Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our leader from the Homeland Security Committee for yielding.

No congressional decision is more difficult than a vote related to war, and this vote is no different. It is especially difficult when you disagree with the President of your own political party.

I voted to support this war because I believe Iraq presented a direct threat to the United States. Iraq had, was developing, and was attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq was, at a minimum, cooperating with the funding and harboring of terrorists committed to our destruction. Saddam Hussein was repeatedly defying U.N. resolutions, contesting no-fly zones and blocking WMD inspectors. Our intelligence estimates, never 100 percent accurate, in any case, apparently overstated the immediate risk.

But the basic facts remain the same. Knowing what we know now, perhaps we could have waited another 6 to 12 months, which would have given us valuable time to solidify position in Afghanistan. But the decision to go to war was still the right decision, just possibly premature.

I would not have supported this war had the initial selling point been a goal of establishing democracy in Iraq. Advancing freedom has always been an ideological goal of our Nation ever since our founding. We have long supported, from the days of Jefferson and Monroe, the causes of dissident freedom fighters. We did this in occupied Eastern Europe, in Saddam's Iraq and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.

But there is a difference between aiding people fighting for freedom and doing most of the fighting for them. I stated from the beginning that after removing the direct threat of the Saddam government, it would be in our national security interests if a republican form of government, a unity government respecting the rights of others, could be established in Iraq. If this government of diverse Iraqis could prevail,

it would be a model for the entire region. We needed to give them a chance for self-governance. But, and this is a big qualifier, it would ultimately be their decision, not ours.

On the news we often see Iraqis saying that Americans need to do this or that to provide security. Men and women from Fort Wayne and the rest of Indiana and America can do most of the fighting for the freedom of Iraq only for so long. It is the Iraqis' country.

We should have known this would not be easy. It is self-evident that democracy in the Muslim world is not common now nor in the past. A little bit hubris and more humility when we sent our soldiers into this conflict would have been helpful. This is not just hindsight. For example, the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Richard Lugar, raised concerns over and over again that pre-planning was insufficient.

Certain basic arguments being made by the administration are simply not accurate. To insist that the war in Iraq is not a civil war when the entire world and the Americans all understand that it is, continues to undermine the credibility of those who make it.

From the beginning, it had elements of a civil war. The Sunnis had persecuted the majority Shia as well as the Kurds. Vengeance was inevitable. The United States correctly demanded that the sectarian militias be eliminated from the Iraqi national police and the military. I, like many other Members, was asked by the administration to deliver such messages to Iraqi government officials during my visits to Iraq.

Our government knew full well that a civil war was going on, even among people we selected to run the government. We had hoped that the early smaller scale civil war could be countered by a strong central government. It is now a large scale civil war, eroding the already limited power of the Iraqi Government. It is now absurd to deny it is a civil war.

Making exaggerated statements of progress in Iraq also does not pass the basic credibility test. While we have made sporadic progress, a school or a project here and there, it is apparent to any Member of Congress who visited Iraq a number of years ago and again recently visited that security has deteriorated.

Baby boomer Americans especially tend to see everything as Vietnam. A government that denies basic realities has little hope of persuading even its friends. We want our government to tell the truth, pleasant or not. These facts are foundational to the fundamental question currently before us.

It is not whether a surge can root out terrorists. Our brave men and women can do this in door-to-door bloody combat, if necessary, and we may be able with extra troops to stabilize some areas temporarily. But then what? The President has also said that unlike past efforts, this time we will hold our gains. With whom? With what?

This is the basic underlying issue. Assuming some militias are defeated and others just melt away, how do we plan to keep them from coming back? Is the surge permanent? Even if it were so, far fewer troops are required to root out terrorists than to hold gains. Will we need tens of thousands of additional soldiers to hold any gains?

The obvious premise offered by the President is that the Iraqis themselves can hold the gains. Based upon everything we have seen to date, other than in isolated cases, there is no evidence that the Iraqis will fight and die to defend their central government. I have repeatedly heard from returning soldiers that when the gunfire starts the Iraqis by and large disappear. They only seem dedicated when Shia get to kill Sunnis and vice versa.

By being bogged down as the main security force in Iraq and increasingly hostile cities, we are undermining our long-term potential to fight the war on terror.

For years, we have now been utilizing our National Guard and our Reserves as if they were regular military. Many are about to enter their second 12-month-plus tour of duty in combat, something historically many regular military veterans did not do. Because of the heavy usage, we are starting to short training funds and repair funds for those units. We are finding that employers are getting increasingly nervous about disruptions to their firms. Family objections are becoming more intense. Recruiters are running into increasing resistance.

As for our overused regular military, they are facing near exhaustion. What will be the long-term impact on these forces? What impact will this continued burning up of huge sums of military dollars do to our long-term ability to fight?

It has been said many times by defenders of this surge that Iraq is the place the enemy has chosen to fight, and this is the place that we must fight. That is partly true. Hezbollah has chosen to fight us on many fronts. Iran is a threat itself, not just in funding Iraq. Terrorists attacked in Madrid, London, Afghanistan, Pakistan and many other places throughout the world, and they continue to try to attack us in the United States. Iraq is not the only place terrorists have chosen to fight.

Furthermore, we face threats from North Korea, as the new Castro, Hugo Chavez, presents other challenges. We are sobered by the recent destruction of a satellite by China, potentially the most significant threat we face.

If we burn up the support of the American people, our military's ability to recruit, the usage of our Guard and Reserves in Iraq, how do we defend ourselves elsewhere?

It is not that this effort in Iraq is a failure, as some liberals claim. We have seen the governments in Libya and Pakistan significantly alter their ways when it comes to supporting terrorists. Hostile governments that harbor terrorists have to ask themselves whether it is worth the risk of military action by the United States, something Iran appears to be debating. And, most importantly, this fact is indisputable: Since 9/11, terrorists have not succeeded in any attacks on American soil.

Because of the bravery and valor of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have disrupted the terrorists' ability to gather and plan new methods of attacking us. If they surface, we get them.

During this period, we have had time to make significant progress in homeland security. While you may have heard that our Southwest border is not exactly airtight, progress certainly has been made. Every month we make additional progress. Our airports are more secure. Our ports are more secure. The PATRIOT Act has given us the ability to track and hunt down terrorists. We have improved both inside the U.S. and around the world our ability to track finances, communications and movement of terrorists.

The sacrifice of our brave men and women in the military and their families bought the United States Government valuable time to further prepare our domestic and worldwide ability to cope with terrorism. We will never achieve 100 percent success. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq took the battle to them, rather than requiring us to fight at home.

But we cannot sustain this intense effort indefinitely. Complete victory over terrorism is unlikely ever to occur. Sometimes you have to reposition and prepare for the broader battle, not exhaust yourself on just one front and then risk defeat in the overall conflict.

I beseech our President, Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice and others, never to give up the war on terrorism, but to understand that without significant tactical drawdowns in Iraq our entire counterterrorism and military efforts are threatened. Our Nation can ill afford another decade of defeatism and retreat that seized the United States after Vietnam.

All this said, I am going to vote ``no'' on the resolution. The resolution is no surge protection. The battle has already begun. Most of us have individually clearly stated our views and continue to do so.

For the United States Congress as a corporate body to deliver a public rebuke to the Commander in Chief during a battle that is already commenced would potentially put our soldiers at additional risk and confuse the world.

It is one thing for us to argue about strategy and tactics. It is another to have Congress openly defy the President. The world already knows we have deep divisions in America. The terrorists already know we disagree. But they also need to know that when the

fight starts, as Americans we stand united.

The fact is while I do not believe that the surge will succeed, none of us actually knows that it will not work. At this point it seems to me that our position as a Congress should be to encourage success in this mission. We need to support the Iraqis as they take increasing responsibility. What the world should see from us at least is shared hope for victory, not defeatism.

But the President does need to understand that opposition to the surge is not just among Democrats. It is even among his strongest supporters. Some of us who deeply share his passion to fight terrorism fear that he is potentially endangering his past successes, as well as our Nation's ability to continue the war on terror beyond this administration.

I hope and pray that the surge succeeds. But if it does not, we need to try a dramatically different approach that does not totally abandon Iraq, the region or the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Yesterday, a number of Members on the Republican side of the aisle sought to belittle the legislation before us because, in addition to funding the needs of the troops in Iraq, it contains money to address a number of domestic priorities. To ridicule that legislation, they tried to belittle items such as funding for levees in New Orleans, and agriculture disaster payments. In that they have been joined by editorial writers at papers such as the Washington Post.

Like the Post, the Republican speakers of yesterday indicated that their main objection to this legislation is the way it tries to create pressure to end our military involvement in an Iraq civil war. Those speakers and the Washington Post editorial writers make no effort to understand why these additional items are there. They simply ridicule them for their own purposes. This bill has my name on it, and I take full responsibility for each and every item in the bill.

Despite the comments of my good friend from California suggesting that if I could have written this bill, it would have been quite different, this is not a bill that was imposed from Nancy Pelosi's Speaker's Office. Oh, yes, she was consulted. But every last provision in this bill was not included until I personally approved of it, and I take full responsibility for it.

I want to be very clear about some of the items that the editorial writers and certain Members of this House have been criticizing.

Let's start with agriculture. I haven't voted for a farm bill in the last 10 years because I believe that existing farm programs provide way too much funding for large farmers and way too little funding for family farmers. But the fact is that over the past 2 years, over 70 percent of the counties in this country were declared disaster areas, not by me, but by the President of the United States. That entitles farmers who have suffered that weather-related disaster to certain forms of compensation.

The previous Congress tried to work its way through that problem for well over a year and failed. We at one time this year were looking at a bill in the Senate costing $6 billion. Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson on this side of the Capitol, the cost of those agriculture disaster programs have been cut by one-third, by tightening up eligibility requirements.

I applaud him for making those changes.

There is a second criticism being made about the fact that there is some money in here for dairy. You bet there is. Because under the Republican stewardship, during the last Congress, or two Congresses ago, actually, in order to use an accounting gimmick, the then majority on the Agriculture Committee arranged to have the dairy program expire one month before every other farm program. That was done only for budget fiction purposes, to hide the true cost of the farm bill 5 years ago. You bet, in this legislation there is a 1-month fix so that when we go into writing the next farm bill, dairy will have a chance to compete with other farm programs.

I find the Washington Post criticism of this especially interesting, since they often squawk about the fact that farm programs give too much to large farmers. The MILC Program happens to focus on small farmers, which is why so many big farmers don't like the program. I make no apology for recognizing that is an inequity that needs to be fixed.

Then we have a squawk about spinach. Let me tell you why spinach is in here. You can laugh about it now, but people were dying last year because of an E. coli outbreak.

Now, the FDA did not have the authority to require mandatory recalls of spinach. What some of these companies did, despite the fact that their product was clean, they voluntarily withdrew their product from the market. That cost them a bundle and brought a lot of people to near bankruptcy.

I have heard a lot of conservatives on this floor talk about how outrageous it is when the government engages in an unconstitutional taking. They usually are talking in terms of land or environment. Doesn't the government that required or that asked these people to participate in the withdrawal in order to protect public health, doesn't that government have an obligation to people who exercise their patriotic duty and did what they were asked? I think they do. That is why this is in here.

Then they are squawking about aquaculture. Well, let me explain why that item is in the bill. In eight States in the union, fish farmers woke up one morning and discovered that the Federal Government had issued an edict which prevented them from transferring their product across State lines because lake trout, in the Great Lakes region, had been discovered to have viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a highly virulent fish disease. If it was allowed to get into lakes, in the Great Lakes, it could have ruined the entire fish supply. So, the government said you can't sell your fish across State lines.

Again, the problem was that the fish that they were prohibited from shipping across State lines was all healthy. In a catch-22 situation, if their fish had been diseased, they could have collected under disaster programs. But because they were healthy, they couldn't collect. So the government put those people out of business.

Does the government have an obligation to correct that problem? You better bet you they do. That is why it is in this bill.

There are some other items in the bill as well that people don't like. But the main frustration on the part of the opponents of this bill is because people don't like the way that we are going about trying to end our military participation in an Iraqi civil war.

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like the Washington Post, it is that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this Chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of the Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines.

What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians, that we are going to end the permanent, long-term babysitting service. That is what we are trying to do.

If the Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that is just too bad. But we are in the arena, they are not. This is the best we can do, given the tools we have, and I make absolutely no apology for it.

I would say one thing, those of us who voted against the war in the first place wouldn't have nearly as hard a time getting us out of the war if people like the Washington Post and those who criticized us on the floor yesterday hadn't supported going into that stupid war in the first place

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that we could do as the distinguished speaker has indicated and simply rubber-stamp what the administration asks for and do nothing else. But the fact is, what we are doing is exercising our responsibilities to provide checks and balances; Congress has every right to limit the terms and conditions under which appropriations are made, especially in wartime.

I would also point out that lest there be any doubt for the support of the troops, in addition to all of the funding that Mr. Murtha has put in his section of the bill to meet the everyday combat and readiness needs of the troops, we have $1.7 billion above the President's request for veterans health care; we have another $1.7 billion above the President's request for defense health care. I think that makes quite clear that if you are concerned about the troops and concerned about the veterans, you will vote for this bill.

I will now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The fact is that an earmark is something that is requested by an individual Member. This item was not requested by any individual Member; it was put in the bill by me. And it is there because we are simply doing the same thing with this facility that we are doing throughout the gulf coast, which is to make investments that mitigate against risk because of hurricanes.

This is a valuable Federal facility, and it certainly does not pass any definition of earmark that I know. I know the gentleman wants to see earmarks in every closet that he can find, but the fact is it is not an earmark. It was not asked for by any Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the characterization just placed on the previous speaker is flat out wrong.

Last night we had plenty of time for a lot of Members who didn't show up before the session expired. We called the gentleman from Ohio's office twice to inform him he had time available last night even though he was opposed to our position. He wasn't in a position to take it last night. So I would suggest that we have a different set of speakers today. We called on four Members of the caucus last night who were opposed to our position. And if the gentleman is suggesting that we have not called on Members who are opposed to our position, he is just flat out wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

With all due respect, we called your office twice last night, and we were informed that you had already gone home.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, today, as we embrace the grave responsibility of debating an issue that will have profound impact on future American generations, it seems very appropriate to remind ourselves of the ideal that gave birth to this Nation in the first place. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether we realize it or not, most of the important discussions in this Chamber, including the one in this moment, center around whether we still believe those words.

In these hours, America finds herself at war with an expressively dangerous ideology that is the antithesis of those words and everything that is the American ideal. What concerns me most is that this war between an ideology committed to the absolute death to destroy freedom and subjugate the entire world, and the world's free people who still remain primarily asleep.

Mr. Speaker, this ideological war did not begin on 9/11. It began many years ago when certain Muslim extremists embraced a divergent Islamist dogma that dictates that all infidels must die. It was called then as it should be called now, jihad.

Thomas Jefferson was the first American President to send U.S. military force to war against Islamist jihad. The Marine hymn begins, ``From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli,'' the latter being a reference to Jefferson's war against the Islamist Barbary pirates based in Tripoli, in present day Libya.

This is the same jihadist ideology that murdered Israeli athletes in 1972, that took American hostages in Iran, that murdered Marines in their barracks in 1983, that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the embassy in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and that brutally murdered scores of little schoolchildren on opening day in Beslan, Russia.

And then, Mr. Speaker, this same dark ideology massacred nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11.

The ideology and practice of Islamist jihad is decapitating humanitarians with hacksaws on television while the victims scream for mercy, cowardly hiding behind women and children while launching rockets deliberately targeting innocent civilians, continually breaking treaties of peace, and forcing children to blow themselves to pieces to affect the murder of other innocents, and this, as their own mothers leap for joy as they do.

As we anticipate future actions of jihadists, we should all consider very carefully. Al Qaeda's al-Zawahiri said: ``The jihad movement is growing and rising. It reached its peak with the two blessed raids on New York and Washington. And now it is waging a great heroic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and even the crusaders' own homes.''

Al-Manar said on BBC: ``Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan, America, is absolute. Regardless of how the world has changed after September 11, death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.''

Al-Zarqawi said of America's leaders: ``They are aware that if the Islamic giant wakes up, it will not be satisfied with less than the gates of Rome, Washington, Paris, and London.''

Al-Muhajir, Osama bin Laden's latest lieutenant in Iraq, said: ``The fire has not and will not be put out and our swords, which have been colored with your blood, are thirsty for more of your rotting heads.''

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, said, ``We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are most vulnerable. The Jews love life; so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.''

And then, Mr. Speaker, we hear a Democrat Member of this body say, ``The savagery of terrorists is not relevant.'' Even the most senior Democrat in this House is quoted as saying ``I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.''

Mr. Speaker, a blind relativism that deliberately ignores all truth and equates merciless terrorism with free nations defending themselves and their innocent citizens is more dangerous to humanity than terrorism itself, and it is proof that liberals completely misunderstand the enemy that we face.

Osama bin Laden's deputy, al-Zawahiri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book ``Knights Under the Prophet's Banner,'' al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. He wrote, quote, ``Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority established on Muslim land. Without achieving this, our actions will mean nothing.''

Mr. Speaker, such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West.

Bin Laden himself once again has stated: ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.''

Mr. Speaker, the terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And if we are to understand our enemy and this war, we must understand that Iraq is the central front in our war against jihad. Our courageous and noble soldiers understand that very well and our enemy definitely understands that.

Osama bin Laden himself has said, ``The most important and serious issue today for the world is this Third World War . . . It is raging in the land of the two rivers, Iraq. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.''

Mr. Speaker, if Democrats are correct that the struggle in Iraq is not crucial to the winning of the war against Islamist jihad, then for God's sake I wish they would explain that to the terrorists.

Brink Lindsey has put it all so succinctly. He said, ``Here is the grim truth: We are only one act of madness away from a social cataclysm unlike anything our country has ever known. After a handful of such acts, who knows what kind of civilization breakdown might be in store?''

Mr. Speaker, we simply can no longer deny that we are fighting a war against an insidiously dangerous and evil ideology that is bent on the destruction of the Western world, and they would like nothing better than to decapitate this country by detonating a nuclear blast 100 yards from here. And to allow jihadists to declare victory in Iraq will only serve to hasten such a day.

Mr. Speaker, the free nations of the world once had opportunity to address the insidious rise of the Nazi ideology in its formative years when it could have been dispatched without great cost. But they delayed, and the result was atomic bombs falling on cities, 50 million people dead worldwide, and the swastika's shadow nearly plunging this planet into Cimmerian night.

Winston Churchill's words of warning far preceded such tragic events. He said, ``If you will not fight when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse moment. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is still better to perish than to live as slaves.''

If so-called enlightened Germans fell prey to the Nazi ideology, why do we not believe Third World Muslims can also fall prey in large numbers to this jihadist ideology? History does indeed repeat itself, Mr. Speaker, and each time the price goes up.

Jihadists believe they have a critical advantage over free people in the world. They believe their will is far stronger than ours and that they need only to persevere to break our resolve. Mr. Speaker, the message of this resolution has only encouraged them in that belief.

So today in this Chamber, we each have some grave questions to ask ourselves, and the answers will profoundly affect future American generations. We need to ask ourselves first, not whether the Nation should have gone to war but whether the Nation should lose this war.

Will jihadists break the will of the world's free people or not? Will they be able to hide long enough to gain access to nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction? If we do allow nations like Iran to gain nuclear weapons, what will we tell our children when they face nuclear jihad, perhaps even in this generation? If liberals in this body are willing to see freedom defeated in Iraq, are they willing to take responsibility for what will almost certainly follow? If this entire Nation was riveted and heartbroken when two airplanes hit two buildings in New York, how will we

feel when an entire American city is in nuclear flames?

If Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats are willing to vote against monitoring terrorist conversations on the telephone, or tracking their financial transactions, or protecting our border from terrorist insurgency, or effectively interrogating terrorists in custody, or sending reinforcements to our troops on the battlefield, then the question that cries for an answer is what are they willing to do to defeat Islamic terrorism? What is their plan?

Mr. Speaker, there is no substitute for victory. If we surrender Iraq to Islamist jihadists, we will supercharge their recruitment efforts in the Middle East and all over the planet, and our children will pay an unspeakable price, and history will condemn this generation for unspeakable irresponsibility in the face of such an obvious threat to human peace.

So, Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this resolution, may we consider carefully the words of Abraham Lincoln as he sought to steel the resolve of Americans in another great and historic struggle. He said, ``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 last generation.

I would just like to say, it was interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about the principles articulated some years ago. They are reminiscent of the arguments I heard on this floor some 20 years ago when Ronald Reagan made the courageous decision to put medium range nuclear weapons into Europe, despite the protest of Europe, despite the protest of many on the other side, despite the fact we were told we were taking a unilateral step.

Sometimes it is difficult to make these decisions, and you can't always guarantee success. And if we always went by that argument, frankly, America would not be where it is today.

Let me begin with a note of bipartisanship, however. It goes without saying that we can all agree that things have not progressed as we wished they would in Iraq. Perhaps we could all agree with the characterization of the Iraq Study Group that the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. I think we can all agree that there was therefore a need for a change in the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq.

Not only has this happened, but we have a new Secretary of Defense and, as was stated on the floor just a moment ago, we have a new commander on the ground in Iraq.

It is at this point, however, that I am somewhat mystified by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Since the resolution of disapproval concerning this change in the direction of U.S. policy contains absolutely no alternative, it follows that its adoption represents a tacit endorsement for the policies which we all agree are not working. It is a simple, logical entailment that criticism of a change in policy without any concrete alternative is tantamount to the endorsement of the status quo. Thus, we find ourselves in the ironic situation that to support this resolution is to condone a policy that virtually everyone agrees has not been working.

We are telling our troops that we are sending a new commander. We are telling them by this resolution that we don't support what the new commander is doing. We are saying by this resolution we don't believe that the new plan will work. We are saying, Godspeed, we support you. But we are sending you on a fool's errand.

If you truly believe that, stand up here and have the guts to stop the program by cutting off the money. Take responsibility for your actions, which the Constitution allows you to do.

Let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the absence of any comprehensible policy objective leaves only one element of the resolution intact: Disapproval of the President. And this, in my estimation, is most unfortunate, for there was one thing on which I wish we could all agree. This should not be about George Bush. It is far more important than that.

Our response to the current state of affairs in Iraq will have dramatic consequences not only for the people in Iraq but for the security of the American people as well.

I believe we must resist the temptation to fight over matters which have long ceased to be of any relevance.

The question of whether we should have initially gone into Iraq is simply not the issue. The fact is that we are there, and that is the unpleasant but essential reality to which we must respond. It is not possible to pretend otherwise or to keep looking backward or to keep quoting things that were said in the past or to suggest that we shouldn't be where we are. We are there. It is of little solace to our troops to say, gee, we made a mistake in putting you there, and therefore we are going to pass a resolution of disapproval of what we are asking you to do now. What sense does that make? What sense at all does that make?

It should be acknowledged that findings concerning the absence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are not dispositive of the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. As Peter Berger, the only Westerner to conduct an interview on television with Osama bin Laden puts it, there is one thing that bin Laden and Bush agree on, says Peter Berger: that Iraq has become a central front in the war on terror. Berger, who did not support the decision to invade Iraq, warns of a potential repercussion at war's end that could make the blowback from the Afghan war against the Soviets look like high tea at the Four Seasons. This, in my estimation, is why it is so important that the impression not be given that our hand has been forced by Iraqi insurgents, notably al Qaeda of Mesopotamia.

If we have learned anything from the tragic events of the Khobar Towers, the Embassy bombings in East Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole, it is that the fanatics' perception of success only serves to embolden those who seek to kill us.

The extreme nature of this murderous mens rea is illustrated in an article in the London Telegraph which reports, ``A husband and wife arrested in the British terror raids allegedly planned to take their 6- month-old baby on a mid-air suicide mission, using the baby's milk bottle to hide a liquid bomb.'' The story is shocking on many levels, but perhaps so disturbing is that it shatters the belief that mothers and fathers share a common commitment to the future of their children.

We face an enemy which subscribes to an ideology rooted in a nihilistic culture of death. This contemporary version of the ``will to power'' seeks justification for a totalist world view through the abuse of a religion to camouflage its deeper roots.

As Paul Berman has chronicled in ``Terrorism and Liberalism,'' this fascist-like ideology arising out of the revisionism of Sayyid al Qutb taught that there was no middle ground and no possibility of compromise. Bin Laden became interested in a radical distortion of Islam from the fiery taped sermons of Abdullah Azzam, a disciple of al Qutb, and came to share Qutb's grim view of the world and used it to justify mass murder.

By the late 1980s, following the crackdown by the Egyptian Government on the extreme Islamist groups in response to the assassination of Sadat in 1981, many of the Islamic militants went into exile. It was through the presence of Egyptian Islamist teachers in Saudi Arabia that bin Laden and other al Qaeda members were influenced; most notably, Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader in the Egypt Islamic jihad.

Another avenue by which this totalist ideology was introduced to the Middle East via the Vichy Government of France during World War II, which despite its short shelf-life, infected the French mandated territory of Syria-Lebanon. It was during this time that the ideological foundations of the

Baathist Party were laid and a Nazi regime headed by Rahid Ali was set up in Iraq. During this same period, the mufti of Jerusalem was wined and dined by none other than Hitler himself.

The point is that there were some very dark influences on this region of the world which are still playing themselves out today. We cannot believe that our absence from this area will solve problems and allow us to retreat.

We must make no mistake about their intentions: They seek to kill us. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command, has left us with no ambiguity on the matter when he states that they have the right to kill 4 million Americans, 2 million of them children, and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. No, we must not give such people a misapprehension about any misguided notions they may have about their providential place in history.

Although our ultimate objective in Iraq is to hand over power in an orderly fashion to a duly constituted government, the manner in which we do so is of the highest order of importance. That is what I don't hear from the other side. It is not just the question of peace being the absence of war, it is what we will have in the aftermath. What kind of a world will we have in the Middle East? Will it be safer for our children and our grandchildren? Will the implications of our decisions be heard in history as something of which we will be proud, or will it be just that we got tired of the effort?

And if we believe that by absenting ourselves from the area, that solves problems, it has never been the case. It wasn't the case when we got out of Lebanon following the attack on our marines; it was not the case when we basically got out of the area after the USS Cole.

Again, independent of the origins of al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, the relevant point is how al Qaeda itself perceives the war there. It is their potential reaction to our Iraqi policy which has most relevance. In this regard, the intercepted letter sent by al-Zawahiri to al- Zarqawi is most important and has been mentioned on this floor many times. He said, We must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals.

The first stage: Expel Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, and then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of caliphate over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq and Sunni areas in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries of neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: Go after Israel.

It is, therefore, clear that regardless of how we might wish the situation to be, wishful thinking, as described in this resolution, is not a basis for policy.

Al Qaeda is present in Iraq, and they perceive it to be a central front in the war. It is simply not possible for us to pretend otherwise, as much as we would like it. This resolution does nothing to help us in this war against Islamic fascism. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I support our troops wholeheartedly and without reservation, but I cannot support a resolution that simply opposes a new strategy without offering any alternative plan to win. There is too much at stake.

Let us just think about where we are today as a country, about the global war we are in with people with intent to kill Americans and how that affects our strategy in Iraq. When considering this, we must consider our Nation's history and other difficult times of war.

There have been many bleak moments in America's history, battles we have been engaged in where American victory was far from certain.

In 1942, hell bent on dominating the world with his ideology, Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich systematically marched through Europe, taking the most basic freedoms from the Jewish people and killing millions. The United States entered World War II reluctantly and we were not ready for the hurdles we faced.

Don't forget, there were times when victory was far from certain. The outlook was grim. Many Americans and Europeans alive today can remember how bleak those times were as the war drug on and on and on. But we didn't give up. We persevered, because we knew there was too much at stake.

Eighty years before World War II, in 1862, President Lincoln faced a war that most believed could not be won. He faced vocal and unrelenting criticism for his resolve to win the Civil War. When the war began, Lincoln called for 74,000 troops for 90 days; 74,000 troops for 90 days. And history has showed us that Lincoln greatly underestimated the resources needed, because, as we know, over 620,000 soldiers were killed during that war.

At a time in our history when it might have been politically expedient to win the Civil War without first achieving victory, President Lincoln pressed on, constantly seeking a new strategy, until he found one that worked because so much was at stake.

Perhaps some of the resolve Lincoln displayed came from lessons he learned 15 years earlier when he entered a smaller battle. In 1848, Abraham Lincoln was an often criticized young

freshman Member of this body, the House of Representatives, and was facing a difficult point in his career. Lincoln criticized the reasons President Polk gave for getting us into the Mexican-American War, a war that began before Lincoln came to office, a position that I can identify with today as I stand here.

Then-Congressman Lincoln voted for a resolution that stated the Mexican-American War was ``unnecessarily and unconstitutionally'' initiated by President Polk. Lincoln thought the war was nothing more than a political move to grab land from the Mexican people.

My friends, it is legitimate and in fact our duty to question the reasons why our country goes to war, and Abraham Lincoln showed us that. However, he also showed us something else. Abraham Lincoln made an incredibly important distinction that we can learn from today.

A Lincoln biographer, Doris Kearns Goodwin, writes that after being criticized for that vote ``Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war he had never voted against supplies for the soldiers.''

This is an important point to make again. Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war he had never voted against supplies for the soldiers. Lincoln knew the damage of condemning a war while claiming to support the troops. Yet that is what this resolution before us does today.

During the American Revolution, the men and women who had become this country's first citizens were declared by the King of England to be in rebellion. The King sent soldiers across the Atlantic to quell the uprising.

In every war, it is the average citizen who stands up and fights for his neighbor's freedom. It is the same today. In response to the King of England's attack, again it was the average citizen who raised his hand, volunteered, stood up and fought for our freedom. A bookstore owner, the manager of an iron foundry and a land surveyor all stood and fought for our freedom. Those men were Henry Knox, Nathaniel Green and George Washington.

During America's War for Independence, it was not clear if we would prevail then. We lost battle after battle. Troops deserted the battlefields. General Washington and his deputies persevered, continuing to engage the enemy until the tide turned, because so much was at stake.

We are the United States of America today and we are free because General Washington refused to quit. We are the United States of America today and we are free because Abraham Lincoln refused to quit. And we are the United States of America today and we are free because Roosevelt and Truman refused to quit. And we are the United States of America today and we are free because of the sacrifice of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in Iraq, Afghanistan and all around the world, preserving our freedom.

Today, the United States is engaged in another war, and just as before we face an enemy that wants to destroy our way of life. Just as before we face an enemy that thinks it is winning. Just as before our country is divided. Just as before we are making mistakes. Just as before we face a moment of truth about what to do next. And just as before the consequences of losing are devastating.

The enemy is clear about what their intentions are by what they say and what they do. Al Qaeda and the global movement that it has spawned have made it clear they want nuclear and biological weapons. It is clear they want to kill us, Americans. Osama bin Laden has called acquiring nuclear weapons a ``religious duty.'' The fact is we are engaged in a global war with people intent on killing Americans, and regardless of how we got into Iraq, Iraq is now the central front of that war.

And yet while we debate this nonbinding resolution, what is really at stake is winning or losing. Like Lincoln, I was not in this office as the war began. I understand the arguments. I understand the questions. I have been asking questions, too, as an elected official in this body for the past 2 years, as a concerned citizen, and before that, as a veteran. I understand that there are many who think we should never have entered Iraq. We now know there was faulty intelligence that led to that decision.

But the war is upon us nonetheless. I am elected to deal with what is happening now. Will we succeed? Will we win? Just as at other moments in our history, those questions stand unanswered. The consequences of declaring an end to the war in Iraq without victory would be felt for decades. Our enemies around the world would be emboldened. Iran and al Qaeda would declare victory. Our allies in Iraq would certainly face bloodshed, and our allies around the world would question our resolve to help protect them.

Sergeant Eddie Jeffers is a U.S. Army infantryman serving in Ramadi, Iraq. Sergeant Jeffers has a firsthand appreciation for what is at stake in Iraq and our presence there and what it means to the Iraqi people.

He writes, ``We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: Safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them that opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor. We cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand and fight, whether in uniform or not. Right now the burden is all on the American soldier. Right now hope rides alone. But it can change. It must change, because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.''

Sergeant Jeffers' words hit at the heart of our present challenge in Iraq. Our current strategy in Iraq is failing, and yet failure is not an option. In November, the American people told us they wanted a new strategy, not because they wanted to lose, but because they wanted to win. Now we have a new strategy before us.

Is this new plan going to work? I don't know. No one in this body who is voting on this resolution knows.

What I do know is that we must find a way to achieve victory, and simply saying ``no'' to a new plan without offering up an alternative will not work and sends a terrible message to our enemies and our soldiers.

This is an historic war. America is engaged in a war for our freedoms on a scale that we have never experienced before. I understand the dissension, the questions and the uncertainty.

I understand the cost is high and the way is often unclear. I have served in law enforcement for 33 years. I understand the loss. I have lost partners and friends in the line of duty. I understand the cost of freedom and the sacrifices that must be made. The sacrifices are hard, they are tragic and they are never forgotten, but we must remain focused and not let those sacrifices be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. Lincoln warned us against tying a criticism of the war to support for our troops. Let us send a message to our enemies and our troops alike that we will always support our young men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedom.

Madam Speaker, in October of 2002 I worked meticulously with Members of the Congressional Black Caucus to craft a statement of principles that has proven to be so absolutely prophetic. Listen to what our 2002 principle said, and it will put in context why I feel so strongly that this war has taken us in the wrong direction and why this resolution is so necessary and worthy of our support.

First principle: ``We oppose a unilateral first strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States.''

My colleagues, history will record that the President took first strike action, and that there was neither a clearly demonstrated nor an imminent threat of attack on the United States.

Second principle: ``Only Congress has the authority to declare war.''

History will record that Congress delegated that authority to the President, but I say unapologetically that history will also record that I voted against that delegation of authority. I never believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; and, even if it did, I never believed that they posed any imminent threat to the United States.

Third principle: ``Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted.''

History will record that our President instead thumbed his nose at the United Nations and at almost all diplomatic options in his rush to lead us into this foolhardy war.

Fourth principle: ``A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, destabilize the Middle East region, and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities.''

The passage of time has demonstrated and history will record that every single one of these concerns was legitimate and warranted.

Fifth principle: ``Any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and require a long-term commitment.''

We haven't yet gotten to a level of stability that we are trying to maintain, but the cost of this war today exceeds $500 billion. That is costly and with no end in sight. If we continue to follow the President, the duration of our commitment has no end in sight and no plan to bring home or redeploy our troops.

Increasing the number of troops in Iraq does not make ending the war more foreseeable. Past troop increases in Iraq have paraded under different names than surge, but make no mistake about it, this is not the first time the United States will have increased troop levels, and each time they have been met with greater levels of violence.

From December of 2003 to April 2004, the troop increase paraded under the name ``troop rotation'' and resulted in an increase from 122,000 to 137,000 troops; yet April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for U.S. forces.

From November 2004 to March 2005, the increase paraded under the name ``improving counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive,'' or ``increasing security after January 2005.'' We increased our troop level to 150,000 troops; the result, no impact on violence increase. And again, September to December of 2005, we went to 160,000 troops, still no decrease in violence.

In most respects, what the President has proposed is business as usual, simply under a different name. It did not work before, and there is no prospect that it will work this time. Madam Speaker, this resolution is one that we should support and bring our troops home.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Resolution. Simply stated, as the Resolution says, I support the troops and I oppose the increase in the number of troops. Simply stated, I support a redeployment of the rest of our troops from Iraq as soon as possible.

But I can't go forward before I review how we got here in the first place. Looking back helps me to put a time perspective on this because this War is now approaching 5 years in duration, a period longer than the Second World War. And looking back also helps me to put a substantive perspective on this that I think is absolutely critical to an understanding of my vote.

It's gut wrenching for me to recall that as early as October 2002-- several months before the President proceeded to war in Iraq and long before I was later elected to serve the 2-year term that I have now completed as Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus--I worked meticulously with every single member of the Congressional Black Caucus to craft a Statement of Principles that have proven to be so absolutely prophetic. Listen to what our 2002 Principles said and it will put in context why I feel so strongly that this War has taken us in the wrong direction and why this Resolution is so necessary and worthy of support:

First 2002 Congressional Black Caucus Principle: ``We oppose a unilateral, first-strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States.'' My colleagues, history will record that the President took first strike action and that there was neither a clearly demonstrated nor an imminent threat of attack on the United States.

Second Principle: ``Only Congress has the authority to declare war.'' History will record that Congress delegated that authority to the President, but I say unapologetically that history will also record that I voted against that delegation of authority. I never believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and--perhaps more importantly--even if they did, I never believed that they posed any imminent threat to the United States. Saddam Hussein was a dastardly tyrant and bully toward his own people, but was a coward and no threat to the United States.

Third Principle: ``Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted.'' History will record that our President, instead, thumbed his nose at the United Nations and at almost all diplomatic options in his rush to lead us into this foolhardy war.

Fourth Principle: ``A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, destabilize the Middle East region and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities.'' The passage of time has demonstrated and history will record that every single one of those concerns was legitimate and warranted.

Fifth Principle: ``Any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and require a long-term commitment.'' We haven't yet gotten to a level of stability that we're trying to maintain, but the cost of this War to date exceeds $500 billion. That's ``costly'' and with no end in sight. If we continue to follow the President, the duration of our commitment has no end in sight and no plan to bring home or redeploy our troops.

Increasing the number of troops in Iraq does not make ending the War more foreseeable. It will only escalate the number of troops and the prospects of casualties and will likely only increase the resolve of the enemy, the same thing that increases in troop levels have done in the past. Past troop increases in Iraq have paraded under different names than ``surge''. But, make no mistake about it, this is not the first time the United States will have increased troop levels. And each time they have been met with greater violence.

From December of 2003 to April of 2004, the troop increase paraded under the name ``troop rotation'' and resulted in an increase from 122,000 to 137,000 troops. Yet April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for U.S. forces.

From November 2004 to March 2005, the increase paraded under the name ``improving counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive'' or ``increasing security before the January 2005 constitutional elections'' and increased troops to 150,000. Result: short term positive impact, but longer term increase in violence and resistance.

Between September and December 2005, troop levels were increased again, taking the

number up to 160,000, around the constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. The referendum and elections proceeded without major violence, but the increase had little long term impact on sectarian violence.

In most respects, what the President has proposed is business as usual, simply under a different name. It did not work before and there is little prospect that it will work this time.

Madam Speaker, this Resolution is our attempt to make it clear that we do not support a troop increase or an escalation of this War. I intend to vote for the Resolution. I just hope the President is listening.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I am just sick and tired of people telling us that we are unpatriotic and not supporting of the troops.

Mr. Speaker, my uncle said a generation ago: If we examine the history of the conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time, at every crisis, we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made once again for just one more step up the ladder. And once again the President tells us that we are going to win; victory is coming.''

My Uncle Robert Kennedy made this statement in March of 1968. It took another 5 years and 37,455 American lives before a United States President was withdrawing Americans out of Vietnam and stopping that war.

I am here tonight to say that the American people and this Congress are going to say ``no'' to this President when it comes to repeating that mistake.

There are those who will disparage this amendment and who say that this is a nonbinding resolution. But this resolution says that we are going to reject this President's doubling down on the gambling of American lives, and this foolish policy which has sent over 3,125 soldiers to their deaths, over 23,417 wounded soldiers back home, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis to their graves and countless more also injured.

We are saying in this resolution that we either have to start digging ourselves out of this hole, or we are going to start rueing the day when we have failed to act tonight to start changing course.

This administration's bullheaded insistence, bullheaded insistence on ideology over strategy is what has gotten us into this mess, and now that same stubbornness is counseling us to send still more soldiers and more Marines into an Iraqi civil war.

Our service men and women have been heroic. They have been confronted with repeated civilian failures of leadership, ill equipped and under equipped, and yet in increasingly untenable positions they have been unflinching and have been uncomplaining in their shouldering of every burden we have asked of them, and they have done it with dignity and professionalism. But it is not right. It is not right to ask them, to ask the military to bear the burden of the responsibility of solving someone else's civil war. It is not right, and it won't work.

Instead of closing our eyes and crossing our fingers and giving this President a rubber stamp for an endless civil war in Iraq, we should be beginning to move our country back to a common-sense policy of strength through leadership.

Our choice tonight is clear: Keep digging, or climb our way out of this hole. I think this Congress will decide to start climbing our way out.

And there will be many who will say, what will we do then? I will say, well, maybe we will propose to fence off the funds as many have suggested. That will be a debate for another day. That will be a debate for another day whether we will fence off the funds. But tonight will be the debate, and tomorrow will be the decision as to whether we will vote to go in that direction.

So you can say it is a meaningless, nonbinding resolution all you want, but it is the first conversation as to which direction we are going to go, and that is the direction we have to decide, and I vote that we go in the direction of starting to move our way and our troops out of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, ``if we examine the history of the conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time--at every crisis--we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made again for just one more step up the ladder. . . . And once again the President tells us that `we are going to win'; `victory' is coming.''

My uncle, Robert Kennedy, spoke these words in March 1968, It took another 5 years and another 37,455 American lives before a U.S. President finally withdrew American troops from Vietnam.

I will not stand by, the American people will not stand by, and allow the President to repeat that mistake.

Some disparage this resolution because it's nonbinding. But with due respect, I couldn't disagree more. This resolution represents a fundamental policy choice by this Congress.

It's about whether you agree with doubling down the President's high stakes gamble with American lives.

This resolution poses a simple choice. After 4 years, after 3,125 deaths, after more than 23,417 wounded, are we digging our hole in Iraq even deeper, or are we strong enough to start climbing out?

We need a stronger America, a more secure America and that begins with a rejection of the failed strategy in Iraq.

It has now been nearly 4 years since the President declared that in Iraq, our mission was accomplished.

Four years of disintegration. Four years of unfounded insistence that the turning point is right around the corner.

Are we digging deeper, or climbing out?

We have watched a child hug their parents tight on the tarmac--only to have to let go as Morn or Dad is deployed for the second, third, or even fourth time.

We have stood at the graveside with a grieving family as a Gold Star mother accepts a folded American flag.

We have visited our Nation's newest veterans in the hospital, their bodies and minds scarred by the horrors of war.

Are we digging deeper, or climbing out?

Each day we all see, with our own eyes, the carnage and the chaos that has become the norm in Iraq.

The administration's bull-headed insistence on ideology over strategy has led us to where we are today. And now, that same stubbornness is counseling some to send still more of our soldiers and marines into an Iraqi civil war.

Our current course is failing in Iraq. It's failing the bigger struggle against our terrorist enemies. It's failing our troops and their families. And it's failing our core values as Americans.

I won't settle for that failure. We must change course. We must begin to climb out of the hole in Iraq.

Democrats, Republicans, generals, and most importantly, the American people now see that it is time for a new plan; it is time to embrace a new approach.

Our service men and women have been heroic. Confronted with repeated civilian failures of leadership, underequipped, and in an increasingly untenable position, our troops have not flinched, they have not complained, they have shouldered every burden we ask of them with dignity and professionalism.

But it is not right to place upon our military the responsibility of solving someone else's civil war. It's not right, and it won't work.

Instead of closing our eyes, crossing our fingers, and giving the President a rubber stamp for endless war in Iraq, we should begin moving our country back to a commonsense policy of strength through leadership.

Our strong leaders of the last century, like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, recognized that while American military might was important, American values were our greatest strength.

We rallied the world in the Second World War and defeated the Soviets in the cold war on the strength of our Nation's democratic ideals. For the entire 20th century, we led by our example, and by the force of our principles.

While military action will continue to be a necessary component of our current struggle, ultimate victory against this generation of enemies will similarly be won not on the battlefield, but in the minds of millions around the world. That victory is impossible while we are in the middle of Iraq's civil war.

Our choice today is clear. Keep digging or climb out? If we decide to begin climbing out, as I think we will, there are debates yet to come about the best way to do that--whether we should fence off funds to prevent an escalation, for example. I look forward to those conversations. But today is a more fundamental question about the direction of our country.

We can withdraw from Iraq without withdrawing from the fight. We can be strong enough to climb out of that hole. For our troops, for their families, and for our Nation's strength and security, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haven't we learned anything from our mistakes yet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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