Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

I thank the ranking member for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the concurrent resolution for the House, and I do so from a position of a humble public servant, one who has not served in Iraq in uniform, as our previous speaker did, and others have who are in this Chamber at my side, but as one who has been there. I rise as one who is charged with public responsibility as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee.

While this resolution before the Congress today and this week, while this resolution expresses support for our troops in Iraq, the heart of the resolution is a statement of disapproval of the President's so- called surge of troops in Iraq, and I cannot support it.

I see Iraq, as others have eloquently stated, as the central front in the war on terror. I rise today in opposition to this resolution out of a fundamental sense that we have a moral obligation to finish what we started, to confront the enemies of our way of life, and to support our duly elected Commander in Chief as he makes those decisions that he deems necessary and appropriate to achieve those ends.

Let me say from the heart, for a moment, my reasons for supporting this troop surge. A few days before President Bush addressed the Nation, he invited a handful of Members of Congress down to the West Wing of the White House. I must tell you that I had my doubts about this troop surge. In all four of my trips to Iraq, I had heard consistently from our military commanders over the past several years that a large American footprint in Iraq was actually counterproductive to our goals.

But August and the aftermath of 2006 changed all of that. All of that advice predated an extraordinary increase in violence that commenced in the late summer of last year, when it became clear to all of us in this body, and to freedom-loving people around the world, that our strategy and tactics on the ground in Iraq were not working.

Now, I took that skepticism and that counsel into the Cabinet room of the West Wing, and there I heard the President describe a new strategy and new tactics. For all of the world to have read the newspaper accounts, Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed the President was simply sending more troops for more troops' sake. But that was not the case.

Despite what the previous speaker on this floor suggested, this is a new strategy. It is a new way forward. It is an effort on the part of the President to embrace an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad that was initially recommended by the Iraq Study Group, and more on that in a moment.

But let me say that I believe this new way forward, this new approach ought to be given a chance to work. I believe to oppose the President's new strategy in Iraq is to accept the status quo. And the headlines of the last 24 hours should tell every man and woman of good will in this Congress that the status quo in Iraq is not acceptable.

Now, earlier I mentioned that the approach of a troop surge in Baghdad was first recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I am quite struck, Mr. Speaker,

that the previous speaker who is a freshman Member of Congress from Pennsylvania spoke, as many have in the Democrat majority, quite glowingly of the report of the Iraq Study Group. And I admire this work product greatly.

A bipartisan work authorized during the last Congress, James A. Baker, III, former Secretary of State, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a former chairman of the House International Relations Committee bringing together a bipartisan group of wise counselors developed the Iraq Study Group report.

While I do not agree with every aspect of it, particularly those that talk about having a dialogue with terrorist states in the region, there is much that recommends the American people to the Iraq Study Group. And again I site in evidence the gentleman from Pennsylvania's glowing reference to that report just moments ago.

Now, let's look, if we can, at what the Iraq Study Group has to say about the idea of a troop surge in Iraq. I would offer very humbly, and maybe startling to some who are looking in, Mr. Speaker, that the very words ``troop surge'' comes from the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

Allow me to quote from page 73 of the book that is available in book stores all over America. The Iraq Study Group said: ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.''

Let me emphasize that again. The Iraq Study Group that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and many in the majority have heralded as an important work that provides us with a vision for going forward says: ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment of surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad.''

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what President Bush called for in January. And it is precisely that which Congress this week is poised to reject in a nonbinding resolution. I submit to you today that if the Iraq Study Group is to be cited again and again by the majority as source authority, and a fount of wisdom, and I believe it is, then let's be clear about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

It is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that a short-term redeployment or surge of combat forces in Baghdad will solve the present crisis and impasse that we face. It simply is a strategy to quell violence with Iraqis in the lead, to create the conditions of stability whereby a long-term political solution can be achieved.

Now let me say, Mr. Speaker, it was my great hope that the resolution before us today would have come to the floor under procedural rules that allowed for amendments. For my part I spent much of last evening offering an amendment, along with others, that would state that it is the sense of Congress that we should not take any action that would result in the elimination or reduction of funds for our troops.

I rise today not to complain about procedure, but to say, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this newly minted majority could not do as the Democrat chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee appears prepared to act.

My amendment that was offered, similar to others, has nearly identical language to a resolution being offered by the distinguished Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And both of us agree that Congress should affirmatively state that it will not cut funding to the troops.

I deeply regret that we were not able to make that declarative statement today. And let me say with great respect to the chairman of this Armed Services Committee, who needs not to hear from me about the deep respect I have for him, that I have to believe that somewhere in his heart of hearts, knowing his extraordinary record of service to this country, that he may well have hoped for a stronger statement as well.

While the Democrat resolution before us expresses the hope that Congress and all Americans will continue to support and protect our brave men and women serving in Iraq, it does not take the next step to show tangible support for our troops in the nature of funding. And let me say this with great sincerity: there is a fundamental difference between pledging to support and protect our troops and pledging not to cut off the funding for our war in Iraq.

It is a specious distinction, and one that is not lost on our colleagues in the Senate. I would submit to you that words have consequences, and ``support'' and ``protect'' do not assure the American people that we will continue to fund our troops in the field.

I believe the American people understand this point, Mr. Speaker. A poll cited this morning in USA Today shows that even though a majority of Americans are opposed to the surge of troops in Baghdad, a majority also oppose cutting off funding for the troops.

The American people do not want Congress to defund this war in the majority, even if they are concerned about the course and direction the war is taking. And Congress should tell the troops and the American people that it will never use the power of the purse to accomplish policy ends in the field of battle.

With this I close. Listening to this debate today and to the opposition to the surge being espoused by the Democrat majority, I have begun to wonder a very simple question: What if it works? I have made it clear that I support the surge and the President's new strategy.

My good friends on the Democrat side of the aisle and, as has been said, some Republicans have made it clear that they oppose the surge of forces in Iraq. And that is their right, and if it is in their heart, it is their duty. And at this moment, it appears that a majority of Americans are with the majority in this Congress.

But what if? What if they are wrong? What if you are wrong? What if the surge and the new leadership of General Petraeus and the courage and bravery of American men and women in uniform and the sacrifices of Iraqis in uniform succeed in the coming months?

You know, it is a snow day back in Indiana today, Mr. Speaker. And my kids are even home watching this on TV. I give my kids some pretty basic advice sometimes. One of the pieces of advice I give my kids when they are facing challenges, I say to them, you know, people don't like losers, but they like quitters even less.

And I think we ought to reflect on that old maxim as we come upon this decision today. If this new strategy in Iraq succeeds in the coming months, what will those who vote for this resolution say? The truth is, we must fight and win a victory for freedom in Iraq. The truth is we have no option but victory.

In their hearts the American people know this, and the American people are willing to make the hard choices to choose victory. Courage. Courage is the key in this moment.

C.S. Lewis wrote that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. Courage then is the answer, not recrimination and retreat. We are at a moment when the American people and the Members of this body will take a stand. This is a moment for courage. Our brave men and women in Iraq exhibit courage and uncommon valor every day.

It is my hope and prayer that we in this House might follow their lead and show them that such courage resides here as well. Let's vote down this resolution and find it within ourselves to lead the American people by bringing forward the resources and the support necessary to see freedom within Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today we begin an extended debate on a resolution criticizing the latest effort by American forces to win in Iraq.

There is no question that the war in Iraq has been difficult. All Americans are frustrated that we haven't seen more success and that we haven't seen it more quickly.

But war is never easy and almost never goes according to plan. Al Qaeda and their supporters in the region have been steadfast in their efforts to slow us down and frustrate our efforts to succeed. But because they cannot defeat Americans on the battlefield, al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at home.

Over the next few days, we have an opportunity to show our enemies that we will not take the bait.

It is fitting that yesterday was President Abraham Lincoln's birthday. And not since the dark days of the Civil War has our homeland been a battlefield. Lincoln's leadership preserved the Union through a turbulent age that threatened to undo the American experiment. His belief in the promise of the United States, a promise enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that stated for the first time in history that all men are created equal, this is what drove him to pursue victory.

Surrounded by personal and political rivals, Lincoln could have given up. He could have recalled the Union forces and sent them home. But he didn't.

I think we need a similar commitment to victory today.

The battle in Iraq is about more than what happens there. This is one part of a much larger fight, a global fight against Islamic terrorists who have waged war on the United States and our allies. This is not a question of fighting for land or for treasure or for glory. We are fighting to rid the world of a radical and dangerous ideology. We are fighting to preserve and defend our sacred way of life. We are fighting to build a safer and more secure America, one where families can rear their children without the fear of terrorist attacks.

Lincoln famously said in 1858 that ``a house divided against itself cannot stand.'' I believe, as Lincoln did then, that we must choose sides on a very critical issue. Then it was whether we should abolish the evil institution of slavery. Today it is whether we will defeat the ideology that drives radical Islamic terrorism. Will we do what it takes to stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs? Will we commit to defending the freedoms and liberties that we all cherish? Or will we retreat and leave the fight for another generation? These are the questions with historic implications that will be answered this week.

Many of my friends across the aisle think this is exactly what we should do, give up and leave. This nonbinding resolution is their first step towards abandoning Iraq by cutting off funding for our troops that are in harm's way.

And we know what al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the battlefield. They think that we can't stomach a fight. This is why they haven't been afraid to strike us whenever and wherever they have had the opportunity to do so.

This war didn't start in Iraq. This war didn't start on 9/11. The war began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979, went on for well over a year. Then on October 23, 1983, the suicide attack on our Marine barracks in Beirut occurred, killing 241 American servicemen and injuring 60 others. On February 26, 1993, was the first World Trade Center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others. On June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 20 and injuring some 372 others. On June 7, 1998, the Kenya embassy bombing killed 213 people and injured 5,000 more. And on June 7, 1998, the Tanzania embassy bombing killed 11 people and 68 others were injured. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked; 17 American sailors killed, 39 other sailors injured.

We all know what happened on September 11, 2001, when 3,000 Americans died for no other reason than they were Americans.

Do we really believe that if we pack up now, if we abandon Iraq and leave the country in chaos, that our enemies are just going to lay down their arms and leave us alone?

For too long, world leaders responded to terrorism by retreating and just hoping for the best. In a post-9/11 world, this is no longer an option.

God forgive us that it took such a loss of life to open our eyes, but our eyes are open. We are engaged in a global war now for our very way of life.

Every drop of blood that has been spilt in defense of liberty and freedom, from the American Revolution to this very moment, is for nothing if we are unwilling to stand up and fight this threat.

We didn't start this war. They did. Now we have got a duty to finish it, and, for the sake of our kids and theirs, to win it.

The nonbinding resolution before us today criticizes the new strategy for succeeding in Iraq implemented by General Petraeus. It ``disapproves'' of the strategy before it even has a chance to begin. The general's goal is to stabilize the Iraqi democracy, deny the terrorists a safe haven and ensure stability in the region. It is a prudent strategy that puts the performance of the Iraqi Government front and center.

I can't guarantee that this plan is going to work. I hope it does. Republicans have put forward a complementary bill aimed at helping it succeed. But I again can guarantee you this: If we cut off our funding for the troops that are in the field and we abandon Iraq, as many supporters of this nonbinding resolution want to, the consequences of our failure will be catastrophic.

Last year, Osama bin Laden issued this warning to the United States regarding the war in Iraq. He said, ``I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.''

Now, think about this for a moment. Al Qaeda knows what the stakes are and it issued all of us a challenge. Now, tell me, what message does it send if we are afraid to meet that challenge? What message are we sending to North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and other enemies of freedom around the world? If we abandon Iraq, regional stability is going to be jeopardized. Iraq will become a fertile breeding ground for radical Islamic terrorists. Without a central government or other stabilizing force, Iraq's neighbors will be compelled to enter Iraq to protect their own interests. The consequences will be devastating and could easily lead to regional war.

If we abandon Iraq, the instability, coupled with the damning image of another American retreat, will embolden Iran and Islamic militants and endanger Israel. Iran's leaders and terrorist groups have made it clear of their intentions to wipe Israel off the map. We would be leaving a staunch ally in the Middle East with nothing but chaos and instability separating them from their greatest enemy.

If we abandon Iraq, those who seek weapons of mass destruction will know they have nothing to fear from a fearful America. Neither al Qaeda, North Korea or Iran are going to give up their quest for weapons of mass destruction if they know they are free to pursue these weapons, secure in the knowledge that America doesn't have the stomach to stop them. We will be leaving for our children, and theirs, a vastly more dangerous world.

During the Cold War, we took some small comfort in the idea of mutually assured destruction, that the Soviet Union wouldn't attack us because we could retaliate with equal devastation. There is no such comfort in a world where terrorist gangs roam free. It is the nature of our enemy to fight us wherever and whenever they can. Whether it is in Asia, in Africa or elsewhere, al Qaeda has supporters and sympathizers throughout the world. They have the ability to strike us at any time with their lethal force across the globe.

Right now, we are fighting them in Iraq. The battlefield is the most visible part in the global war against these terrorists, but it is but one part. If we leave, they will just follow us home. It is as simple as that. We cannot negotiate with them. We can't reason with them. Our one and only option is to defeat them. And this nonbinding measure before us today will only embolden them.

Now, it is important for this body to debate the important issues of our day. Last summer, the House held an extended debate on the war in Iraq and the global war on terror which gave all Members an opportunity to go on record. We worked closely with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft the language of that resolution, and I believe that we had a productive debate.

What we are dealing with here today isn't even a resolution to debate the war itself. It is a nonbinding resolution attacking a single strategy in the prosecution of a much larger war. ``Nonbinding'' means nonleadership. It is not accountable, and I don't think it is the right message for our troops.

This is a political charade, lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it is meant to represent. And, as I said before, the question before us today isn't actually in this resolution. I think it is much more fundamental. The question is, do we have the resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies? Will we stand and fight for the future of our kids and theirs?

As President Eisenhower once said, ``History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.'' Does Congress have the fortitude to do what needs to be done? Our soldiers do. The men and women of our military are the greatest force for freedom that the world has ever known. They are brave, they are committed and they can win this fight if we ask them to. I think the big question is, will we support them?

My colleagues, the world is watching. The question is, how will we respond

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I speak today with a heavy heart. I am deeply saddened as I take the floor this afternoon; saddened because we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in Iraq, a conflict that is involved with insurgents that we failed to acknowledge or recognize, a conflict that is overlaid by sectarian violence between the Shiite Muslims on the one hand and Sunni Muslims on the other.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great American tragedy. The mission of this Congress is to urge the change of course.

We are here today because of a series of irretrievable strategic mistakes. Let's understand the goal of this resolution: number one, to fully extend our support to those in the uniform of the United States. I have been on the Armed Services Committee now throughout the years, and more recently as its chairman, and I cannot tell you how proud I am of those who are in uniform, whether they be deployed in the Middle East or somewhere else in the globe or here in our country. We must let them know, and this resolution does let them know, that we fully support them, as well as their wonderful families.

The second part of this resolution deals with the Presidential decision to increase our troops by 21,500. However, it is not clear what support troops are needed. The Pentagon says 2,500 support troops. The Congressional Budget Office says 13,000 minimum. But whatever it is, we find ourselves not seeing a change in strategy, as was promised by the administration and the White House, but just another tactic that had been used before, an increase in troops. No more, no less. We are here to say that is not a good idea.

The series of irretrievable mistakes is a serious list: the skewed intelligence we received from the Defense Department Office of Special Plans; the postwar phase of conflict that did not have sufficient planning; not enough troops, as pointed out by General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff; allowing the uncontrolled looting and the breakdown of law early on after the occupation began; the dismissal of the Iraqi Army, rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel or having them do security work that is important to the stability of that country; the deBathification, that put so many thousands of Iraqis out of business, out of work, including thousands of school teachers. The administration has consistently refused to adjust its overall strategy.

I take no pleasure in this, but it is a moment of ``I told you so.'' On September 4, 2002, and again on March 18, 2003, I sent letters to the White House

predicting some of the deadly outcomes we are experiencing today, and I warned against a jagged ending to the conflict. While there is a peacefully elected Iraqi Government, it is a government so divided along sectarian lines it has not been able to accomplish even the most basic steps needed for national reconciliation. And now we have the President's plan for a troop increase, which is a tactic that we do not approve.

The President's plan will embroil our troops even more deeply into the sectarian conflict. Put together hastily, it is insufficient as a requirement for success. Forty percent of all of the Army equipment of our country is either in Afghanistan or Iraq. The readiness of our troops is in peril. We are stretching the Army and the Marine Corps to the breaking point. That is where we are, and basically it is because of the conflict in Iraq.

Today is an opportunity for us to express our support for the troops and to say it is not a good idea to increase the troop level in Iraq because it has been tried unsuccessfully before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a veteran of the Second World War, Mr. Dingell.

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

I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a Korean War veteran, recipient of the Purple Heart, recipient of the Bronze Star, Mr. Rangel.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I find it rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, that those who oppose this simple, straightforward resolution tend to confuse a permissive war with a necessary war. The goals of the insurgents in Iraq are far different from the terrorists that had their genesis in Afghanistan. Let us not be confused between the two conflicts or their origins or those against whom we fight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a veteran of the Korean War, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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

Mr. Speaker, once again my friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to confuse the conflict in Iraq with the war against terrorists and has their genesis in Afghanistan, trying to put it all in one basket. That is not the case. Anybody can have their own opinion, but, Mr. Speaker, they may not have their own facts.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Thompson), a gentleman who is a Vietnam combat veteran of the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

Mr. Speaker, during his 20 years of service to this country, the gentleman to whom I am about to yield earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Bronze Stars, the Soldiers Medal and other awards. A Vietnam combat veteran serving two tours as an assault helicopter pilot, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time that has been consumed and the time remaining on each side, please.

Then subject to the Chair, I wish to recognize more than one speaker in a row on our side.

I yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), a gentleman who is a Vietnam combat veteran, rifle platoon leader of the 101st Airborne Division.

That would be fine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) first and only Iraq war veteran to serve in this body, a Member of the 82nd Airborne Division, who received the Bronze Star and his unit received the Presidential Unit Citation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, United States Army veteran, Mr. Etheridge.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), former paratrooper with both the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 63.

I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from California, the chairman on the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lantos). I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time.

May I make an inquiry, Madam Speaker, of how much time has been consumed and how much time remains on each side, please.

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

The great Chinese strategist and thinker once wrote that war should not be begun unless the end is in sight. Sadly, that admonition of Sun Tzu was not adhered to in this war in Iraq.

Let me bring us back to what we are all about today. We have been hearing discussions ranging from both ends of the football field. This is a very simple, straightforward resolution.

The first part of it is: We fully support the American troops. And I am going to say, Madam Speaker, we are so proud of them. They are volunteers, they are professionals, they understand the word duty.

And, secondly: We do not agree with the troop increase of 21,500, for the simple reason it has not worked in the past, for the simple reason it is going to cause somewhere between 2,500 and 13,000 support troops to support that effort. And, consequently, it is not a well-thought-out tactic. And despite the fact that some wish to call it a strategy, it is a tactic, and there is a large difference between the two.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the Budget Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Northern Virginia, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Congressman Jim Moran

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

My friend from New York, a fellow member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. McHugh, a good friend, I must agree with him on one comment that he made when he said, I am troubled by the course that lies ahead.

Madam Speaker, I am very troubled about the course that lies ahead. That is what we are about this evening. We have seen an irretrievable strategic mistake made in Iraq that put us where we are. And consequently it brings us to this point where we express our concern and disagreement with the increase in troops in this crucial time in Iraq and allows us the opportunity to say thank you. We are proud of you, each of you who wears the American uniform.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 157 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 157 provides for comprehensive consideration of H. Con. Res. 63. It provides all of the Members of this House with 3 full days of debate on this important matter. It is a momentous day for us, Mr. Speaker.

This is the debate that many of us have yearned for for at least 4 years, and our constituents have long suffered the lack of this debate. Every Member who wishes to speak on the resolution will have the opportunity to do so.

The rule also, in addition to the time in the rule, allows the majority leader at any time, after consultation with the minority leader, to extend the debate when necessary.

On January 10, President Bush announced an escalation of the Iraq war that will put as many as 50,000 more of our men and women in harm's way. Why 50,000 and not 20,000? Because the number of support groups who have to be there to support the troops adds up to nearly 50,000.

This body owes them an explanation for why at this moment in history the sacrifice is justified. Democrats and Republicans alike are determined to defend our Nation from harm and are wholly committed to supporting and protecting the members of our Armed Forces. But numerous military officials of the highest ranks, like General Colin Powell, General John Abizaid, and many, many others, have expressed a strong belief that increasing the number of combat troops in Iraq will not improve the situation in the country.

Two-thirds of the American people believe that further escalating the war is the wrong path to follow. This morning, 67 percent of them polled said we should get out at once. Even respected Members in the House and the Senate have been quick to state publicly that they oppose any troop escalation.

Republican Representative Steve LaTourette best explained this broad bipartisan opposition to the President's plan. Like many Americans, he recently said, I desperately want America to succeed in Iraq and I would welcome a fresh approach, but this is not a fresh approach. This is more of the same.

For 4 years, through the deaths of 3,126 American service people and nearly 60,000 Iraqi civilians and 25 to 30,000 grievously wounded, through the forced dislocation of millions of Iraqi families, through numerous troop escalations, and $379 billion appropriated by this Congress, through unbearable strain stretching our National Guard and Army Reserve, their members, and their families to the breaking point, more of the same has never worked.

As of last June, only 25 percent of the Iraqis had clean water to drink. The oil production has fallen by nearly half since the war began. The unemployment rate in Iraq as of December ranged between 25 and 40 percent.

Sixty-seven more innocent civilians were killed just yesterday in yet another bombing. Eighty-four of our troops were killed last month. Forty-one have been killed in the last 2 weeks alone. My district has suffered six casualties since 2005, and 140 men and women from my State of New York have been killed so far in Iraq.

Every piece of evidence suggests that the strategy currently employed by this administration is failing in Iraq. The only argument being used to support an escalation of the war would be one of trust. If we just give the President one more chance, we are told, things will be different.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people and the military leaders who know what war really is and a broad majority of this Congress are tired of giving this administration one more chance and have no reason to give it our trust.

The Pentagon Inspector General recently reported that statements made by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, during the runup to war, were ``inconsistent with the consensus in the intelligence community and drew conclusions that were not fully supported by available intelligence.''

Mr. Feith joins the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice, and many others who made statements which simply misled us into war. So why should we trust the administration's assessments of Iraq?

Why should we trust the President to give the new troops that he wants to send the protection that they need to come back home unharmed? Despite all the President's rhetoric in support of our Armed Forces, a second Pentagon report released at the end of January bluntly states that for years in Iraq and Afghanistan ``servicemembers experienced a shortage of force protection equipment and were not always equipped to effectively complete their mission.''

In fact, the report speaks of soldiers having to trade off Kevlar vests because there were not enough for each of them. This is what is happening today, Mr. Speaker. We were aware when we first went into the war that we were ill prepared, but 4 years later it is no better.

The Washington Post noted just yesterday that many Humvees still do not have the armor needed to protect them from the bombs that are killing and injuring 70 percent of our troops abroad.

While our troops have gone unprotected, corruption exploitation and incompetence has squandered billions of dollars and allowed vital reconstruction projects to be handed to well-connected companies that failed to fulfill their duties. Unbid contracts proliferate. Despite it all, for years the administration treated accountability as if it were a dirty word.

And why should we expect that without a radical change, of course, that things will suddenly improve?

Mr. Speaker, changing a broken course in Iraq is not going to demoralize our troops or abandon them. Frankly, they must wonder what it is we have been doing here all along. To the contrary, it is the only way to support the troops.

Changing a broken course will not provide our enemies with encouragement either. If our strategy is not working, then why would we help our enemies by resolutely adhering to the failing plan?

Now, that is a question that needs to be asked again. If our strategy is not working, why would we help our enemy by resolutely adhering to the failing plan?

Democrats are insisting on a new level of accountability in Congress, calling 52 hearings since January 4. But we also need a new course in Iraq. We need to oppose this escalation and stubborn adherence to a failing strategy.

We need to shift our focus and footprint in the region and to accept what so many observers have known for years: The conflict in Iraq will only be solved politically, not militarily.

As strongly as I feel on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that many of my colleagues in the House have a different perspective.

What is needed is a serious discussion conducted by serious people. The first step of such a discussion is a focused, clear and full debate on the question of the escalation itself. We need an unambiguous up-or- down vote on the escalation. We are keeping this rule and

this bill so straightforward in order to best achieve that result.

I want to emphasize that this is the first step, and Congress will have many opportunities during discussions of the supplemental funding request, for example, to debate the numerous dimensions of this war and to present new ways forward.

But we must first know where we stand. Our goal this week is to establish whether Congress disagrees or agrees with the President's current approach to Iraq. If the answer is no, then we will have the basis for forcing the President to work in a bipartisan way with us to change that approach.

The obvious truth is that a failure to achieve such a change will seal the fate of this war as one of the greatest blunders in America's history.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. Is my colleague ready to close?

That is right.

No, I have one remaining speaker.

Do you have any further speakers?

All right. Why don't you go ahead then and we will have our speaker after you.

I have only got the one speaker. My understanding is if you want to close, you need to do it now.

Yes. Mr. Sestak will be my final speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

I will begin my remarks by saying that I hope that these 3 days of debate, Mr. Speaker, are characterized by civility and respect. Without doubt, this is the most difficult issue that we will confront in this Congress.

Iraq is terribly complex. The stakes for our national security are great, and the sacrifice in American lives and the loss of Iraqi lives have been very painful.

This is a war unlike any other we have fought, and it has been vexing. All of us, supporters and opponents of this resolution alike, Republicans and Democrats, all Americans, have a vital interest in our Nation succeeding in helping to build a stable Iraq and defeating Islamist terrorism. That is the challenge of our time.

As we have heard, mistakes have been made. There is no doubt about that. I have been dismayed by some of them: the lethargy in training Iraqi troops, the inability to meter oil and protect civilian infrastructure. But we can't allow this to cloud our strategic judgments.

To my mind, this resolution, indeed our struggle in Iraq, can be boiled down to two questions: Are Iraq and the global struggle against Islamist terrorism separable? And is Iraq hopeless? The answer to both questions is no, which leads me to a ``no'' on this resolution.

The rationale for this war has changed, whether we like it or not. We are now fighting for stability and moderation against the Islamist terrorism that is now host in Iraq.

Our Civil War didn't start out as a battle against slavery. It was a fight to save the Union.

We started out fighting Saddam and to stop what the majority of this House believed was his weapons of mass destruction program. We are now fighting Islamist terrorism. It is a different and more daunting fight, but the consequences of our success or failure are no less critical because the stakes of this battle have changed.

Let there be no doubt about this: Defeat in Iraq will be a terrible blow to our national security. It will psychologically boost the Islamist terrorists who we are fighting there and elsewhere.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reported Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda. That declaration is more than words.

While not all fighters in Iraq are jihadists, many are. Some have wrongly denied that here on the House floor today. Jihadists are coming from all over the world. The report reads, ``They will seek to expel the Americans and then spread the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' Chaos in Iraq will allow for more terrorist safe havens there.

The 9/11 Commission stated that every policy decision we make needs to be seen through the lens of terrorist sanctuaries. My colleagues, I would ask if we are doing that.

And that report stated that if Iraq becomes a failed state, it will go to the top of the list of places that are breeding grounds for attacks against Americans abroad.

We saw what happened when Afghanistan descended into chaos. Al Qaeda emerged out of the ruin to strike America on 9/11. That is the type of threat we are facing today, which will be supercharged if Iraq fails.

We have to confront the potential disaster scenario in the region that U.S. failure in Iraq could bring, which would be worsening strife which could engulf the entire region, sparking a wider war in this resource-rich area.

Saudis have warned that they are prepared to aid Sunni militias. Jordan could move troops into Iraq's western desert to serve as a buffer. The Turks are increasingly worried about the independent Kurdish movement. Iran could move to secure the oil fields to the south.

In describing the consequences of continued decline in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group wrote, ``Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems, including the radicalization of populations, mass movement of populations, and regime changes that might take decades to play out.''

This is the powder keg that is Iraq today. The status quo is nasty. But the consequences of failure, while unpredictable, is far worse.

So to the second question: Is Iraq hopeless? I can understand why many Americans may feel that way. Every day there are horrific car bombings, the sectarian violence has intensified. We will hear many assessments that Iraq is hopeless in this debate.

No one is going to argue that success is guaranteed. But arguments that we have no chance of bringing stability on the ground in Iraq are also extreme arguments.

Are the forces of chaos so strong, and are the forces of stability and moderation so weak as to doom with certainty our efforts?

But I have spoken with too many people in the field, people with some optimism, that I am not ready to conclude that with certainty. And I don't think this House should reach that conclusion.

And that is my read of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group which, while recognizing the grave challenges, spoke of improving the process for success. The fact that the consequences of our defeat would be so great also leads me to persist.

Let's consider more about the implications of defeat. Look at neighboring Iran. Most Americans remember the 1979 Iranian takeover of our embassy in Tehran. That led to 444 days of captivity for our men and women. Unfortunately, relations with Iran have only worsened since. Iran today is a state sponsor of terrorism. It aids Hezbollah, and it backed this terrorist group's war on Israel this summer. With Iranian backing, Hezbollah is the A Team of terrorism, running highly sophisticated operatives worldwide, including here.

Some terrorism experts consider Hezbollah to be a more challenging foe than al Qaeda. Iran is backing the insurgents fighting our men and women in Iraq. Iran is also storming ahead with a nuclear weapons program.

The embassy takeover was a big morale boost for Islamist terrorists; some trace the beginning of Islamist terrorism to that embassy takeover. The shattering of the Iraqi state in our hands would be that 1979 morale boost magnified. It would also prove the way for tremendous Iranian influence in the region.

We must face our responsibility to the Iraqi people. Yes, we have given them 4 years to come together; it has been beyond frustration that they haven't. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died during this time. What happens if we leave or operate without the manpower our military leadership says it needs? I don't think anyone believes that the carnage won't be several times what we have seen.

We often hear calls to intervene in countries for humanitarian reasons. Some would like our military to go to Darfur in Sudan. Maybe we should take decisive military actions to stop that genocide, but what about trying to finish a job where we have already made a huge military commitment, knowing full well that Iraq's withdrawal would lead to a brutal humanitarian crisis?

We also often hear from some about how unpopular our country is worldwide. This is said to greatly harm our influence and interest. And there is truth to that. Just wait if our withdrawal precipitates a horrific scale of ethnic cleansing. Is that the Iraqi legacy we want? I am not ready to concede the inevitability of this.

It is very important that our Nation be united. Our success depends upon it.

We need to be sowing discord among the enemy, not ourselves. We have had successes against Islamist terrorism worldwide.

This resolution states that Congress disapproves of the January decision of the President to deploy more troops to Iraq. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group panel, but one month earlier, said it could support a short-term redeployment of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad. This resolution goes in the opposite direction.

I have heard the argument about why this resolution isn't a retreat, but it is a nonbinding rebuke of the President's tactics, that it doesn't cut off funding. That may be the case on paper, but the symbolism is far greater. I don't see how opposing our professional military's call for more troops at this pivotal time is anything but a signal of permanent retreat. It is also congressional micromanagement.

The war is horrible. The easy thing would be to just say out. But we can't wish away the Islamist terrorists will take great strength from our defeat. That is what they are saying. These individuals in groups are as persistent as they are brutal. They must be fought and defeated. So let's not give these forces a win on the floor of the U.S. House.

I ask my colleagues to think through these implications and vote down this resolution

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very roughly, you owe me a few.

Madam Speaker, listening to this debate tonight, it becomes obvious that kind of like life itself, those of us in Congress have moments of high drama and great importance, and by any measure, the date this evening and tomorrow and the days that follow and, most importantly, the vote that will attend it, is just such a moment.

I would observe, Madam Speaker, in the now nearly 231 years that this great Union has endured, this House has encountered few sessions demanding greater honesty, greater selflessness, and greater wisdom than that of occasions of war. And as I said, this is such a time.

But this debate really does stand alone. It is unique over the more than two centuries and three decades of our history, because from my study at no time in this Nation's history has the Congress considered the matter before us this week. The question of shall we resolve, in a nonbinding resolution, that this House disagree with a mission, duly designated by the constitutional authority vested in the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conduct of the war, that this same Congress, in an earlier session has, in fact, expressly endorsed.

I have listened today with great interest. I have enormous respect for all Members on both sides of the aisle. But I have heard about how wherever they are, many Members tonight will go to the well when they ultimately vote and try to send the President a message, try to signify to the administration that this war has not been conducted in the appropriate way. It has not achieved the objectives that we all felt were possible, in fact, absolutely necessary at its outset.

I would say, Madam Speaker, I understand that perspective; not only understand it, in many ways I strongly share that perspective. But I have to argue the fact of the matter is, for all of the good intentions we have here tonight, the negative aspect of such an action is going to far outweigh, far outweigh whatever good it might attempt to achieve.

The reality is, if this message is heard at all at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it is going to speak in whispers. Whispers. But in other lands, in other continents, in other cities, far, far away, when this resolution comes before us, and if it is passed, it is going to crash like thunder. In places like Ramadi and Basra, from Baghdad and beyond, friend and foe alike are going to hear something far different than what we intend.

They are going to hear that through this vote we have abandoned the Iraqi people. They are going to hear that America has forsaken this struggle. They will hear that we disavow our military objective in Baghdad really before it has meaningfully begun, and most importantly in the shadows where our enemies lurk, in places like Tehran and Damascus, the message will fail where its authors intend, but it will succeed very, very mightily where they wish it would not.

Madam Speaker, for all of the good intent embodied in this proposal, it will not bring a single soldier home sooner. This vote, no matter what the tally, no matter what this board shows as to green and red at the end of the day, will not shorten this conflict by a single month, not by a week, not by a day. It will not change the course of a single battle. It will not even alter a pebble that lies on the battlefields in which those struggles will be fought.

It will, however, say to the insurgents, the Saddamists, the radical Islamic militants and their patrons that time is on their side. It will say that America has no stomach for this fight. And somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan, or in a hut on the Afghan-Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden is going to smile.

His words of a failure of America will be that much closer to reality. As he has said: ``The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate rule.'' They keep reiterating that ``success in Baghdad will be success for the United States, failure in Iraq the failure of the U.S. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist crusader tide against us.''

Those are bad messages, Madam Speaker. But I would suggest respectfully to all of my colleagues for all the wrong messages this resolution will send to our enemies, nothing it contains will be more devastating than what it says to our troops, to our military, those brave men and women in uniform who answered the call to arms, issued not by some ephemeral entity, but by us, by this Congress.

And how do we say through the resolution we are considering here today, we support your needs, but we reject your mission? We allow for your deployment but we shun the premise of your departure? And what do we say to the wife or husband? How do we respond to the father or the mother or the loved one of the next warrior lost in battle who asks, why did you oppose through that resolution the job they were sent to pursue but did absolutely nothing from preventing them from going from the outset?

That is the tyranny, and I have to say it, Madam Speaker, that is the folly of the resolution before us for all its lack of practical result, for the fact that this resolution will do absolutely nothing. Never has this Congress in its history of war considered an action of such dramatic consequence.

Now, it is said during the Civil War that the great Southern general, Robert E. Lee, was really tired, and I think we can all relate to this, of the criticism, the second-guessing that was directed at his leadership through the major newspapers of his time.

And he observed, Apparently all my best generals had become journalists. Today, tonight, I think it can be fairly said of some, apparently all of our best generals have become Congressmen. My colleagues, we are not generals. The Constitution of this great Nation does not provide for 535 Commanders in Chief, yet that is the reality lost in the proposal that we are considering this night in this week.

But I would suggest, instead of being diminished by that fact, instead of being lessened by what we are not, we need to be empowered by what we are. And I say to my colleagues tonight on both sides of the aisle, we indeed have a grave responsibility in this matter. But it does not lie in nonbinding resolutions that send wrong messages to our troops and absolutely wrong messages to our enemies. It rests in the authorities vested in us by the Constitution of this great land, the power to fund or not all matters of government, especially war.

Like all of us here tonight, I want this war to conclude. I represent the 10th Mountain Division, the most deployed division in the United States Army. I was there 3 weeks ago. I know the pain. I know the suffering. And like all of you, I am frustrated by the path we have traveled to this point, and I am troubled by the course that apparently lies ahead.

And we can, we must have, a different approach, one that especially places responsibility for success where it rightfully lies, and I have heard my colleagues tonight speak about that, with the Iraqi people. I propose an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that will just do that, require the Iraqis to step forward, to stand up, to stop the talking, and to begin to act.

It will fully fund the needs of our troops and provide for us, the Congress, the rightful role and expedite an opportunity to review the Iraqis effort and to judge the progress of this new mission in Baghdad. These things have to be done. But this resolution, in my judgment, in my judgment, is what must decidedly not.

This weekend I took the time to reread John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning work ``Profiles in Courage.'' And in those pages our martyred President spoke: ``In no other occupation but politics is it expected that a man will sacrifice honor, prestige, and his chosen career on a single issue.''

My friends, this is such a moment. I accuse nobody in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, of any kind of transgression, honorable people, good people. We will disagree, as I expect they will on this and other days, but I do plead that every Member in this House vote on this resolution, not for themselves, not for gain or posture through politics, not because of their alleged attention to public opinion, because it is right.

We can do better. We must. But this resolution is not the path to that objective.

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.