the House will be considering over the next 3 days.

Our colleague from Texas, Sam Johnson, brought an amendment that would have clarified that Congress and the American people support our troops and that funding for our armed forces serving bravely in harm's way will not be cut off or restricted in any way.

Our colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, also brought to the Rules Committee a very comprehensive amendment that would have made clear that Congress supports the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group-- with its emphasis on providing American commanders serving in Iraq with the strategic and tactical means that they need for success and accelerated cooperation with Iraqi leaders to meet specific goals--as the strategy for moving forward to success in Iraq.

A number of other members also spent a large part of their evening sitting in the Rules Committee, waiting to share their ideas about how to improve this resolution--however, unfortunately the 13 members of the Rules Committee are the only ones who will have the benefit of hearing and debating these good ideas, because none of them were given the opportunity to be considered and voted on by the House.

Instead, today we are on the floor with a completely closed process to debate a non-binding resolution with no teeth and a serious logical flaw.

In 2 short paragraphs, without explicitly stating that funds will not be cut off from our troops serving in harm's way, the resolution asserts that Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of Armed Forces who are serving in Iraq. This non-specific language is something that every member of this House clearly supports.

It also states that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to deploy 20,000 reinforcements to Iraq to bolster the mission and provide additional support to troops already serving on the ground.

This resolution gives no direction about how we should proceed in Iraq--instead, it settles for some generic language about supporting the troops without guaranteeing that Congress will continue to fund their efforts as they remain in harm's way--and it simply amounts to a vote for the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate for serious people. We all understand that the cost of failure in Iraq is too great to bear--it would embolden radical Islamic terrorists and give them a base from which to train and attack America for generations.

But with this resolution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provide the troops with nothing: no guarantees that we will continue to fund their heroic efforts; no guarantees that Congress will heed the advice of the Iraq Study group--which notes on page 73 of their report that it would ``support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.''

Nor does it provide the American people with a clear picture of our direction in Iraq--it merely says ``no'' to the only strategy for success which has been put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Congress can do better than this nonbinding vote for the status quo in Iraq. I know that a number of my Republican colleagues tried to improve this legislation, but were denied the opportunity by the Democrat majority.

But I know that our troops serving in harm's way, and the American people deserve better than this simplistic resolution that provides no new ideas, outlines no strategy for victory, and makes no guarantee that we will continue to fund the efforts of our troops.

I am greatly disappointed in this resolution and the Democrat majority's efforts to prevent this body from considering amendments from thoughtful members to improve it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for the time and for her charity and her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening with a whirlwind of senses and emotions. I am disappointed. I am disappointed by the emptiness and the hypocrisy of this resolution.

Our men and women in the field, valiantly serving to protect our freedom, they deserve more than this. They deserve a real debate that honors the job that they are doing.

Instead, what we have this week is a resolution that is eight short lines, eight lines, that in their entirety stab at the motives and undermine the difficult work that our patriot military is doing. I am so disappointed in a majority party that has no more respect for our military than that.

This debate has been called historic, and historic it is. It is historic in its hypocrisy. If you truly believe that this is not winnable with what has been proposed, then it is incumbent upon you to do everything that you can do to stop it and stop it now. Doing anything less belies your duty and your responsibility.

This resolution says we support you but we are going to hang you out to dry, and this from the folks who say they want a new direction. What a disgrace to the integrity of this body. How disappointing.

I am saddened. I am saddened by the apparent fact that everything done by the majority is absolutely political, all form, no substance. Is there nothing above politics? Surely the defense of our Nation and the preservation of freedom should be above politics.

How did a once proud party, the party of FDR, who said, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself,'' and the party of JFK, who said, ``Let every Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty,'' how did a once proud party drop to such a depth? How very sad.

I am astounded by the seeming lack of desire to study and to call upon historical events for a basis upon which to develop policy. America is a great and a good Nation, and we are great and good because we have been blessed to have been led by men and women who until now did their level best to utilize all the information available.

I urge my colleagues to be true to the oath that we took just a few weeks ago. Don't you remember, we stood right here and said, ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?'' All enemies, foreign and domestic.

What is a glimpse of the recent history of our current enemy? 1983, a truck bomb kills 241 Marines in their barracks in Beirut; 1993, six killed in the first World Trade Center bombing; 2000, al Qaeda's attack on the destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 American sailors; and then September 11, 2001, al Qaeda's hijackers fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while passengers on a fourth plane bring it to a crash landing in Pennsylvania, total number killed, 2,973.

Since then, there have been attacks in England and Spain and elsewhere, and just last summer, Scotland Yard in Britain arrested a couple who planned to destroy 10 civilian planes over the Atlantic. They were going to use their 8-month-old baby to disguise the bomb material as baby food. We as a Nation are ill-prepared for the ferocity and the hatred of people who will kill their own baby in order to get a chance to kill us.

American public policy failed to grasp the scope of the threat posed by radical Islam until September 11, 2001. On September 11, we reaped the consequences of decades of inaction against the very real threat posed by militant Islam.

These are extremely challenging times. Some would credibly suggest that these are more difficult times than we have faced since World War II, with the demographics of our society, the changing nature of the world and globalization and the nature of our competitors, all overshadowed by the nature of our avowed enemy, those who have publicly stated their goal to see the end of the Western world and America and who are working to secure the means to accomplish that goal.

I am perplexed. I am perplexed by the apparent inability of many in Congress to grasp this fundamental fact. We are currently facing an enemy who is calculating, patient, indiscriminate and murderous, an enemy actively waging war against us.

That is not just an opinion. That is not just my opinion. That is their stated purpose and fact.

In their own words, Osama bin Laden said, ``Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so- called superpower that is America.''

Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman said, ``Oh, you Muslims everywhere, sever the ties of their Nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, instigate against their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, and shoot down their airplanes. Kill them in land, at sea, and in the air, kill them wherever you find them.''

So the impact of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is to give aid and comfort to the enemy and to dishearten our own military.

In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on January 23, General David Petraeus, now commanding officer in Iraq, agreed that a resolution of disapproval for this new strategy would ``give the enemy encouragement.''

What are the consequences of failure? The consequences of failure would be catastrophic to the region, to the United States, and yes, to the world. The consequence of the next step of this majority party plan is defeat. They may say it is inevitable or unavoidable, but it is, nonetheless, a strategy for defeat.

What message does that send to our allies around the world? What will the Chinese think of our commitment to Taiwan? Will the North Korean, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Venezuelans, will they be more cautious or will they be bolder after an American defeat?

It is inconceivable to me how a remarkably weakened United States in the eyes of the world is a good thing for us or will result in a less emboldened Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda. The consequences of failure are clearly unacceptable.

So I am disappointed, I am saddened, I am astounded and I am perplexed, but I am also enthusiastic and I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker. I am enthusiastic in my support of our valiant men and women who defend our freedom day in and day out, and I am optimistic because I believe so strongly in the United States and in her people, and I am optimistic because I am certain that they will appreciate and recognize the consequences of this debate and the remarkable differences in our approach and our desire to defend America.

Thomas Paine said, ``He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.''

So, Mr. Speaker, let us honor our troops. Let us honor all who work for freedom on our behalf. Let us work together for liberty. Let us recall and recommit ourselves to our oath and our duty to defend our blessed Nation. It is that action, and that action alone, with the grace of God, that will ensure the wonder and the survival of our great Nation.

Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I appreciate your leadership and the time you have given me to talk about this really important resolution, the resolution of retreat from combat.

You know, we in this House, in this warm House tonight at 5 minutes after the hour of 10 o'clock, we view this resolution from our own personal opinions. But maybe we should view something, and this resolution in particular, from a historical standpoint, for history has no opinion but is a teacher of hard facts of retrospect.

You know, this debate is not new to Congress. Years ago, after 5 long years of war, this Nation found itself at war with the greatest empire on Earth, Great Britain. The war of independence was not going well in 1781 and 1782. It looked bleak. The Commander in Chief, George Washington, had lost most of the battles he was engaged in. Public opinion was at an all-time low during the war. There were even mutinies in the Army from the Pennsylvania volunteers and the New Jersey volunteers. There was talk in the press of even reuniting with Great Britain, of all things, forming a truce and going back to be with the British. There were preachers of gloom, doom, despair and defeatism. There were generals on the battlefield that didn't like the way George Washington was handling himself as Commander in Chief and preaching to the public and their troops, We can't beat the British.

The debate was not new to this House, Mr. Speaker. Congress wanted to cut funding. The Continental Congress wanted to cut funding for the American Army and they not only wanted to do so, they did slash funds. Congress even in this time of bleak war reduced the size of the Continental Army. For the first and only time during the long war, George Washington left the field of battle and came to Congress and made the case for winning the war and not giving up, not surrendering, not reuniting with Great Britain.

And he made the comments. He said, ``We should never despair. Our situation before has been very unpromising. But it has changed for the better. So it will be again.''

It's a good thing the Commander in Chief did not listen to the gloom, doom and despair of the Continental Congress in 1781. Then, as now, victory was the only option. Victory is simple. You defeat the enemy wherever they are.

So George Washington and a handful of barefoot soldiers at Yorktown defeated who the skeptics and cynics said could never be defeated--the British. The consequences of loss in 1782 would have been somewhat staggering.

Mr. Speaker, the flag that flies behind you now would have been the Union Jack instead of the Stars and Stripes, and this country, this people, this free people, would have been much different had we not won the war and stayed the course.

The consequences of abandoning our troops in the field by not giving them more troops would be joy to the terrorists that hate us and want to kill us. I

am sure the terrorists throughout the world would vote ``yes'' for this resolution of retreat and surrender, and those of us who want to defeat the terrorists should vote ``no.'' Our troops on the battlefield need to know help is coming. Like most Members of Congress in this House, they know people and they know people in their congressional districts that have died for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I carry with me the names of the fallen in my congressional district. The first one that fell was Sergeant Russell Slay, 1 day after I was elected in 2004. There are 17 names on these sheets of paper, all of them volunteers from southeast Texas, who went to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight terrorists, as they say in southeast Texas. Their names, Mr. Speaker, are more than names. They are real people.

Sergeant Slay died November 9, 2004, from Humble, Texas.

Lance Corporal Wesley Canning, November 10, 2004. He was from Friendswood, Texas.

Lance Corporal Fred Maciel, January 26, 2005, from Spring, Texas.

Private First Class Wesley Riggs, May of 2005 from Beach City, Texas.

Lance Corporal Robert Martinez, Splendora, Texas. He died December 1, 2005, at the age of 21.

Staff Sergeant Michael Durbin, January 25, 2006, from Spring, Texas.

Walter Moss, Jr. He was a tech sergeant from Houston, Texas. March 30, 2006.

Private First Class Kristian Menchaca, June 16, 2006, at the age of 23, from Houston, Texas.

Staff Sergeant Benjamin Williams, June 20, 2006, from Orange, Texas. He was 30.

Staff Sergeant Alberto Sanchez, Jr., at the age of 33, he was killed in Iraq on June 24, 2006, and from Houston.

Lance Corporal Ryan Miller, September 14, 2006, from Pearland, Texas. He was 20.

Staff Sergeant Edward Reynolds at the age of 28 was killed September 26, 2006, from Houston, Texas.

Captain David Fraser, killed in Iraq on November 26, 2006, at the age of 25, and he was from Houston.

Lance Corporal Luke Yepsen, December 14, 2006, at the age of 20, from Kingwood, Texas.

Specialist Dustin Donica, December 28, 2006, from Spring, Texas, at the age of 22.

Specialist Ryan Berg, January 9, 2007, at the age of 18 from Sabine Pass, Texas. Ryan Berg enlisted on his 18th birthday to join the United States Marine Corps.

And Staff Sergeant Terrence Dunn just a few days ago, February 7, 2007, from Houston, Texas.

Seventeen names from one congressional district, Mr. Speaker. There are names of over 3,000. And it seems to me that we owe it to these individuals, these American patriots, to send them the help that they need so that their lives meant more than just dying while the rest of the country decided to run away. We should finish what we have started. We should win this battle. We should fight the terrorists. We should look them in the eye and tell them, We're not going away until our job is done.

This resolution does not promote American unity to finish the job. This resolution does not hold in honor the names on this list, these real people, killed for this country and all volunteers. And they, like the ones that died in the Continental Army 200 years ago, died for a reason. The families that I have talked to believe in what their sons and daughters died for, and that was for fighting these evil people. We call them terrorists, these extremists, that hate us and will kill us if they have the chance.

So, I think history has taught us a lesson, that this Congress 200 years ago was faced with a choice and decided to take the funds away from George Washington. Fortunately, he was able to reunite the country and win that independence. And I hope that we reunite this country and finish the job and win this battle that we are fighting in a land far, far away for the same reason, and that are fighting people that are terrorists and hate us and people that are extreme in their beliefs in their hatred for America.

Because like I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the flag that flies behind you is important. It is important that it is not the Union Jack or some other flag, and we owe it all to the military, the volunteers, the young men and women that have served recently and have served in our past for this country.

Madam Speaker, it is good we are having this debate. As a 20-year veteran of this place, I am, frankly, impressed with the heartfelt and articulate statements from both sides of the aisle. On matters of war and peace, it is imperative we do what is right for our country, as we see it, and then live personally with the consequences.

Critics of the war in Iraq wanted new leadership at the Department of Defense, new military leadership on the ground, and a new plan to stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home.

We have a new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, new Commanding General of Multinational Forces, David Petraeus, who everyone acknowledged is as perfect a person for this job as we could find, and a new strategy to clean up, hold and rebuild the neighborhoods with a short-term buildup of our forces.

The Democratic majority in the House has introduced a resolution condemning this strategy, expressing disapproval, without offering any alternatives. Ironically, they offer a stay the course resolution.

The majority is clear on what it is against, but does not say what it is for, leaving us with what exists right now, the status quo.

The resolution sends the wrong message to the President, to our troops, and to our enemies. It will not get my vote.

We need a resolution to help resolve this conflict, not a symbolic resolution that gives no guidance on how we can help stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home.

Working with Congressman Frank Wolf and others, we helped create the Iraq Study Group, bipartisan experts led by Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton who offered fresh eyes on Iraq and offered specific recommendations.

The Iraq Study Group made three recommendations, transfer responsibility for police patrolling the streets from American troops to Iraqi security forces; two, encourage Sunnis and Shias to resolve their differences or face the consequences, American troops leaving; and, three, conduct a robust diplomatic effort with all of Iraq's neighbors to engage them in the country's future.

The White House has implemented the first and second of those recommendations but, regretfully, not the third.

The Study Group provided a road map resoundingly endorsed by members from both political parties. It is a missed opportunity that the resolution we are debating this week does not incorporate these three recommendations.

I know there are many Americans who are concerned about a short-term increase in troops to secure and regain control of Baghdad. I understand their concern. Two years ago I believed this strategy had a better than even chance to work. Today it is less likely to succeed, but it is still the best opportunity we have.

But this strategy will only work if Iraqi troops do their part; Sunni and Shia politicians resolve their differences, meeting benchmarks against firm timelines like they did in 2005; and the U.S. and Iraq engage in a diplomatic surge with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran.

We also need to be prepared with plan B if this plan fails. It seems to me plan B involves taking our troops out of harm's way, removing them from the urban areas, and placing them along the borders so Iraq's neighbors, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Turkey, are not tempted to enter Iraq.

And if plan B fails, we will have no choice but to leave, having been defeated, having lost to the Islamist terrorists who have made it very clear this is just the beginning.

In essence, our troops deserve to know we have a plan to win. If we do not have a plan to win, we need a plan to leave. The resolution before the House neither helps us succeed nor gives us guidance on when and how to leave. It is counterproductive.

It is so counterproductive, for 535 Members of the House of Representatives and Senate to micromanage the war. It is the responsibility of the administration to conduct the war effort. It is Congress's responsibility to conduct tough oversight, hold the administration accountable for the implementation of the war.

Having chaired 14 hearings on the operations in Iraq and been to Iraq 15 times to conduct on-the-ground oversight, I will continue to ask the administration the tough questions and to provide, to the best of my ability, my observations and recommendations.

Regretfully, too few Members of Congress have fully considered the consequence of leaving Iraq prematurely. The Iraq Study Group warned, ``If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the consequence could be severe for Iraq, the United States, the region, and the world.'' This is what members of the Iraq Study Group said on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats united.

The ultimate goal for me is to bring our troops home without leaving Iraq in chaos. This is still achievable if Republicans and Democrats, the White House and Congress, agree on a bipartisan solution and then carry it out with steely resolve. Officially endorsing the recommendations of that Iraq Study Group and acting on them is the best way to make this happen.

The only way we should leave Iraq is the same way we went in: together.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the fact that, until now, this debate has been, I think, very up-front and I hope we can keep it at that level. I would also say, I wonder if it is the position of the Democratic Party that Iran is not funding and supplying the insurgents in Iraq, because I think that was determined far before President Bush's administration made any comments about it.

With that, I would yield 7 minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend on the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Before yielding to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Deal, I would just like to comment on my colleague from Wisconsin and say to have lost 18 of his constituents is heart wrenching, and I know that his statement is heartfelt.

But, in fact, we are involved in the Arab League. We have involved five of the states surrounding, and every one of the ambassadors from this Arab League said, we didn't want you to go in, but you cannot leave.

I would just say to the gentleman as well that we asked, critics asked you and others for a new team and a new plan. You have a new team, and you do have a new plan. The new plan is not the surge in troops. The new plan is coming into the neighborhoods in Baghdad with Iraqis, embedded American troops, cleaning them up, and holding them.

A brief comment.

Reclaiming my time, what we do have is a new plan, and it is not the surge, it is cleaning up the neighborhoods and holding them with Iraqi troops embedded with American troops.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the resolution before us. It is a very simple and straightforward resolution. It expresses our support and gratitude to our troops and our disapproval with the President's escalation plan in Iraq. I have believed for some time now that we are in desperate need of a new direction and not an escalation in Iraq.

It is not like we are confronted with a new plan by the President here today. We have tried three troop surges in the last 2 years alone, without the desired result. I don't know what the President sees or hears today that leads him to believe that the fourth time is a charm.

No, from the beginning, this has been the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. We now know that Saddam Hussein did not, in fact, possess weapons of mass destruction. He had no involvement in the attacks on September 11. He had no links with al Qaeda. I believe then, as I do today, that while he may have been potentially dangerous, he was eminently containable.

But I too must share some responsibility for having supported the Iraq resolution in the fall of 2002. I did so while believing the President when he stated that the goal was disarmament and not regime change, that war would be a last resort and not a convenient option, that he would work through the U.N. Security Council and with the international community rather than taking unilateral action.

But I also believed that it was important at that time to get weapons inspection teams back in Iraq to search for weapons and to keep an eye on Saddam so he didn't develop capability to do harm. I also believe that we could not accomplish that goal without a threat of credible force hanging over Saddam's head.

When, in fact, we did accomplish it and got inspection teams back in with unfettered access, I was sitting through administration briefings asking them if we were cooperating with them and directing them to suspected sites. Of course we were, they said, but they are not finding anything.

That is when that pit in my stomach first formed, that perhaps Saddam did what he said he did all along, and that is disarm. That is when I, along with my friend and colleague, Sherrod Brown, drafted a letter signed by 150 of our colleagues in January of 2003 asking the President to give the inspection teams time to do their job and not rush in because they were not finding anything.

But instead of heeding our advice, he ordered the inspection teams out, sent our troops in with insufficient forces to secure the peace, with no plan for the day after, with no clear objectives and with no exit strategy, all contrary to the Powell Doctrine. Now we are where we are today with over $500 billion already spent, over 3,000 lives lost, over 23,000 injured who have returned home. And we are faced with no good options.

Yes, we do need a new direction and not an escalation. It is time for us to turn over responsibility for security to the Iraqi people so we can begin a redeployment of our forces, first within the country, let us get them off the front lines and off the main streets of Baghdad, where they can still play a support role, but which could also lead to a redeployment eventually out of country. We can then refocus our energies on the real national security threat, and that is dismantling the al Qaeda global network that we face, making sure we don't lose Afghanistan, making sure the Taliban doesn't reconstitute themselves and making sure that we bring those who are directly responsible for September 11 to justice, like Osama bin Laden, who is still at large and roaming free today. Ultimately, this conflict cannot be solved militarily, but only by tough political compromises between the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds. We cannot do this for them.

We also need to get the Arab League involved, because they can help with reconstruction, they can help with security, and they can help add legitimacy to the Iraqi government. It is not in their interest to see the Sunni-Shia conflict spread outside of the Iraq borders and sweep the region, which is a very real threat today. Nor is it in Iran and Syria's interests to be on the opposite sides of a civil war that may break out in Iraq. That is what a plan, a new direction should look like, one that we should be pursuing, rather than just more of the same, stay the course.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on three occasions to visit our military command and our troops in the field in Iraq. I also visited our troops during the height of our military engagement in the Balkans. Nothing has made me prouder to be an American than seeing our troops in action, because they are so very good. They are well motivated, they are well trained. They are the best our Nation has to offer.

I have had 18 military funerals in my Congressional district alone, most of which I personally attended. If I don't have to attend another military funeral, if I don't have to pick up the phone to call another grieving family, I will be one of the happiest people in the world. They are a constant reminder of the human toll this is having, not only with our troops but with their families and our communities. There is not a day that goes by when I am not concerned about the safety and welfare of our troops.

That is exactly why we should be debating this resolution, because it is imperative that war is a last resort, that we as policymakers do everything we can to get the policy right because of the impact it has on our troops, their family, and our communities. It is important that we give them a mission with which they can succeed.

It is time to stop asking our troops to babysit a civil war. It is time to ask the Iraqis to stand up. It is time to support this resolution and give the President a clear indication of where this Congress stands.

Will the gentleman yield for a brief comment?

I was at the same meeting and I heard the same message from the ambassadors in the region. No one here is advocating an immediate withdrawal, just a different direction and a different strategy rather than what has failed in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join so many other proud and patriotic Members of this body, including a number of our military veterans, in support of this bipartisan resolution.

Just over a year ago when I was in Iraq on my second trip to the region, I shared the optimism and the assessment of many that, following three consecutive elections in 2005 with increasing turnout among Iraqi voters in each, 2006 would be a key transitional year militarily, politically, and economically.

However, a year ago this month, the sectarian strife in Iraq began to worsen, and our inadequate planning for possible and likely scenarios that could unfold in this war continued to catch up with us and continued to narrow our strategic options. As initial and important political developments did eventually unfold throughout last summer, sectarian violence did not abate but intensified, particularly in Baghdad. In response, U.S. forces were part of as many as four different efforts to enhance security in the capital in order to ease the path toward further essential political compromise. None of these efforts proved successful because of the limitations of the Iraqi security forces and police and the restrictions imposed by Iraqi Government leaders.

I had serious concerns when the President proposed last month to increase the number of troops in Iraq, and I hold them still today. I have serious concerns regarding the ability of Iraqi security forces not only to act as a reliable partner in the efforts to secure Baghdad, but to take on and maintain the lead in such efforts, concerns echoed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

I have serious concerns regarding whether this plan is sufficiently different from previous efforts to secure the Iraqi capital, particularly when Prime Minister al-Maliki's initial proposal presented to the President in December did not envision additional U.S. troops as part of the effort. I have serious concerns about the further erosion of the commitment of our coalition partners and other allies, if indeed Iraq is the central front of our battle against terrorism.

Now, there is no doubt that al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere poses a real and serious threat to our security in the Middle East and to our national security here at home. But the security situation in Iraq has evolved to include a complex civil war, described as ``a self- sustaining intersectarian struggle'' by the NIE, for which additional U.S. troops should not be on the front line to resolve.

The Iraqi Government needs to understand they are on borrowed time and they must take greater control of the future of their own country through political reconciliation to quell the sectarian violence. Iraq's neighbors and the international community must be more engaged diplomatically to end the sectarian strife so as to prevent the spread of it and the instability in the region that would result.

Moreover, as recent oversight hearings have revealed, such a large escalation of both combat and support troops undoubtedly will have an impact on our overall military readiness. And despite their unwavering commitment to serve when called, there may be serious consequences for National Guard and Reservists, as redeployments of full units will be required to implement the troop surge, according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

So after carefully reviewing the President's proposal to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, hearing testimony from senior members of the military, and analyzing the public statements of combatant commanders, and speaking with many of those from my home State of South Dakota who have served or who have loved ones who are serving in the war on terror, I conclude we should not stay this course. I remain unconvinced that sending additional troops to Iraq is the best way forward. Some who support the escalation have described it as ``our last best chance to win.'' To me, that is a clear acknowledgment that the President's plan further narrows rather than expands our strategic options.

And let me add this: This is an issue that demands a bipartisan approach, and it is most unfortunate that the administration has made a decision that dismisses the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. I believe this bipartisan, narrowly crafted resolution reflects the public's and Congress' assessment that increasing our military's combat role, especially in the midst of an intensifying sectarian struggle, is not the answer.

For those who would attack this limited resolution and the debate surrounding it or to suggest and ask, Whose side are you on, I would refer them to the comments of Secretary Gates from his testimony in the House Armed Services Committee last week in which he said that the troops are ``sophisticated enough to understand that . . . the debate's really about . . . the path forward in Iraq. They understand that the debate is being carried on by patriotic people who care about them and who care about their mission.''

Lastly, I want to reemphasize the first part of today's important resolution. Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq. We have a new generation of veterans returning from Iraq. As a subcommittee Chair on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I will work with all of my colleagues to ensure that the tens of thousands of young people coming home, some after their second, third, and fourth tours, many with severe and debilitating physical and mental wounds, return to the democracy which they fought to protect, with a government that recognizes their service and sacrifice with more than just words of gratitude, but with action that fulfills our Nation's collective duty and obligation to them as veterans who take their place alongside the other fighting men and women who have kept America free and safe.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate. But two points must be absolutely clear at the outset. First, it is imperative that we continue to support our troops on the ground. Our servicemembers deployed to Iraq have done a magnificent job. They have performed their missions admirably, effectively, and with valor. They have done everything we have asked them to do. They have made sacrifices as have their families. They deserve our unqualified support. And as a Member of Congress, I strongly disagree with some of my colleagues who have suggested cutting off funds for our troops serving in Iraq.

A second point to be made here is that immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which has likewise been advocated by some members on the other side of the aisle, is also a bad idea. The Iraq Study Group has said that ``it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support.'' The National Intelligence Estimate of January 2007 says that ``if Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq.''

Religious conflict aside, there is another reason for avoiding immediate withdrawal, and that is simply that al Qaeda and its affiliated groups still operate in Iraq. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, considers their efforts in Iraq to be ``crucial'' towards furthering al Qaeda objectives in the region. Thus, these groups are aggressively pursuing terrorism within the borders of that country, commiting acts of violence against Shias, Kurds and anyone else who dares to disagree with them.

By instigating this mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq, al Qaeda hopes to realize its supreme goal, to destabilize the government, assume control over the country and its oil wealth and eventually install a Taliban- style government in Baghdad. This is not good for the United States. It is not good for Iraq. And it is not good for the region. That is why I oppose immediate withdrawal.

That being said, and understanding the need for Congress to debate the issue of the war, I am disappointed in the way this debate has taken shape. The majority has given much time for us to express our views, but it has limited the options that might be employed to make this legislation more effective. They allowed no amendments either from Republicans or from their own Democratic colleagues. They refused to permit any substitutes. They even denied us a motion to recommit.

By putting before us this highly restrictive rule, the other side has effectively foreclosed dialogue on other measures that might have added substance to the debate. While both Democrats and Republicans utilize the Iraq Study Group findings to justify their positions, the majority leadership has refused to consider my colleague from Virginia's legislation, Mr. Frank Wolf, his legislation, H. Con. Res. 45, which would implement some of the most significant recommendations of the Iraq Study Group's report. This legislation would emphasize the need for U.S. forces to accelerate the training of their Iraqi counterparts, would establish milestones for success in Iraq, and would promote diplomatic initiatives in order to advance stability in the country and in the region.

Yet no debate on such a bill and no opportunity to offer an amendment consistent with those objectives was tolerated by the majority. What does this say about their commitment to fulfilling the objectives recommended by the Iraq Study Group's report? You know, we are all speaking about this report, but we are simply not voting on it. That is wrong.

I stand before you today in my second term in Congress as someone who has tried to understand the Iraq war from many different viewpoints. I have talked with my constituents both pro and con about the war. I have listened to military and intelligence briefings. I have visited Iraq. I have studied the Iraq Study Group report. I have read journal articles, academic studies and news clips on the subject, all to increase my professional awareness of what is going on over there.

But I do not just see this from a professional perspective. The Iraq war has had personal consequences for me as well. One of my staffers, Jason Lane, is a Reservist who has been called to active duty and is deployed there right now.

I have talked with the troops who have served there. I have visited the wounded in hospitals and most painfully attended the funerals of those who gave to this country what Abraham Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion. I attended one of those funerals just last Friday.

From all of this, I must admit, I have my concerns about the efficacy of the President's troop surge. I believe that it is far more important that the Iraqis

show the political will to achieve reconciliation and end the sectarian violence that is slowly but surely strangling their capital and their country.

As their Prime Minister, Maliki said on November 27, 2006, ``The crisis is political, and ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and the bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.''

Success in Iraq is essential to achieving America's foreign policy objectives, and it is in America's best interest to ensure that Iraq can sustain, govern and defend itself. But I believe in holding Prime Minister Maliki to his word. We cannot and will not abandon our troops who are currently on the ground in Iraq.

We must make sure that our forces effectively engage al Qaeda, as opposed to mediating a Sunni-Shia conflict that is the responsibility of the Iraqi government to resolve. We all know these are the challenges facing this Congress, and these are challenges that must be met in a bipartisan manner.