Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, he was conscientious, committed to peace and momentarily praised. His laurels burned in the bombings. His valorous and vain efforts had but hastened upon his people.

Yet, in eulogizing this ``English worthy,'' Sir Winston Churchill, an ardent opponent of the deceased's policy of appeasement, unexpectedly struck a conciliatory chord toward the late Neville Chamberlain:

``It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase, men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later when the perspective of time is lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History, with its flickering lamp, stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor.''

Mr. Speaker, while not serving in this Chamber during the debates on the resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use martial force to remove Iraq's Baathist regime for numerous just causes, including its refusal to honor its Gulf War cease-fire and United Nations' resolutions, during my time as a temporary custodian of my constituents' office, I have striven to ensure our Nation's victory in the battles for Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overarching war on terror. In doing so for 3 years, I have four times traveled to Iraq and once to Afghanistan to meet with our troops; visited wounded citizen soldiers, eulogized our fallen, and consoled their grieving families. As a witness to their courage, sacrifice and suffering, I have been morally compelled to support every appropriation for our military and civilian personnel in harm's way, oppose every policy injurious to our country's common cause of victory; advance my own ideas on how to secure our victory, including the introduction of bipartisan, though ultimately unaccepted, legislation to establish concerted congressional oversight over the course of this conflict; and refused to condone a resolution by my Republican peers which failed to meet its duty; and, immediately afterwards, introduced a resolution of my own in order to fulfill my duty to our soldiers, my constituents, and our country.

As a staunch supporter of our Nation's mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, I did so in the belief that it is morally imperative for every sovereign American citizen and their congressional servants to ensure our valiant troops victoriously come home to their loved ones' arms. Were I to do otherwise and lapse in my moral duty, I would not only be violating our troops and my constituents' trust, I would be violating the dictates of my conscience.

It is equally true, of course, how within this House other Members' dictates of conscience have led them to a decidedly different, though equally constant course of action. To these Members and their fellow citizens who have done so to date, I share the sentiments Sir Winston held for Neville Chamberlain: You are ``An American Worthy,'' who ``however the fates may play, will ``march always in the ranks of honor.'' Yet, because the resolution thrust before us is a craven exposition of political expediency in a time of national crisis, today many may stray from the ranks of honor.

This resolution is ``nonbinding,'' which means the resolution has no force of law to compel future legislative acts in compliance with its dictates. In sum, then, this resolution legally changes nothing. Americans' money will still unabatedly facilitate our troops' continued deployment into harm's way, despite the United States Congress collectively condemning the President's announced troop reinforcement plan. This impotent resolution is injurious in the eyes of its opponents because it will undermine the morale

of our troops, their families, and our fellow citizens even as it heartens and emboldens our enemies; and this impotent resolution is injurious because it will not stop what many of its supporters purport will be a loss of life in a lost cause. By neither stopping the war nor speeding our victory and by calculatedly doing nothing in this time of national crisis, this resolution is immoral.

This immorality is manifest in how the resolution guilefully attempts to insinuate the United States Congress can simultaneously support our troops and oppose their mission. During a time of war, if an act is not i our national interest, such as the President's plan is deemed to be in this resolution, the act is injurious to the national interest. At best, the act will expend resources, most tragically claim lives without furthering the cause of victory. Better than anyone, our troops understand this. Therefore, this Congress does not support our troops when it proclaims they are risking their lives in a doomed mission injurious to America.

Yet, if Congress persists in this insanity, the Members must meet their responsibility to enumerate the reasons they disapprove of the President's plan and, in point of fact, the mission upon which our troops have already embarked. But this resolution does not provide any rationale for its conclusion. Thus, rather than deserving our collective concurrence, this resolution deserves our universal condemnation.

To this, some supporters will object and allege two defenses for this resolution's fatal omission. Do not these supporters' floor remarks provide the rationales sufficient to sustain this resolution? No. If floor remarks alone are sufficient to sustain the resolution's conclusions, then floor remarks alone would be sufficient to derogate the President's plan and, ergo, vitiate any necessity for a written resolution. Conversely, if it is imperative for the plan's detractors to express their opposition in a written resolution, it is also imperative to express their reasons in writing. Alas, such logic pales before some Members' impulsive muse of the moment.

Let us, then, move to some of the resolution's supporters' second, far more distressing defense: ``A vote of disapproval on the President's plan will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor.'' As no one who participated in the crafting of this covert legislative agenda has deigned to inform the American people as to its aims, one wonders if it will cut off funding for our troops in harm's way or cut off critical reconstruction funding in the supplemental appropriations bill, thus toppling an unheralded but essential pillar of the President's new victory strategy and proving the perspicacity of the present resolution. While we wonder and worry, according to newspaper reports there is a strategy to make this rumored legislative plan palatable to the public. This strategy's tactics, which its instigators are more than happy to relate to the media, are reputed to include a coordinated multimillion-dollar TV campaign by leftist special-interest pressure groups. No doubt somewhere beyond this ephemeral stream of time there lurks a jealous Clement Vallandigham. But, in fairness, let us disdain a priori speculation, and instead examine a previous resolution to glean the potentialities of the present resolution's supporters' secret legislative plan. The following passages are excerpted from a previous resolution which, albeit more forthrightly, also opposes the Commander in Chief's decisions:

``Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after 4 years of failure . . . by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for cessation of hostilities . . . to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace be restored.''

This previous resolution too expresses its support for our troops in harm's way:

``Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic Party is heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our Army and sailors of our Navy who are and have been in the field and on the sea under the flag of our country, and in the events of its attaining power, they will receive all the care, protection, and regard that brave soldiers and sailors of the Republic have so nobly earned.''

This previous resolution is the Democratic Party platform of 1864.

If the past is prologue, let us be firm in a fair request: If the resolution's supporters possess a victory strategy, or otherwise, for Iraq, these public servants must immediately reveal it to the sovereign citizens of the United States. If these stealth strategists refuse, they will incur the American people's inference this legislative plan assumes and will hasten our Nation's defeat in Iraq. How else could one explain these individuals' already having a legislative plan and an accompanying media plan premised upon our troop reinforcement failure, and doing so regardless of potential American victories on the ground or the advice of our military commanders? Perhaps while they demur from revealing it, these anonymous commander in chiefs will dubiously coin their legislative plan an ``exit strategy.''

It is an irrelevant distinction. Right now the enemy is actively seeking to murder more American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians. So right now and for the immediate future, an exit from Iraq is a defeat in Iraq. Whatever one pretends to the contrary, one will never convince our enemies otherwise.

Yes, it is all too human to wish the world were different; all too human to rationalize away one's misguided actions. Being composed of frail, fallible human beings, even great assemblies such as this have succumbed to the temptation. We must not.

Writing well before Churchill's magnanimous eulogy of Chamberlain and, to the contrary, warning the British people's representatives how history was pitiless, George Dangerfield coldly assessed his national leaders' mismanagement of state affairs during the pre-Great War years of 1910 to 1914: ``Along that row of distinguished and original faces there would pass from time to time, as lightly as a shadow upon the waters, an alarming, an alien spirit, a spirit dangerous and indefinite, the Spirit of Whimsy . . . In the hush of crisis, in the tumult of abuse, or when the stuffy air of the Commons seemed almost to glitter with the shining, salt ripples of sarcasm, there it played, airy, remote, and irresponsible.''

Is an inchoate angst over history's final verdict the reason some supporters of this resolution have taken to this floor, though not in this resolution itself, and verbally professed three key defenses of their decision? One defense is they were misled into supporting an Iraqi regime change because of the false claim it did or might possess weapons of mass destruction. Mercifully, let us stipulate these elected officials performed their due diligence on the matter and, especially for our Democratic colleagues so situated, they did not overly trust the some many of them had accused of stealing a Presidential election.

Again, there were numerous justifiable reasons for authorizing the President of the United States to militarily execute a regime change in Iraq. As those reasons are written in that resolution, I will not dwell upon them, for they do not constitute the crux of the matter, which is this: the war aim of regime change was a success. It is the post-war failure of Iraqi reconstruction breeding our present perils.

Thus even if a Member of Congress can be excused for authorizing force on the basis of being ``misled,'' the Member of Congress cannot be excused for failing to demand adequate post-war reconstruction planning, nor for a 3-year failure to demand constructive changes to an inadequate post-war reconstruction plan.

Dovetailing with this defense, some of the resolution's supporters now claim their initial ardor for the regime change was a mistake because this administration has botched Iraqi reconstruction beyond salvaging and the fledgling democracy is now in a state of civil war. This argument has the

merit of being partially correct, for despite the hard-learned lessons of our Nation's former successes in doing so, this administration utterly failed to comprehend and implement the fundamental principles of reconstructing a defeated, belligerent nation. Importantly, this does not preclude reconstructing Iraq now.

While rife with sectarian violence, much of it instigated and perpetuated from external elements, Iraq is not in a civil war. Relative calm exists in most of the beleaguered nation's provinces, and if one dares to look, there are the agonizingly slow but significant signs of incremental progress in the establishment of order. This progression will be expedited by the administration's new plan, which finally incorporates the two fundamental principles of Iraqi or any reconstruction plan, one, a liberal democratic society evolves upward from its traditional roots of order, not from a centralized bureaucratic government downward; and, two, a nation's transformational evolution into a liberal democracy must contemporaneously provide transactional benefits to its citizens. These fundamental principles will be implemented through critical initiatives, such as provincial reconstruction teams, an accord on oil revenue allocations, and a national reconciliation process, amongst others.

But to earn the support of terrorized Iraqis, security must first be established so they may commence securing the blessings of liberty. This is why the troop reinforcement is required and why the twin pillars of troop reinforcement and grass-roots reconstruction can achieve a joint American and Iraqi victory over the enemies of liberty.

The ineluctable fact of our victory is it must be won with the help of Iraqis, which is disconcerting to many of this resolution's supporters who believe the Iraqis are unwilling to fight for their freedom and are incapable of perpetuating once it is secured. This argument often intersects with the charge our mission in Iraq has been untenably shifted from effectuating a regime change to erecting a model democracy; and for the above reasons, they think this is impossible. This deplorable argument is antithetical to the self-evident truths written into our own Declaration of Independence, though, sadly, it is not without precedent. Once more, let us reference another resolution, this one opposing a military mission creeping toward a decidedly different goal:

``Resolved: that the emancipation proclamation of the President of the United States is as unwarranted in military as in civil law; a gigantic usurpation, at once converting the war, professedly commenced by the administration for the vindication of the authority of the Constitution, into a crusade for the sudden, unconditional and violent liberation of 3 million Negro slaves; a result which would not only be a total subversion of the Federal Union, but a revolution in the social organization of the Southern States, the immediate and remote, the present and far-reaching consequences of which to both races cannot be contemplated without the most dismal foreboding of horror and dismay. The proclamation invites servile insurrection as an element in this emancipation crusade, a means of warfare, th inhumanity and diabolism of which are without example in civilized warfare, and which we denounce, and which the civilized world will denounce as an uneffaceable disgrace to the American people.''

So much for the prognostications of the ``Peace Democrat'' controlled Illinois legislature's 1863 resolution. Thankfully, by the grace of God and the sanguine sacrifice of the American people, it was this Illinois legislature, not our African American brothers and sisters and our Nation's great emancipator, who are to be denounced by the civilized world for all eternity.

What of our legislative body? Now resurrects the specter of our own judgment, which hovers above and shadows us as we seek to ensure we are not forever weighed in the balance and found wonting. It is as it should be, as it must be, for notwithstanding its nonbinding nature, even after this resolution's disposition, our duty demands we make moral decisions affecting our Nation's victory or defeat, and our fellow citizens' lives or deaths. Is this not why, even while bearing malice towards none of them, in defending his own war plan, our own maligned President warned his opponents history is a harsh mistress:

``Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here, Congress and Executive, can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not `Can any of us imagine better?' but `Can we all do better?' Objection whatsoever is possible. Still the question recurs `Can we do better?' The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.

``Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just, a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.''

My friends, history harkens your honorable hearts to reconsider supporting this immoral resolution. If one believes all human beings are equally God's children, whether they be free or yearning to breathe free, one cannot, after a cruel sip of hope, condemn 20 million of God's equally beloved children to a saturnalia of slaughter. If one supports our troops, one cannot deride their cause as injurious to our country. If one seeks our victory in the war on terror, one cannot advocate a retreat and defeat in the face of our enemy.

My friends, through the fog of war, our fiery trial illumes and creeps ever nearer along the trail. Rather than curse the darkness and dread the echoes of history's verdict, let us acquit ourselves with lasting honor by leading our searching Nation through these trying, transformational times and into a transcendent, triumphal tomorrow. Let us earn the esteem of the latest and later generations of all free people by reaffirming our revolutionary Republic cherishes the self- evident truth that all human beings yearn to breathe free. Let us, in our Nation's finest traditions and truest character, remove the Iraqi people's bonds of oppression and replace them with bonds of brotherhood amongst our free, sovereign, and secure peoples.

Let us, in the face of terror, march always in the ranks of honor and courageously and selflessly secure the Iraqi people's blessings of liberty and, in so doing, secure our own blessings of liberty for unnamed generations of American children.

Mr. Speaker, fully cognizant of my moral duty to our troops, my constituents, my country, and my Creator, I cannot in good conscience support this resolution, which is injurious to the cause of our Nation's victory and in consequence is patiently immoral. Therefore, I urge this resolution's rejection and pray God graces, guards, and guides the steps of all who bear the burden of our decisions made on behalf of the majestic American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the genuine American hero from Texas, Mr. Johnson, for leading us this afternoon.

I supported the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein's regime because it was in America's interests. Afterwards, it should have been up to the Iraqi people, and not Americans, to determine their fate and how they govern themselves. President Bush has stated: The survival of our liberty depends on its expansion throughout the world and America must actively construct those institutions. Which, to me, seems like a Wilsonian view of America's role in the world.

In 2000, Candidate Bush rejected nation-building. A view held by the Founding Fathers who believed the exceptional calling of the American people was not to shape the world in our image, but to be a light that lightens the world. I prefer Candidate Bush's position.

Having said that, I cannot support Representative Skelton's resolution. Nothing better illustrates America's democratic institutions than this body having a full and open debate about this topic.

I hope the Commander in Chief will recognize the desires and concerns of the American people as expressed today through their elected Representatives. But America has only one, and not 535 commanders in chief. We cannot micromanage the conduct of a war. Representative Skelton's resolution sends horribly mixed signals to our troops who must solely focus on carrying out their assigned and dangerous mission.

Once a decision has been made and mission assigned, this body should support the troops and their one and only Commander in Chief, as Representative Johnson's resolution, had it been heard, would have been done.

Critics of tactics who resort to a congressional resolution tell our servicemen and women and their families, intentionally or not, that their mission is futile. When we undermine hope, we undermine resolve, and we reduce the likelihood of success.

As Senator Lieberman has stated, a resolution would, in quotes, ``give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression that the American people are divided.'' Or, as Army Sergeant Daniel Dobson expressed, ``There is no honor in retreat, and there is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed.''

Instead, the responsible thing for this Democratic-led Congress would have been to propose a new way forward, new tactics, new strategies, not just in Iraq but in the entire war on terror. Speaker Rayburn, a Democratic Speaker, once famously remarked, ``Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.'' There are no carpenters at work with this resolution.

God bless our troops. God bless their Commander in Chief. God bless America.

Shortly after I entered Congress in 2003, America used military force to remove the Saddam Hussein regime. I supported that action because it was in America's interest.

The Hussein regime repeatedly defied the terms that ended the 1991 Gulf War--the transparent and verifiable dismantlement of the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. Previously, that regime had used such weapons and wielded the potential of such weapons against its enemies. Rather than resorting to openness to demonstrate good faith compliance with its promises, the regime relied on Soviet- style deception and defiance.

In the face of such opaqueness, why are we surprised that the intelligence agencies of the United States and its Allies veered to a worst-case scenario? After all, the perceived ``missile gap'' that fueled the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union stemmed from Soviet deception about its actual nuclear weapon capabilities. The fault lies with those who deceive and not those searching for the truth.

The perceived threat extended beyond the Middle East and raised the specter of arming terrorists dedicated to harming the United States and the West. To those who scoff at this notion, I remind them about the dangers posed by ``loose nukes'' and how the West works everyday to counter this threat.

Furthermore, this brutal regime repeatedly attacked its neighbors-- threatening the stability of America's allies and interests in this region.

So with some sturdy allies, America took action. The Hussein regime was toppled. Others took notice. Libya surrendered its weapons of mass destruction capabilities to the U.S. including materials related to its nuclear weapons program and ballistic missile capabilities.

Today's U.S. military is the finest in world history.

America can defeat any contemporary enemy by itself. But, we cannot win the peace alone. We need help--not just from loyal friends like the British, Poles, and Australians. To win a peace, we need less reliable allies like France, Germany, and Spain to help. And we need support, or at least not hostile opposition, from former adversaries we are trying to befriend, like Russia and China. In this case, we have had too little help to win the peace.

And instead of focusing on establishing a free and stable Iraq, America strayed from the wisdom of its Founding Fathers who warned us of the hazards of trying to shape the world in our image. As John Quincy Adams noted in his 1821 Fourth of July Speech:

``America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.'' To do so would involve the United States ``beyond the power of extrication, in all wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition. . . . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.''

The Founding Fathers believed that the exceptional calling of the American people was not to shape the world in our image but to be a light to lighten the world. Our exercise and preservation of liberty served as an example to other peoples. In today's world, we can see how our culture and international trade influence other peoples. But a critical difference

exists between being an example and trying to impose a set of beliefs.

The historian Walter McDougall describes this original tradition as follows:

. . . the leaders . . . did not interpret [American]

Exceptionalism to mean that U.S. diplomacy ought to be

pacifist, rigidly scrupulous, or devoted to the export of

domestic ideals. Rather, they saw foreign policy as an

instrument for the preservation and expansion of American

freedom, and warned that crusades would belie our ideals,

violate our true interests, and sully our freedom.

Accordingly, I support using American military might to defend our interests as needed including preemptive strikes to those who would do us harm.

But we strayed from this tradition by undertaking a mission to hold Iraq together, build a nation based on Western liberal democracy, and then spread that way of life throughout the Middle East. This Administration labels this effort ``transformational democracy.'' But it really is what Walter McDougall calls ``Global Meliorism,'' that assumes:

The American model is universally valid, that morality

enjoins the United States to help others emulate it, and that

the success of the American experiment itself ultimately

depends on other nations escaping from dearth and oppression.

Nothing is further from the conservative tradition. Conservatives understand that free societies and peoples take centuries to evolve. America traces its roots back to the Magna Carta. If you want to illustrate the shortcomings of social engineering and the illusive goal of remaking foreign societies, take these 792 years of hard earned experience and impose it on a nation cobbled together by the British after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and on a people who identify more with a tribal than a national identity.

Conservatives take a realistic assessment of human nature--including as George Will has noted ``the limits of power to subdue an unruly world.'' This sobriety contrasts with the idealistic dream of engineering the world--a dream with roots in Woodrow Wilson's visions for a post-World War I world. As George Clemenceau remarked after Wilson's 1917 Peace Without Victory speech:

Never before has any political assembly heard so fine a

sermon on what human beings might be capable of accomplishing

if only they weren't human.

President Bush has stated that the survival of our liberty depends on its expansion throughout the world and America must actively construct those institutions. In 2000, Candidate Bush rejected nation building. I prefer Candidate Bush.

It is up to the Iraqi people--and not us--to determine their fate and how they govern themselves. That is why in 2003 I proposed that the Administration loan and not grant $20 billion for Iraqi infrastructure. We weren't rebuilding things we destroyed during the war. Rather, we were attempting to build an infrastructure degraded and neglected by the Hussein regime. I wanted the Iraqi people from oil proceeds--and not Americans--to build, fund, and protect their assets. As T.E. Lawrence noted in an earlier era:

Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the

Arabs do it tolerably that you do it perfectly: It is their

war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.

Actually, also under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your

practical work will not be as good, perhaps, as you think it

is.

Having said that, I cannot support Representative Skelton's resolution. Nothing better illustrates America's democratic institutions than for this body to have a full and open debate about this war. We are a strong and outspoken people. This Chamber has witnessed similar debates at crucial times in our past. I hope the Commander in Chief will recognize the desires and concerns of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives.

But America has only one and not 535 Commanders in Chief. We cannot micromanage the conduct of a war. Representative Skelton's resolution cannot bring good. Rather, it sends horribly mixed signals to our troops who must solely focus on carrying out their assigned and dangerous mission. Once a decision has been made and a mission assigned, this body should support the troops and their one Commander in Chief as Representative Sam Johnson's resolution would. We should deny the enemy encouragement and provide resolve to our servicemen and women.

Critics of tactics who resort to a Congressional Resolution tell our servicemen and women and their families--intentionally or not--that their mission is futile. When we undermine hope, we undermine resolve and reduce the likelihood of success. As Senator Lieberman has stated: such a resolution would ``give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression that the American people are divided.'' Or as Army Sergeant Daniel Dobson expressed:

Most service members would tell you the same thing: There

is no honor in retreat . . . and there is no honor in what

the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to the core to

think that Americans would rather sell their honor than fight

for a cause. Those of us who fight for [peace] know all too

well that peace has a very bloody price tag.

Instead, the responsible thing for this Democratic Congress would be to propose a new way forward, new tactics, and new strategies--not just in Iraq but in the war on terror. Speaker Sam Rayburn famously remarked: ``Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.'' No carpenters are at work with this resolution.

God bless our troops. God bless their Commander in Chief. And God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, these are real e-mails from veterans, active duty members, and National Guard and Reservists:

``John, my son, a Marine gunny sergeant embedded with the Iraqi Army around Rimadi, called a few weeks ago. I asked him if he knew about the President's plan for more troops. He hadn't heard about it, but his only comment to me was `We can use them.' Please support the President and the troops. It may be our last, best chance to win this thing. Winning is the imperative. Semper Fi.''

And another: ``We have to let our generals be generals and wage this war as only they are trained to do and have hope that the announced troop buildup will be the final key that is needed by the Iraqis to build a secure, united country.''

We have to hope that it is not too late for the U.S. to make a difference in Iraq.''

Another: ``We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed.''

Still another: ``My fellow Guardsmen are ready. We will do whatever is asked of us. Please ensure that the resources, funds and equipment continue to flow. Supporting the troops means giving us the means to do our job.''

And another: ``We also need to stay in Iraq and put forth the necessary will and resources that will allow our strategy to succeed.''

And another: ``Moreover, our troops need more open rules of engagement to do their job effectively.''

Another e-mail: ``Elections have consequences, and for our recent election the consequences have been a major setback in the war on terror and a greater threat to terrorist attack at home.''

Still another: ``Like Vietnam, our enemies view us as not having the stomach to fight a protracted war. If we withdraw, however, the credibility of the U.S., our military, and our assurances would be lost for years, probably decades.''

Another: ``The overwhelming response among officers is we must stay and finish what we have started. Many of these officers have built strong relationships with local Iraqi and Afghan citizens who want to raise their family in peace.''

Another: ``We do in fact have many more Iraqi Army and National Police units moving into Baghdad and many are effectively partnering with U.S. units.''

Another: ``They did pass their budget for 2007 last week,'' sooner than the U.S. Congress, incidentally, ``and have made some progress with other legislation, which indicates they can work some political compromises.''

I will end with this: ``I would hope that your colleagues would be able to continue to support what we are doing, because it honestly does have a reasonable chance at success.''

These are real communications with real soldiers, Active Duty, in Iraq, National Guardsmen, reservists, and veterans throughout our country who say there is no substitute for victory. We have to win this campaign. It is in our national security interest to support moderate Arab states.

John, my son, a Marine Gunny Sgt. imbedded with the Iraqi army around Rimadi, called a few weeks ago. I asked him if he knew about the President's plan for more troops. He hadn't heard about it, but his only comment to me was: ``We can use them!'' Please support the President and the Troops. Maybe our last, best chance to win this thing. Winning is the imperative. Semper Fi!

We have to let our generals be generals and wage this war as only they are trained to do, and have hope that the announced troop buildup will be the final 3 key that's needed by the Iraqis to build a secure and united country.

We have to have hope that it's not too late for the U.S. to make a difference in Iraq.

We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed.

The main effort is really the political reconciliation and the security of the population is the key precondition to that. The language and some action from the Iraqi government and Army leaders have been good in the past several weeks. The next several months will be critical--probably decisive--and I believe there is reason to be realistically hopeful.

I believe that what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan supports the NSS. What I have heard in the debate is that we no longer have a security interest in Iraq. What part of out NSS is to support moderate Muslim governments? Another part of the NSS addresses humanitarian rights, to include rights of women.

My fellow Guardsmen are ready. We will do whatever is asked of us. Please, ensure that the resources, funds and equipment, continue to flow. Supporting the troops means giving us the means to do our jobs.

We have not had a failed Iraq policy--we have just had overly optimistic expectations of how fast the Iraqis would be able to establish a stable government and a unified country that functions in a manner to our satisfaction. Ironically, we want the Iraqis to pursue a unity government and national reconciliation, but we don't do that ourselves. The partisanship that we are seeing here in the U.S. is no different that the partisanship that we are seeing in Iraq.

We also need to stay in Iraq and put forth the necessary will and resources that will allow our strategy to succeed. Imagine a Super Bowl football team quitting the game in the third quarter simply because they were behind. The premise is so absurd it is inconceivable so too would be our quitting a war to protect our way of life simply because battlefield conditions are not going perfectly.

Moreover, our troops need more open rules of engagement to do their job effectively. This is war, and they are soldiers, not police officers. The U.S. and Iraqi governments must expect civilian casualties and collateral damage. It's unavoidable. The irony in this matter is that most Iraqi people would welcome the increase security.

Elections have consequences. And for our recent election, the consequences have been a major set back in the war on terror and a greater threat to terrorist attack at home.

Like Vietnam, our enemies view us as not having the stomach to fight a protracted war. If we withdraw, however, the credibility of the U.S., our military, and our assurances would be lost for years, probably decades.

The Iraqis are watching all of this, and they can see which way the wind is blowing. They know if we leave either the Sunni insurgency or the Iranians would likely come in, and their newly gained freedoms would be lost. This reality shapes the thoughts and actions of all Iraqi officials, from Prime Minister al-Maliki, down to the police officers on the street.

Many Americans are in denial about the threat from radical Islam. Unfortunately, it may take another 9/11 before they wake up. God help us if one of our cities gets nuked when that happens.

The overwhelming response among officers is that we must stay and finish what we started. Many of these officers have built strong relationships with local Iraqi and Afghan citizens who want to raise their families in peace. They feel we have given our word as a country that we will stand by them. I agree with this sentiment.

Lincoln/Sherman figured out that to truly defeat the south, he had to march to Savannah to convince the locals that it was not worth continued conflict. WWII had similar actions for resolution like Hiroshima. While these were waged against conventional forces, Congress must understand that the current conflict is more than between insurgents and U.S./Coalition forces.

If we do not have the will to do this hard work, we need to get out now. We cannot continue to try to get the job done with the minimum force. If anything we should send more than we think we need. Our focus on being liberators has caused us to misjudge what is needed. You cannot liberate until you have gained control. We never got there and must do so now.

Speaking of which, my two cents. The most basic job of government is to protect its citizens. If the Surge is properly designed to do that, then it is a good idea. I say give it a chance, even though it should have been that way to begin with. From my experiences in Desert Storm '91, I firmly believe that most people, Middles Easterners included, just want to protect their family, practice their religion, and have an opportunity to prosper.

We have to be able to go after all the killers regardless of who or where they are. The Iraqi follow-on forces then have to maintain the peace, not bring in their individual hatreds to the power vacuum. Helping them secure their borders from fighters through Jordan and Syria and equipment from Iran is also critical (Navy and Air Force tasks with limited ground support?). Getting the ``Rule of Law'' established will eventually replace the need for ``Self Protection'' (Militias).

The biggest hurdle is at home. If the media continues its selective reporting (failures only), then even if its an unqualified success on the ground, it will be perceived as a loss at home due to its depiction on TV and Press reports. Tying Iraqis to a yardstick measuring success or failure seems to be a good idea.

Press the Senate not to pass the latest Resolution limiting support-- it is just a grand standing event for presidential hopefuls.

We do in fact have many more Iraqi Army and National Police units moving into Baghdad and many are effectively partnering with U.S. units.

They did pass their budget for 2007 last week (sooner than the U.S. Congress, incidentally) and have made some progress with other legislation, which indicates they can work some political compromises.

Everyone is forced to telescope political, economic, and security reforms that would normally take 7-10 years into 7-10 months.

So the question that you are debating is whether or not $100 billions (less than 0.8% GDP) and tragically, probably 700-900 U.S. soldiers' lives is worth a 50% chance of preventing a national security crisis that will set back U.S. policy for decades.

If you are the parent or spouse of one of those soldiers who may die, it is GD probably not worth it. But if you are a national leader, I would hope that your colleagues would be able to continue to support what we are doing because it honestly does have a reasonable chance of success.

Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement later, but right now I would like to introduce Congressman Geoff Davis from the State of Kentucky who was in the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and served this Nation as an assault helicopter flight commander in the 82nd Airborne Division, which is where I went through jump school, too, and I think he is well qualified to discuss this issue.

I would like to recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes.

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

You know, it is an honor to be here today joined by Members of Congress who have served this Nation nobly both in the Armed Forces and today as statesmen and -women in the United States House of Representatives.

You know, there are lots of ways people can serve this country. Dedicating time to the Armed Forces, the greatest military in the world, can be some of the most fulfilling time in one's life. I know, because I spent 29 years in the United States Air Force; got called up from my ROTC class at SMU and flew 62 combat missions in Korea in a plane I named after my wife, ``Shirley's Texas Tornado.''

In 1965, I left for my first tour in Vietnam, working for General Westmoreland in the headquarters. In 1966 I returned again. And while flying my 25th mission, I was shot down, landed in the middle of a division of North Vietnamese soldiers.

What followed for the next 2,494 days can only be described as hell on Earth, or as my friend and fellow POW, Jeremiah Denton did, blinked the letters of one word in Morse Code into a movie camera as a desperate plea for help. The letters made up the word ``torture.'' Of my nearly 7 years in captivity, I spent more than half of that time in solitary confinement.

As you can imagine, the North Vietnamese would say and do anything to break our will. The physical torture is not fit for describing as some of it is too graphic and too gory. There were many times that I would pray to God that I would pass out and slip into unconsciousness just to escape the pain if I couldn't escape the beatings.

Yet, what also scarred me for life was the emotional torture that the North Vietnamese broadcast to taunt us and break our wills. They constantly blared anti-American messages from back home over the loud speakers. The enemy knows that any anti-American murmur can be used as a weapon. And the same holds true today.

The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think that their Congress doesn't care about them, that they are going to cut the funding and abandon them and their mission. They want Congress to cave to the wishes of those who advocate a cut-and-run attitude. And we should not allow that to happen.

We must learn from our mistakes. We cannot leave a job undone like we left in Korea, like we left in Vietnam, like we left in Somalia.

Osama bin Laden said that ``in Somalia, the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat, and failure behind it.''

And we didn't blink an eye when the radicals bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia killing 20 and injuring 372; or after the Kenya embassy bombings that killed 213 people and injured 5,000; or that same day at the Tanzania embassy bombing killing 11 people and injuring 68. On October 12, 2000 the USS Cole bombing killed 17 and injured 39. And we all know how they tried to bring down the World Trade Towers and didn't stop until they completed the job September 11.

All of these tragedies of terrorism happened without a United States response.

We can't waver in our fight for freedom. We cannot abandon the bedrock of democracy; they are the brave and selfless men and women of our United States Armed Forces. We will stand up with them. We must stand up with them. And I will stand up with them in Congress, because they stand up for our freedom every minute of every day. They are the reason we call America the land of the free and the home of the brave. And I salute them.

Now, today I have the distinct privilege of managing time during this debate. Each person joining me is a shining example of duty, honor, country. And I know folks across America will learn a lot from hearing about their stories and hearing why they know firsthand freedom is not free.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the Representative from Virginia, Thelma Drake, who represents Norfolk and America's Navy.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico, who was a pilot in the United States Air Force, serving in the Philippines, received a Distinguished Flying Cross and an Air Medal before returning to the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Paul Gillmor, who is a United States Air Force veteran. And he was a judge advocate, so he knows some of the legal problems involved in this thing. I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Dave Camp, a fellow Member of Congress from Michigan, and a fellow member of the Ways and Means Committee, one of the ranking members.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the great Congressman from the State of Minnesota, an ex- Marine, John Kline.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to Representative John Shimkus from Illinois. He is an ex-Army Academy graduate and served in the United States Army and still is in the Reserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to correct something. We are not occupying Iraq. We are helping the Iraqi government, who has complete control over there trying to win this battle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to our new representative from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, at this time we would like to allow 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Tom Feeney.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to the chairman of our Republican Study Committee, Mr. Jeb Hensarling from Texas, 5\1/2\ minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Garrett from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Todd Akin from Missouri.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Michigan, Tim Walberg.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jim Jordan.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Mr. Peter Roskam from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho, Bill Sali.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Virginia, Virgil Goode.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma, Mary Fallin.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, in closing, we have heard a lot of excellent presentation points today. I might just clarify the fact that the study group did recommend a surge in one part, and the President has eliminated the rules of engagement that we had laid on our troops over there, so we have a way to make this thing really happen.

I really want to know, if the Democrats insist they are supporting our troops, why they would not let me introduce my measure that mandates that Congress would support and fully fund the men and women in uniform.

I am positive that Democrats will attempt to cut funding as soon as the spending bills come up this spring, and maybe earlier, because there was a press conference earlier today that indicated exactly that.

I fear what that means for our troops on the ground, for their morale. The reality is that President Bush realized he needed to change the course in Iraq, and that is why he worked with folks on the ground in Iraq to hear fresh ideas and came up with a new plan.

The President wants change and that is why he changed the rules of engagement, enabling our guys to shoot at any suspected terrorists. The President wants change. That is why he removed political protections of all insurgents, so all of the bad guys could be brought to justice regardless of who they knew or who they worked for.

These ideas are huge breakthroughs and real solutions. These ideas represent fresh starts and new plans. What is the Democratic plan to move forward and win? They do not have one. Thirty-six hours of political grandstanding, nonbinding resolutions and petty posturing, they are not proposing solutions. They are not even encouraging new ideas. In fact, they stop them like when they squashed my amendment.

Many hope that the troop surge is the beginning of the end. We should all want that if it gets the job done. Yet the Democrats just say no. You know, the time will come when you can put the money behind these nonbinding resolutions. You better believe we will be watching and calling for those funding cuts loud and clear. America needs to know, cutting funds for our troops in harm's way is not a remedy. It is a ruse.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and yield the balance of my time to the next moderator, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63 which opposes the President's decision to deploy 21,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

I am also here to specifically honor the Broward County Veterans Council, who recently adopted a resolution concerning the war in Iraq. The Broward County Veterans Council represents a host of veterans groups throughout Broward County, Florida, including the Broward chapters of the American Legion, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Fleet Reserve, Gold Star Mothers, Italian American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Marine Corps League, Navy League Council, The Order of the Purple Heart, The Paralyzed Veterans Association, Reserved Officers Association, Retired Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and World War I Barracks.

The Broward County Veterans Council led by its Chairman, Bill Kling, adopted this resolution unanimously on January 16, 2007. And the spirit of this resolution is as follows:

Whereas, the President of the United States has put forth a plan to the American people and to Congress which calls for an escalation of 20,000 or more of our troops going to Iraq to combat the insurrection in Baghdad and the Anbar province; and

Whereas, the majority in Congress has put forth several plans that do not include an escalation of combat troops; and

Whereas, the American people have made it clear they want a new direction in Iraq and Afghanistan; and

Whereas, the administration's attempts to escalate the war previously by sending additional troops to Iraq have unfortunately failed to stop the bloodshed between the Sunnis and the Shia;

Therefore, the Broward County Veterans Council believes that the best plan is to bring troops home in a phased redeployment so that we may get them out of harm's way.

Veterans groups, along with families across my district, are very concerned about the direction this war has taken and are demanding a change in strategy.

To President Bush their message is loud and clear: This war has been mismanaged, the strategies for success have failed; our national and personal security interests, most importantly, are not being enhanced and in fact may be undermined. And, therefore, they overwhelmingly oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Traveling through my district, people in South Florida are demanding that Congress ask the tough questions concerning our policy in Iraq. Well, we have asked these tough questions, and I along with many of my fellow Members of this House, both Democrats and Republicans, have come to the same conclusion: The President's plan to increase troops is wrong.

The administration has based this plan in part on the readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces to stand up and take control. I have heard nothing from our military experts that would indicate that the Iraqi troops are anywhere near prepared to bring order to this troubled country.

General Colin Powell recently told the associated press, and I quote, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad, for the purposes of suppressing this violence, this civil war, will work.''

And four-star General Barry McCaffrey called the President's surge plan last month, ``a fool's errand.''

These are some of the experts we should be listening to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, as the civil war in Iraq spirals out of control, as Iraqi Security Forces continue to be ill-prepared, and as we continue to alienate our allies around the world, what warrants this administration to continue on the same path in Iraq and add more troops? So far, nothing.

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops in the middle of a growing civil war. We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops when, as it is, our military is already stretched too thin. And because our military is already dangerously pushed to the limit, we have put ourselves in the precarious position of dealing with real threats like Iran, while at the same time protecting our allies like Israel and some other Middle Eastern friends.

For these reasons, I am advocating for a plan, as others are, devised by our military experts that supports a phased withdrawal of our troops. But while our brave men and women in uniform are serving, it is critical that we provide them nothing less than the best protection and support. We have more than a responsibility to support our troops; we have a solemn obligation, and that obligation extends to asking the tough questions and getting our policy right.

In honor of the Broward County Veterans Council and the veterans living in Palm Beach County, in recognition of their heroism and commitment to our country, I support this resolution

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of H.R. 63, which opposes the President's decision to deploy 21,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq.

I am also here today to specifically honor the Broward County Veterans Council, who recently adopted a resolution concerning the war in Iraq.

The Broward County Veterans Council represents a host of veteran groups throughout Broward County, FL, including the Broward chapters of the American Legion, Am Vets, the Disabled American Veterans, the Fleet Reserve, the Gold Star Mothers, the Italian American Veterans, the Jewish War Veterans, the Marine Corps League, the Navy League Council, the Order of the Purple Heart, the Paralyzed Veterans Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the Retired Officers Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the World War I Barracks.

The Broward County Veterans Council, led by its chairman, Bill Kling, adopted this resolution unanimously on January 16, 2007.

The spirit of their resolution is as follows:

Whereas the President of the United States has put forth a

plan to the American people and to Congress which calls for

an escalation of 20,000 or more of our troops going out to

Iraq to combat the insurrection in Baghdad and the Anbar

province; and

Whereas, the majority in Congress has put forth several

plans that do not include escalation of combat troops; and

Whereas, the American people have made it clear they want a

new direction in Iraq and Afghanistan; and

Whereas, the administration's multiple attempts to escalate

the war by sending additional troops to Iraq have

unfortunately, failed to stop the bloodshed between the

Sunnis and the Shiites.

Therefore, the Broward County Veterans Council believes

that the best plan is to bring our troops home, in a phased

redeployment, so that we may get them out of harm's way.

Veterans groups, along with families across my district, are very concerned about the direction this war has taken and are demanding a change in strategy.

To President Bush, their message is loud and clear: This war has been mismanaged, and the strategies for success have failed; our national and personal security interests are not being enhanced and in fact, may be undermined. Therefore, they overwhelmingly oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Traveling through my district, people in south Florida are demanding that Congress ask the tough questions concerning our policy in Iraq.

Well, we have asked those tough questions and I, along with many of my fellow Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have come to the same conclusion: The President's plan to increase troops in Iraq is wrong.

This administration has based this plan in part on the readiness of the Iraq security forces to stand up and take control. I have heard nothing from our military experts that would indicate that the Iraqi troops are anywhere near prepared to bring order to this troubled country.

GEN Colin Powell recently told the Associated Press: ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.''

And four-star GEN Barry McCaffrey called the President's surge plan last month ``a fools errand.''

These are the experts we should be listening to.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you--as a civil war in Iraq spirals out of control, as Iraqi security forces continue to be ill-prepared and as we continue to alienate our allies across the world--What warrants this administration to continue on the same path in Iraq and add more troops?

So far, nothing

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops into the middle of a growing civil war.

We have no business sending over 21,000 additional troops to Iraq when as it is, our military is already stretched too thin.

And because our military is already dangerously pushed to the limit, we have put ourselves in a precarious position dealing with real threats like Iran, while at the same time, protecting our allies like Israel and other Middle East countries.

For these reasons, I am advocating for a plan, devised by our military experts, that supports a phased withdrawl of our troops.

But while our brave men and women in uniform are serving, it is critical that we provide them nothing less than the best protection and support. We have more than a responsibility to support our troops--we have a solemn obligation. And that obligation extends to asking the tough questions and getting our policy right.

In honor of the Broward County Veterans Council and the veterans living in Palm Beach County, in recognition of their heroism and commitment to our country, I support this resolution.