Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize Walter Parker an outstanding Georgian and statesman. Walter has long been recognized by the citizens of Tybee Island and Chatham County for the vital role that he has played in community leadership and his deep personal commitment to the welfare of the residents of Tybee Island.

This outstanding public servant loyally served as Mayor of Tybee Island for 16 years and contributed enormously to the beautification and preservation of the island and to the refurbishment of the island's endangered beaches. As demonstration of his commitment to Tybee Island, Walter Parker was actively involved in many beach revitalization programs affecting the area and he also appointed the first Tybee Beautification Commission. Walter served as a leading advocate for state-wide support for the rebuilding of the Tybee Island Pier and Pavilion and initiated a massive cleanup and repair project dedicated to Tybee's municipal buildings. His tireless efforts resulted in a new spirit of community in preparation for Tybee's 1987 Centennial.

Walter's commitment to the residents of Tybee Island is further demonstrated by his service on and involvement with many local, state, and national associations, boards and committees affecting the development of the city, including the Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce and Governor's Comprehensive Plan for Georgia's Coasts.

As Mayor of Tybee Island he demanded excellence in public service from the city's vital service agencies. Walter's hard work and visionary spirit provided a framework upon which future generations could build and helped to preserve a strategic area of the State of Georgia for all to enjoy.

It has been my pleasure working with Walter for many years for the betterment of our common constituency and for all those who know and love Tybee. Throughout our friendship, Walter has proven to be an efficient, effective, unselfish, and dedicated public servant to his community and the citizens of this state. I extend to him my most sincere best wishes for continued success and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let's just say that the critics of the war, and I don't mean the Members of the House, but the critics in the general public who often say ``Bush lied'' and put up posters to that effect and they bring in Halliburton and Blackwater and bumper stickers that say ``No War for Oil,'' let's say all that is true, absolutely true, that everything was a trick to get us there, and just say we can agree with that, and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry never made the statements that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which, of course, they did make those statements.

But if all that was the case, regardless, we are there and we are there now.

I met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq today, and he said, in fact, the surge is working. And maybe he has a view that might be suspect by some. But I have also spent a lot of time this week looking at a report of indexes in Iraq put out by the Brookings Institute, which, as you know, is left of center. But they track the number of civilian deaths, the number of IED attacks. They track the number of newspapers and radios, economic and political progress. They track the benchmarks, revenue sharing, oil sharing, and elections and so forth. And in that there is a glimmer of hope that is important to know that there is some progress that is being made.

But I think between the Brookings Institute and the Prime Minister's report, there is a very bleak picture; but it is a picture nonetheless that progress is being made.

If you pass this legislation today, you wouldn't just erode that progress. You would sign a death sentence to people like this Prime Minister and his family. Now, I agree that the Republican Party probably lost the majority in the House because of the war as much as anything else, but for us that is just politics. It is a political death. For the people over there that we are helping, this is real death. What would happen to this Deputy Prime Minister if we pulled out, and what would happen to all the other Iraqis who have been there trying to take a step forward as Sunnis, as Shiites, as Kurds, trying to work together in a cooperative agreement? Do the proponents of this bill believe that Iraq would suddenly say to them, Okay, you all can go home; we are going to switch governments? If this passed, there would be more chaos and a civil war that we have never seen before in the Middle East, and it would spill over to other countries in the Middle East.

One of the things the Prime Minister said that Americans have failed to understand is there is a cultural shift going on in the Middle East right now, and it is not unique to Iraq, and that is that al Qaeda is becoming a mainstream group. Al Qaeda and an Islamic radical fundamentalist movement with sights on the West is growing.

If we withdraw from Iraq, it is victory to them. A defeat means it is not just going to stay in Iraq, but the momentum probably would go to Israel next. It would probably encourage the Iranians to get nuclear. Saudi Arabia would follow suit. They would need to have nuclear weapons, and Jordan. The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Middle East would happen.

The previous speaker said the troops did win the war. I agree. But we have not finished the war. We should vote this down and give Petraeus time, which is very much needed.

I thank the chairman.

We just heard from the majority leader that this bill fully funds the troops. He is correct, it fully funds the troops; but it doesn't freely fund the troops. It is like giving a soldier a brand-new uniform and then shackling his foot to an anvil. And that anvil, Mr. Speaker, is politics. Our soldiers fight wars. They cannot take care of Iraqi politics. And yet this bill puts 17 different stipulations on that funding for our soldiers, to say that if these aren't taken care of, then you lose your funding. So it is not fully funding them, because it doesn't freely fund them.

We went to Iraq. We made some mistakes. We all on a bipartisan basis, from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton to George Bush, thought there were WMDs over there. There were not. We also thought that once they were liberated, that because of American presence and ingenuity and Saddam Hussein being deposed, that democracy would rise from the ashes. It obviously did not, much to the disappointment of everybody in the world community.

And I can say this as a member of the Defense Committee, we have had 4 years of almost ``happy talk'' from representatives of the Pentagon. It has been very disappointing. Representatives not of defense as much as from the political side of things.

But I know one thing that is true: since the surge, there has been a glimmer of hope that we have rounded a corner. But I want to say this: it is very important that Members understand that failure in Iraq means that it devolves into a civil war. It means that perhaps it emerges as an anti-Western nation state of terrorists with their hands on the second largest oil reserve in the world, and surely those revenues will not be spent promoting democracy around the globe.

It would also mean a decline in U.S. credibility, because if we lose, as the Senate Democrat majority leader Harry Reid has said, who wins? Well, al Qaeda wins. The nation isn't going to just quietly go on about their business.

It is imperative for us to support the Petraeus plan and vote this bill down.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to this debate tonight, I am reminded of my old alley cat, Hercules. When I was growing up in Athens, Georgia, I had a mean, tough cat. He was an alley cat who basically adopted me. You know, we humans don't really adopt cats. Athens, Georgia, kind of a hilly, foothills Appalachian town with ivy bank. In the ivy bank, we had lots of cute little chipmunks.

Hercules, being tough and could be the bully, could be somewhat like the majority party in some respects in that he was the alpha cat of the neighborhood. He would catch chipmunks at will. He would usually kill them and

eat them, dispensing of them quickly. But every now and then, and it is an interesting thing about cats, it is not unique to my cat, but he would catch a chipmunk and he would toy with it awhile. He would just play with it.

You would think: Did he have a change of heart? Is he going to let this chipmunk go? No, he would just play with it awhile.

Well, that is what is going on tonight. We are hearing a lot of discussion, a lot of administration bashing about how cruel the White House is and a lot of lamenting about the Republican Party, and a lot of talk about compassion for the farmers and the rural communities and schools. There has been talk about the horrors of fire, drought and windstorm.

And yet as we look at the rule that is governing this bill, which would be known as H. Res. 387 in the House Calendar No. 59, introduced by Ms. Slaughter, of New York, if we turn to page 3, section 4, we read the fine print. And it says: ``Sec. 4.(a) In the engrossment of H.R. 2206, the Clerk shall--

``(1) await the disposition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207;

``(2) add the respective texts of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 2206;

``(3) confirm the title of H.R. 2206 to reflect the addition of H.R. 2237 and H.R. 2207, as passed by the House, to the engrossment,'' which as the Speaker knows and followed very closely, what this means is this is Hercules toying with the chipmunk.

It means there is not a disaster bill at all. It just means the majority party is toying with a disaster bill, because what happens, this goes right back to the President attached to the war funding bill.

Here is my point, Mr. Speaker. If all these things are true, why is the majority party toying with a disaster? We are right back where we started from. We have just jumped out from the war funding bill only temporarily for I guess some purpose of voting here, and I understand politics, you can't remove that from the House of Representatives, but the reality is we are toying with a disaster bill because we already know two things: All the gobbledygook on page 4 that the Clerk shall do means this bill gets rejoined with the military funding bill. That is a fact.

Number two, the President has already said he is going to veto the military funding bill, and one of the reasons is because of the extracurricular, nonmilitary items that are being added to it.

So what I would say to Hercules, if you were worried about that little old chipmunk, you really would let it go. And I would say to the majority party, if you really were sincere about disaster relief, you would separate it from this rule, this H. Res. 367 introduced by Ms. Slaughter of New York and say, you know, we are going to have an up-or- down vote on a straight, freestanding separate disaster bill so that the farmers and ranchers and people out west can get the relief that we have heard over and over again on a bipartisan basis that they need so badly.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to sustain this veto today. I think it's the right thing to do, because I think we need to go back to the drawing board on this. Number one, the President does have the constitutionally defined duty to fight wars, to direct the militia, particularly in a time of war, and I think that we are getting into a position where we have a lot of folks on Capitol Hill, perhaps as high as 535 of us, who think we can run the war more than the Commander in Chief.

I think we have to recognize that constitutionally the President has to do that. I think the President really has to veto this bill. It's as much for the preservation of the office as it is for his own personal views today.

I think, secondly, while the benchmarks themselves make sense, and there is a lot of bipartisan agreement on the benchmarks, there is also great division as to can these benchmarks be achieved by the dates outlined in the bill.

One of the things General Petraeus said to Congress last week is that the

new Government of Iraq, and keep in mind, this is the fourth election that they have had and the first permanent government, but one of the things they need, as much as anything, is our push. This bill serves to push them. But it also needs our assurance, our assurance that we will be with them through this process.

If you pointed out in 1870 would America be in a position to pass major civil rights legislation, we would not be at that point. The Government of Iraq might not be ready to bring in all the Baathists or to the level in which we would like to see it done by July or by October, and so I think that we have to give them a little more assurance that we're going to push you, but we're not going to pull the rug out from under you.

I think that we, on this committee, the defense committee, the Appropriations Committee, which historically is known for getting things done at the end of the day, often have friends say to me, as a Republican, but I often have the question asked to me, we know you're a Republican, and we know you can be partisan, but do you do things bipartisanly?

I am always proud to say, you know, the number one committee that I serve on, which I also think is the number one committee in the House, is a very bipartisan committee. Now, we will debate things, gun control, abortion, things, always are putting riders, environmental stuff, on our bill. Yet we clash about it in committee time and time again on ideological, principle-based positions. Yet at the end of the day, we know that the bill has to be passed, because if you don't get the appropriations train to the station, the government shuts down.

I think at this point, the Appropriations Committee can go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is still based in principle that both sides can respect. But it does put the troops forward, as we do have strong bipartisan basis to want to do right now, but it would also take care of some of the politics of Iraq and the diplomacy. For that reason, I think we have to vote to sustain the veto.

Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill said, ``The United States of America always does the right thing after it has exhausted all the other alternatives.''

And what we are doing here tonight, through the Democrat Party, is exhausting all the other alternatives.

This bill is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, the Democrat leadership promised to cut out the pork and nondefense spending and give us a clean bill. But this bill contains minimum wage legislation, children's health care appropriations, $31 million for milk subsidies, $460 million for food aid, much of that not even going to the

Middle East, $40 million for grain storage, $37 million for new computers for the FSA in Kansas City, $4 million for the Office of Women's Health, and $15 million for livestock subsidies.

What does this have to do with Iraq? Not a thing.

And yet some of this stuff may have a lot of merit and get bipartisan support. But why not bring it up on the proper pieces of legislation, not on a military aid bill?

It's interesting, one of the Democrat Senators actually justified the nonmilitary spending saying, ``But the Republicans did it.'' And I agree with her. She's right. We did it. And that's why we are in the minority. The American people are tired of these kind of shenanigans.

Let's pull these items out and have a debate on their own merits, not on the backs of soldiers in Iraq.

Let's talk about Iraq. The Constitution, article I, section 2, says, and I quote, ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.''

In other words, the President, as Commander in Chief, runs wars, not 535 arm chair generals on Capitol Hill.

But this legislation, or surrender document, usurps the President's constitutional prerogative. For this reason alone we should reject it.

And finally, let's talk about the gist of this surrender. Putting a timeline on a war is great if the enemy agrees with it. But for some reason, they never do. Never in the history of war has a country won by announcing their surrender date to the world. It's odd, it's reckless, and it won't work.

We should not micromanage this war. We should do as Winston Churchill said and do the right thing.

And I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in celebration of the 100th anniversary of Register Baptist Church. Originally organized in 1906 as the Missionary Baptist Church of Register, Register Baptist Church was officially constituted and accepted into the Bullock County Baptist Association in 1907. Although the first church building was destroyed by fire in 1956, the church rebuilt and dedicated the new building on June 21, 1959. Later expansions included a social hall and education building. Register Baptist Church has brought joy, laughter, support, and glory to the town of Register for 100 years--may God bless the future years for Register Baptist Church.

Madam Speaker, in 2004, the United States of America spent $103 billion buying oil from non-democratic countries, such countries as Venezuela, as Iran, as Russia, and even ones who are our allies like Saudi Arabia, where some of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorist groups.

We are funding both sides in the war on terrorism. It is a national security issue. We have to get off Middle East oil, and we need to reduce our oil dependency. We import 60 percent of our oil today.

Congressman Eliot Engel and I have introduced H.R. 670. The goal of it is to reduce our oil consumption by 20 percent in 20 years. It has overwhelming bipartisan support, both in the House and the Senate.

Now, if you don't buy that, there is another reason to focus on this, and it has to do with your pocketbook. Just think about the flexibility that we have out there in fuel choices, from ethanol to biodiesel to battery operated cars.

Madam Speaker, we need to move in this direction. I recommend H.R. 670 to my colleagues and hope they will cosponsor it with me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to the bill.

I want to say this: We have had a lot of good, sincere debates in the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations, but one of the things that, in our honest disagreement about, that we have not talked about as much is the effects that the surge has already had. I wanted to bring up some statistics.

The 4 weeks prior to the surge which began on February 15, we had 1,440 civilian deaths; since that time, 265. That is a reduction of about 500 percent.

In terms of bombings, prior to the surge, we had 163. Then from February to March, it is down to 102.

Similar with car bombings, down 35 percent from 56 to 36.

The surge is already showing a significant impact. Two-thirds of the Iraqis polled by a British polling firm, 5,000 people which were sampled, the largest poll in the history of Iraq, two-thirds of the people say they are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. Seventy-three percent say they are not in a civil war. Al-Maliki, the Prime Minister's approval rating has gone from 29 percent in September to 49 percent now.

We are making progress. We are not defending the status quo. We are changing the course, and the Petraeus plan needs to be given time to work, and that is very, very important.

The second point that I want to make is there are so many extracurricular things in the $23 billion in spending that have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Now, I serve on the Ag Committee, and I want to mention some of those.

There is a $100 million increase in the PL-480 program, but there is not a single word of it in the report as to why this is justified, why this is considered an emergency, $100 million.

Secondly, we have $25 million in there for spinach recall. The USDA did what they were supposed to do, but I want you to know you are setting a precedent for recall. We are not in the product compensation business on recalls.

Finally, we have $5 million in the bill because of a Canadian fish import issue.

All of these things are good, debatable topics, but they do not belong in an emergency appropriation bill. I think they should come back through the committee process on regular order where we can have a good debate and look at them on a separate piece of legislation.

While some of the provisions I support, such as the peanut storage and handling provision and some type of agriculture disaster assistance, this bill is not the appropriate place for them to be considered.

Title II-P.L. 480 Grants--The bill contains $100,000,000 above the President's request for Title II-P.L. 480 Grants.

There is not a single word of explanation in the report as to what or where the additional funds are to be used for.

The President's request included $350,000,000 of which approximately $150,000,000 would go to Sudan and for populations in Chad affected by the violence in Darfur; $30,000,000 for Afghanistan; $95,000,000 for Southern Africa; and $75,000,000 for the Horn of Africa.

Just last month the Congress included $1,215 billion for this program in the Joint Resolution to fund this program for the remainder of fiscal year 2007.

The bill provides $140,000,000 in additional relief for loses related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of which $25,000,000 would go to provide additional compensation to livestock producers and $100,000,000 would go to provide additional compensation for citrus producers--it appears that these additional funds are included in the bill only for the reason of doubling the $80,000 payment that livestock and citrus producers have already received, taking their payments up to $160,000.

The need for agriculture disaster assistance has been debated for the last several months.

While disaster assistance is clearly needed in some areas of the country, this bill provides $25 million for spinach producers who had losses due to a nationwide spinach recall last fall.

The FDA did what is was supposed to do, and initiated the recall to protect consumers.

This assistance is unprecedented, and there will be pressure put on this Committee to compensate producers whenever other food products are recalled.

Can you imagine the cost if we get in the business of compensating producers for losses that they incur because of food recalls? The latest list of some of the food recalls from FDA and USDA include: bread; peanut butter; corn chips; olives; oysters; milk; fresh cut fruit; summer sausage; ground beef; and the list goes on.

The reason foods were recalled is because they presented a health risk to the public, and the FDA or the USDA did what they were supposed to do.

The bill includes $5,000,000 for compensation to aquaculture operations who may have incurred a loss due to a restriction on imports from certain fish from Canada.

The emergency order, put on by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, on these fish from Canada was due to outbreaks or potential outbreaks of a destructive pathogen responsible for several large-scale fish deaths in the Great Lakes region--the reason APHIS put the order in place was to protect aquaculture in the Great Lakes states, and somehow $5,000,000 makes it into this bill to compensate for possible losses without any justification. Where did this number come from?

Finally, there are no funds for USDA to administer any of the disaster assistance provisions in the bill that total nearly $4,500,000,000. Members are already reacting to proposed FSA office closures that are occurring all over the country. This will only exacerbate the problem.

iraqi government progress

According to the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, over the last 30

days they have seen important developments in the history of

Iraq. The Iraqi government has taken steps to improve

security, governance, economic development and economic

opportunities.

Iraq's Prime Minister is actively leading the latest plan

in Baghdad.

Prime Minister Maliki created six committees to oversee the

non-security pieces of the Baghdad plan, with oversight of

economic development, essential services, communications,

community outreach and related functions.

Prime Minister Maliki's first trip to Anbar Province was a

clear gesture and attempt to involve Sunni tribal sheiks into

the government.

Anbar's tribal sheiks are switching allegiances away from

the insurgents and towards the government of Iraq.

The tribal sheikhs have started providing police and army

recruits to support stability in the region.

At the end of February, the Iraqi parliament's Council of

Ministers passed a hydrocarbon law that outlines the

equitable sharing of Iraq's oil wealth.

The Iraqi government hosted the Neighbors' Conference, the

first international conference in Baghdad since 1990. The

conference ended with regional and international partners

pledging to fight terrorism and to enhance security in

support of the goal of peace and security for the people of

Iraq.

Iran and Syria along with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan,

Turkey and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security

Council attended the conference.

military progress

SecDef stated (Mar 21) the deployment of Iraqi troops into

Baghdad is right on schedule--10 brigades total.

Operational strength of the Iraqi Brigades in Baghdad has

vastly improved.

First Brigade reported at 61 percent; Second came in at 65

percent; and the third came in at 85 percent. Other brigades

on their way are reporting in the high 90s to more than 100

percent strength.

The problem was not related to fighting, but rather an

issue with getting pay to families. Iraq does not have a

financial system that provides for electronic transfer of

monies--it is a cash transaction society. The Iraqi

Government found that troops were trying to take money to

their families and that is the reason they were absent.

They fixed the problem by paying deploying forces a bonus

upfront so they could leave money with their families and not

have to worry about them.

Overall, violence directed against Iraqi Civilians is down

about one-third and murders/assassinations are down 50

percent.

Civilian deaths down more than 500 percent: mid-Feb to mid-

March, 265; previous four weeks, 1,440.

Bombings down nearly 40 percent: mid-Feb to mid-March, 102;

previous 4 weeks, 163.

Car bombs down nearly 35 percent: mid-Feb to mid-March, 36;

previous 4 weeks, 56.

notes from secdef's talk at army caucus--mar 22

Active Army has met every retention and recruiting goal

since 9/11

Need to grow Army and we're doing so by 7,000 a year

Vital to meet Active Army's goal of 1 year deployed and 2

years home; Guard/Reserve goal is 1 year deployed and 5 years

home

Need to include Guard and Reserve in all of our plans

Modernization and putting them in Joint billets

We have programmed $46.4B for reset in FY 07/08

Modernization is also required--started $56B short

Need the FY07 Sup by April or we will have to take

Draconian measures and begin to reprogram money, impacting

all facets of the Army

Need $2B for BRAC this year and stated that we need to

expedite the construction of the medical facility on Ft

Belvoir and make Bethesda the premier medical facility

commonly asked question iraq

Q: What is your view of the timetables and provisions that

have been attached to the FY07 Supplemental?

A: It's important to elevate the level of debate. . . .

question is how we incentiveize the Iraqi government. But,

specific dates and strict conditionally would make it

impossible for commanders to complete the mission.

Q: Do you think the operations in Iraq will be over on

October 1?

A: Decisions need to be based by conditions on the ground.

Setting a date tells your adversary all he has to do is wait.

I think debate on the hill has been helpful; there is no

military solution, it has to be a political solution and we

are providing them the time they need.

Q: How is the deployment of Iraqi troops going? We have

heard they are reporting at low strength rates?

A: In Afghanistan, there are about 12 financial centers

that enable movement of money. Iraq has no such system yet,

so troops have to take cash home to their families. First

Brigades came in around 60 percent but other brigades are

reporting in the high 90s to more than 100 percent strength.

The problem was not related to fighting, but rather an issue

with getting pay to families--troops were trying to take

money to their families and that is the reason they were

absent. They fixed the problem by paying deploying forces a

bonus upfront so they could leave money with their families

and not have to worry about them.

Q: Are we neglecting Afghanistan?

A: After I visited Afghanistan, I made the decision to

extend the deployment of one Brigade and move the other

Brigade in. We will be adding 3,400 trainers and overall

about 6-7,000 soldiers. Britain and Australia are also

providing more troops as we prepare for a Taliban offensive

this spring. We think they may make a run at Khandahar and we

want to hit them hard.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on the debate which we have just temporarily postponed until tomorrow morning on the supplemental appropriations bill for the Iraq war, and I wanted to start off by reiterating the statement made by Mr. Shadegg of Arizona in which he said he knew of no point in history where a country at war declared an end date for when they would be getting out of that war, the point being that most countries fight wars until the war is finished, based on the war situation, and not based on a calendar and an arbitrary date at that.

I think that is very important as we have this vote tomorrow because we are, in fact, hurting our troops if we make the announcement right now to the enemy that by March of 2008 we will be leaving. We know particularly in the Middle East and in Iraq that in cities such as Tikrit and Fallujah, as we have been there the last 3 or 4 years, that whenever the enemy wants to, it can lay low and wait till our troop situation or troop level shifts, and then they come out of the woodwork. I think if we do announce that we are going to be gone in March 2008, no matter what happens on the field of battle, then that enemy is going to use that same tactic to just wait until the Americans are out of town.

If we do leave that country before the job is done, then what happens, Mr. Speaker, is it could cause chaos. A civil war could erupt, and a lot of people say, well, I do not care if a civil war erupts. But how do you know it is going to stay in the boundaries of Iraq? Why would not the Shiites in Iran, for example, get involved in it? We already know they are getting involved in supplying the Shiites in Iraq with things. We do not know what will happen in that volatile area.

What happens to our ally Israel? We know that the Arab countries want to wipe Israel off the map. Are we doing Israel any favors if we abruptly withdraw and arbitrarily withdraw from Iraq?

And what happens to the oil reserves? I know it is interesting, everybody likes to say no war for oil, but the reality is you cannot fight a war without oil, and you cannot run our economy without oil, and petrodollars can stir up a lot of trouble around the globe. Just ask Hugo Chavez in Venezuela what he has done with his petrodollars, street money, and here we would be turning over the second or third largest oil reserves in the world over to a terrorist anti-American state.

Think about this for a minute in that context. America drilling and tapping into all the reserves that we have, we control 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We use 25 percent. We import 60 percent. If you wanted to declare war on America, you would look at our oil supply, as countries have always looked at the energy or food supply of any country that they have planned to invade.

I want to say this. I represent Fort Stewart. This week the 3rd Infantry Division starts on its third deployment to Iraq. General Lynch, the commanding general, just left on Tuesday. But back in Hinesville, Georgia, there are 318 memorial trees that have been planted in memory of 3rd Infantry soldiers who have lost their life in Iraq. I have gone to some of the ceremonies. It is a sad thing, but even as you leave the field, the memorial field, soldiers say, we want to complete this job.

I have visited soldiers in the hospitals in Baghdad and at Walter Reed and in Ramstein, Germany, in Landstuhl, and they all say they want to go back and finish the job. But I do not want to tell you that I can speak for the troops because there is thousands of them, and I always resent when people come here and say this is what the troops want, because the troops are just like the rest of America, we want a lot of things, and America is divided on this.

But I want to say to the Democrats, I think that you have done the right thing. This war has needed more oversight. I believe we as Republicans were remiss in not having more oversight. I think putting up goals in the form of what we would like the Iraqi Government to do, I think that that is fitting and proper, but I think to have hard and fast deadlines is unreasonable.

We, in this over 200-year constitutional government, cannot do things that we should do. Last year, for example, we were not able to pass a budget. We did not pass all of our appropriation bills. The important thing is the Republican Party, certainly as the majority party, we are guilty, but the point is we could not even do that in our own government. How do we expect the Iraqis to do it by an arbitrary date set?

So I recommend that we recommit this bill, hammer out some of the differences, and then bring it back to the floor in a different and improved product.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.

I wanted to talk on the eve of what may be the most controversial bill that we have voted on since I have been a Member of Congress, and I have been a Member of Congress now for 16 years. In fact, sometimes I don't like to admit that in public because everybody gets so concerned about term limits, I don't want to be the poster child for my enemies on that subject. But I have been in Congress for the NAFTA vote, for the renewal of GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. I have been here for the impeachment vote. I was here for welfare reform, some very significant pieces of legislation, the Contract With America, and recently with the Democrats' 6 for 06 plan. Yet in all my years of Congress, I can say that this week, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps Friday, we will have what is the most controversial bill that I ever voted on and the largest supplemental appropriation bill in the history of the United States Congress, a bill which the President requested for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terrorism in general. His request level was $101 billion, but it is actually going to be about a $124 billion bill, because there are many things that aren't even related to the war that have now got stuck in the bill.

There are a lot of different views on this that I wanted to talk about. I have my friend, Mr. Carter from Texas, who is a fellow appropriator on this Special Order. The thing that is interesting, though, is that a lot of the traditional allies of the Democrat Party, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and sometimes in fact those two newspapers are inseparable from the Democrat talking points, but they are squarely against this bill. The editorial pages have gone out of their way to say what a bad bill this is, to say do we really need a General Pelosi, which is what the Los Angeles Times said. And to quote the Los Angeles Times, ``After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal forcing President Bush to withdraw the troops from Iraq, 2008. This plan is unruly, bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he will veto it, as well he should.'' That is the Los Angeles Times.

Here is the Washington Post. The Pelosi plan for Iraq. ``The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that the U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize.'' That is real important.

``The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi Government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint as to what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year, a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi Government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interest in Iraq, which holds the world's second largest oil reserve and a substantial cadre of al Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008. In fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.'' That is the Washington Post.

These are not what I would call mainstream moderate newspapers. The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post are out there drumming the drums for the liberal causes, time and time again, and they are both squarely against this plan.

You know, I think one thing Americans have to ask themselves is, is there U.S. interest in Iraq? Rhetorical question. Is there U.S. interest in Iraq? Now, if there isn't, and the war is in fact in the tank as Speaker Pelosi and many of her followers believe, get out tomorrow. Get out. Get out yesterday. Now, this bill doesn't say that. It is more of a slow-bleed, sure-formula-for-defeat plan. But if you really think the war is in the tank, why spend another nickel there?

Now I understand, I haven't spoken to him, that my colleague from Georgia, John Lewis, has made that philosophical and principled position. John is a liberal senior Member from Atlanta. And he says, I am against the war. Why should I vote to spend $100 billion more there? I respect that position. But if you are going to spend the money and give the troops some assistance, why are you tying their hands at the same time? Again, if there is a U.S. interest, then is there not a U.S. interest in victory? Is there a U.S. interest in defeat? And so often the critics of

the war always dodge those important questions.

And you can go back to 2003 and cite many things that have gone wrong. I am a Republican and I will tell you what, there have been many things that we have misjudged and done wrong, and it is regrettable. And I would also say that even prior to 2003, maybe some things should have gone in a different direction. I will say, as a Member of the House at the time, we were driven by the 17 United Nations resolutions, which the Iraqi Government ignored. We were driven by the best intelligence estimates at the time, which said that there were weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein would use them. That was a view that was shared by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and all the other leading Democratic critics of this war. But they all had the same conclusion in 2001, 2002 and 2003, leading to our resolution to give the President the use of force to go into Iraq. But I understand politics. Backseat driving and revisionist history just comes with the turf.

So we can politically revise history. I understand there is a short- term memory and a convenience factor, and if you are running for the Democratic Presidential nomination, you have got to be dodging and weaving, as John Kerry did last time, voting for it and then against it and having positions all over the court.

But we are here now. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, the last election, November 2006, put the Democrats in charge. They are no longer in the back seat of the car. The President may have driven the car to where it is, but the Democrat Party now has its hand on the steering wheel. And you can steer good policy. And this, as the Los Angeles Times says, is bad policy, very bad policy.

If you believe there is a U.S. interest and you think, what would happen with the U.S. out of Iraq suddenly? There would be chaos, there would be civil war, and it is quite likely that the second largest oil- producing nation in the world would fall into the hands of anti- American, anti-Western terrorists and become a nation state of terrorists, a haven for more terrorists.

I don't know of anybody in the Congress that thinks it is a good idea to ignore terrorism the way we did prior to 9/11, when the two embassies were attacked in Africa, when the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen, and when the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center happened. We are not going to let that happen again. We understand that you just can't ignore terrorism, that you have to be engaged with it.

So if you believe there is an interest and there is a huge downside in sudden withdrawal, why would you vote for a bill that says we are going to withdraw but we are going to withdraw slowly? We are going to let our troops stay over there, but we are not going to give them the backup that they need.

Now, I have the honor of representing the 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Fort Hunter, Georgia. I also have a couple other military bases. But Fort Stewart leaves this week on its third deployment there. And I don't see how I could be expected to represent those soldiers and tell them, you know, ma'am, your son is patroling the streets of Baghdad and I had the opportunity to send him 20,000 troops to cover his back and I voted no. Because it is a fundamental question. If you are in Iraq, do you want 20,000 more troops helping you or not? How can you say you support somebody if you are not going to give them additional troops to back them up?

Now, I don't believe this is a status quo vote at all, because General Petraeus, who is now our commander over there, has designed this plan as a way to ramp up our forces and clamp down on the violence and the attacks, train the Iraqi troops, and then stabilize the country and come home. I believe that that is an exit and a victory plan, and it is changing the status quo.

So why would you put the general in charge, who I think was approved by the Senate by a vote of 80 or 90 to zero, I don't think there was a dissenting vote, and then say to him, good luck, but we are going to micromanage the war because we have 435 Members of Congress who, General Petraeus, are mighty good military folks in own right. Maybe we should in fact move Congress to Baghdad, since all the generals seem to be in this room who have all the answers.

I think the genius of the U.S. Congress is not only can we solve health care and education and agriculture and transportation, but on the side, we can run a war. I am just saying, hey, with this kind of brain power, we all ought to go to Baghdad and put on a uniform.

Something curious is that the Speaker of the House said we need to get out of Iraq and go to Afghanistan where the real war on terrorism is.

It is kind of scary to think that someone who is third in line to the President would have that kind of a naive misunderstanding of the world we live in.

We have been joined by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), and I want to hear what he has to say.

I do not think you will find Hollywood or the media clamoring around Roy Vallez the way they have Cindy Sheehan. I wonder what the difference is.

I have found the same way. I have been to Iraq twice, and when I go there to talk to the troops, their biggest enemy is the American media. They will tell you it is so frustrating, and they never would have believed the media was so bad.

I want to show you some statistics that I think are important because you have just been there, but this was a poll that, again, good old American media covered up that was actually in Sunday's London Times, a British company, the largest poll in the history of Iraq, over 5,000 people were surveyed.

Now, I think so often when we hear polls that CNN reports, they poll their newsroom, 25 people, all whose minds have made up against the war and against George Bush. But this was the largest poll in the history of the country, largest poll during the war, of over 5,000 people.

They found this: That al-Maliki's, as a Prime Minister, approval rating is 49 percent. In September, it was 29 percent. That is a significant statistic.

The other thing is we keep hearing that we are caught up in a civil war. Well, the flip side is this: It is 70 percent of the people do not believe that they are in a civil war.

Now, is it not strange that the Iraqis do not believe they are in a civil war, but if you poll the Democrat Members of Congress, I bet you 90 percent would say they are in a civil war, and yet somehow the folks who live there do not believe they are in it. I find that a strange, just a very big difference, but, you know, who knows? I mean, we are politicians. We know everything. So certainly we know what the Iraqis are up to, and maybe they do not.

The other thing that that poll, and it is not on my chart, but the other thing that the poll showed is that 66 percent of the people say they are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein, conveniently unreported in American news, but I would recommend to you all to check out Sunday's London Times.

One other statistic that was not in the poll, but this is just a fact. But the month before we started the surge, and the surge officially started the 14th of February, the month before, there were 1,440 civilian casualties. Since that time there have been 265. You cannot ignore that statistic.

Now, I also want to give everybody a homework assignment. This is just for the folks back home. I would love you guys to see what the Democrat leadership says about the bill they are introducing tomorrow. Remember, this is a bill that is their official war plan.

Go to www.gop.gov/news/documentsingle, and what do we have? Aspx? This, if we can get this on camera, if anybody would come call me, I would love you to see the Democrat leadership explaining their plan. I am telling you, it is absolutely, it is almost right out of Comedy Central. Are they really saying this? Because everything is, well, what date y'all call getting out? Well, I do not know, let me ask my colleague here. Well, I do not know, let me ask my colleagues. It was kind of like, okay, can anybody tell us the capital of Iraq? This is, yes, it is on a GOP Web site. That is the only thing partisan about it. It is absolutely not touched up one bit.

I want to be sure everybody has an opportunity to look this up, but go to www.gop.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx? And ask for the document ID is 60396, and if you cannot find it, just call my office and we will give it to you, but it is scary. It is on one hand hilarious. On the other hand, it is scary that here is a leadership of a party saying here is our plan, and they cannot even explain it on prime-time television.

I wanted to say the scary part is these are high-stakes stuff, but please, look this up and watch this news conference. If you still think that this is the right thing to do, well, you are seeing something I am not seeing.

The gentleman also knows, both you guys being from Texas, that last year the Border Patrol, I believe, caught 115,000 people coming through the Mexican borders who were OTM, other than Mexican, and the concern of terrorists coming over here is real because we do have terrorists right now inside the United States border. We do not know how many cells or what they meet or what their intentions are, but we do know that they are here.

Let me talk to you, for the $23 billion extra that are not related to the war but are on this bill, designed to bring in more people to support it, this is what it includes: avian flu, $969 million. We have already spent, I believe, $5.6 billion on avian flu. We have already spent $5.6 billion, but it is an emergency, we have got to spend nearly another billion.

Spinach, spinach recall, not spinach disaster, but recalling to the private sector, $25 million.

Minimum wage, well, we know that is an emergency. Hurricane citrus program because of Katrina and Rita, I guess like avian flu, Katrina's the gift that keeps on giving in terms of any time you need to pass something.

NASA, $35 million for exploration capabilities. Well, that is certainly emergency. We better deal with that on the backs of the soldiers.

Corps of Engineers, more repair to the levee system in New Orleans. I do not know how many times we are going to repair that levee system, but maybe the Corps of Engineers cannot get it right, and who knows, maybe we need to bring in the private sector.

And, of course, FEMA is going to get more money. I mean, what would an emergency bill be without the FEMA bureaucrats getting more money?

And then there is rental assistance for Indian housing, another emergency; crop disaster assistance, shrimp, $120 million; frozen farm land, $20 million; aquaculture operations, $5 million for aquaculture for shellfish, oysters and clams. It does not have to do with Katrina, to my knowledge.

Of course, the emergency at the FDA, $4 million for the Office of Women's Health. Big emergency. I guess you guys have been getting a lot of letters about that one.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $60 million for fishing communities, Indian tribes, individual, small businesses, fishermen and fish processors, $60.4 million.

And then there is the emergency of Secure Rural Schools Act, $400 million for rural schools to offset revenues lost by the Bureau of Land Management owning timber.

And then low-income energy assistance program, a little confused about this one because, you know, with global warming, and it already being March, well, who knows? I digress.

Vaccine compensation, $50 million to compensate individuals for injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine. Now, as you know, that is avian flu. And so of the $5.6 billion we have already spent, and of the $900 million we are about to spend, we still have to give $50 million extra on that.

Then, $50 million for the Capitol Power Plant. I mean, we have got to get that building renovated.

Yes, I think so. Then the children's health care program, the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, there is a shortfall. But we have to ask ourselves, what is the shortfall? The gentleman Mr. Carter knows, one of the big reasons is because the children's health system has been abused in many States because they have insured adults.

And the grandparents.

The gentleman will remember in committee last week, when we debated this funding, Dr. Weldon and I had an amendment. I pulled out a chart that showed the number of States that had put the majority of their money into adult health care rather than children's health care.

You know, if there is a problem out there, that should be addressed. I want to say for the record, these things aren't programs that don't have merit. All of these things that I have listed are, I think there are some valid arguments for them. Some reforms are certainly needed in many of them, but they don't belong in a war bill, a funding war bill.

I want to read you this statement by the Speaker of the House, third in line for the President, March 19. This is Nancy Pelosi talking, ``When we do this, when we transition, when we change the mission, when we redeploy the troops, build political consensus, engage in diplomatic efforts and reform and reinvigorate the reconstruction effort, then we can turn our attention to the real war on terror in Afghanistan. I hear the voice of the future in the Chamber. What a beautiful sound. What a beautiful sound.''

Now, I guess that qualifies you to micromanage the war in Iraq because you have acknowledged there is no terrorism in Iraq, that it's all in Afghanistan. I guess if the real war is in Afghanistan, then the fake war is in Iraq. Therefore, it's okay, at the hands of the troop.

Let's also say that the supplemental is needed for a lot of needed equipment for these troops, and there is a lot of good in this supplemental.

I want to say also on a bipartisan basis, you have a lot of support for the good that is in the supplemental. I will hand it to the Democrat leadership, the Democrats on the Appropriations, for putting in things that we know the troops need such as the MRAPs, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Humvees the troops want; more money for the joint IED defeat fund. We had some really good testimony on that. Increases for the defense health care program, that is important; more money for equipment and training, more money for Afghanistan to counterterrorist-laden regions, money for a shortfall in the theater. There is some very good things in this bill that we believe, on a bipartisan basis, that the troops need.

But the part which requires the Iraqi Government to do certain things, which they may or may not be able to do by a deadline of July 1, really does tie up the Commander in Chief. I will say we are an equal branch of government, but the Commander in Chief is in charge of wars, not Members of Congress.

Just to give you an example, to rewrite the Iraqi hydrocarbon law, which has to do with revenue sharing of the oil, I think it's a good thing to do. But I think if you say it has to be done a date certain, July 1, they might not be able to do that.

Here we are in the United States Government, last year we could not pass a budget. Right now, we are having trouble passing a budget. Sometimes these things take longer than they do shorter.

We got to give a new government the opportunity to get things done and not micromanage their government. But I think the biggest concern is, among other things, that there is still a pullout. There is still a date certain for a pullout, August 2008, and it's possible Iraqis won't be ready. It's possible we could do it before then.

What General Petraeus has outlined for us is to go full-fledged with this troop surge, bring stabilization while ramping up the training of our Iraqis, so that we can hand them the baton in a way that we have continued stabilization, and then we can go home. I think letting General Petraeus call that shot in Baghdad is far more important than 435 wannabe generals here in the United States Congress and in Washington.

I wanted to point out one more time: Civilian casualties a month before the surge, 1,440; casualties after the surge beginning February 15, 265. Bombings have dropped 40 percent, from 163 to 102. And that would just be general bombings, IEDs. And then car bombings are down 35 percent, from 56 to 36. That is progress we are already seeing because of the surge.

And I want to get the guys home, but you need to complete the job, you need to have victory and make sure that we do not have to go back, and an arbitrary pullout date would cause that.

I also want to say this: I really do believe the Democrats are right in having more oversight. Frankly, I think that, as Republicans, we did not get the

oversight that we should have. We should have been tougher on some of the testimonies that we received. And I think that their suggestions of what the Iraqi Government should do aren't far off. But I think giving them deadlines when we have trouble passing legislation ourselves, I think that is a little unreasonable.

But then the biggest part is the arbitrary pullout date of March 2008. And I think you are setting up failure when you are doing that. That decision has got to be made by our generals in Baghdad.

And, finally, let me say this: Let's defeat this bill. Let's come back on a bipartisan basis and come up with something better, something that gets Democrats and Republicans together in the name of the troops, America, and international security.

It is in our interests to get the politics out of legislation like this and come back with something better, something more noble. And I believe we can do it, because we are Americans. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Barton, and I thank Dr. Burgess for letting a noncommittee member go first. I appreciate the courtesy; and I wanted to thank Mr. Inslee for his help on this bill and all of the work and leadership by both parties on this.

If Charlie Norwood were here today, he would be sitting there and he would be embarrassed. He would be deflecting all of these sweet things that are being said about him. But if this bill was controversial and was having a tough fight, Charlie Norwood would be right in the middle of it and pushing it along and making sure it got done and standing up for the folks outside the 70,000-plus folks who are in line for an organ transplant right now. That is who he always answered to.

I remember the Norwood-Dingell bill on the Patients' Bill of Rights, how he did not appreciate the leadership in our party's position on it, so he went out and found alternative ways to get it done. And in that case, he cobbled together a bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans to push his Patients' Bill of Rights because Charlie Norwood was a fighter, and he was always a fighter for a good cause. So it is fitting and proper for him to be recognized in this bill.

A couple of weeks ago I was at the University of Georgia, which is located in Athens, my hometown and in Charlie Norwood's district. And I met with Dr. Steve Stice. He told me he is doing a lot of work on stem cell, and he casually mentioned that the University of Georgia had cloned about 50 cattle and sheep. I could not believe they had cloned that many.

But as I listened to him and all of the technological breakthroughs that are happening in the world of science and medicine today, I think what lies out there in organ transplant, we have not even scratched the surface. There will be medical revolutions in the years to come because of the technology that is out there.

So our laws and what we are doing today is keeping the law current with the technology and with the science. That is why it is a good thing to do this. Think about Floyd Spence, our colleague from South Carolina, who had a lung transplant for 12 years, and our brave Charlie Norwood. Think about what they do; they educate the rest of us.

Our day in office for all of us will end. Either politically or biologically or for whatever reason, but what a great thing it is to have that service time in the House be used to hold a baton high that you can pass on to the next generation and have true national impact. That is what we are doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, if the troops in Baghdad were watching what we were doing today, they would be outraged; but when you are in harm's way, you don't exactly sit around and watch C-SPAN and silly politicians with silly resolutions.

Here is what the Democrats are up to. Dearest troops, we support you, but your mission is in the tank. We don't support your mission. Americans are dying, the situation is dire, but we are not going to send more reinforcements. You are on your own.

But wait. The majority party still wants to play backseat driver. This is nothing but a nonbinding resolution, fit for the Democrat club back home, but when you are the U.S. Congress in the majority party, you have the right to pass laws, real laws affecting real people.

If you have an alternative plan, introduce it. Get out of the back seat. November 7th put your hands on the steering wheel with the President. You

can now help drive the direction of policy, national policy in Iraq. This is a silly resolution. I recommend a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from Missouri, is it your intent to keep going or will you come back to the Republican side? Mr. Boyd and I are lucky enough to be in the same committee, and I think we are probably working under the same time constraint, if we could go back to the Republican side. That is what I wanted to ask you, after he speaks.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding, and Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

I want to say this, that if the troops in Baghdad watched what Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us in the Free World, they do not sit around and watch C-SPAN and what silly politicians do. They live in a real world where there are real bullets.

This resolution, on the other hand, is not real. It is a political whip check designed for press releases. It is nonbinding.

The Democrat National Chairman, Howard Dean, famously said: ``The idea that we are going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.''

Speaker Pelosi called the war ``a grotesque mistake.''

So if the situation in Iraq is so hopeless, and unwinnable, why are we messing around with nonbinding resolutions? If the war is a lost cause and there is no longer an American interest, why do we not just go ahead and get out of there now? It is not worth another life or another dime.

Conversely, if the cause is worthwhile, should we not fight to win? Nonbinding resolutions, Mr. Speaker, are great for the Democrat club back home, but for those of us who serve in Congress, we are the law of the land. We are elected to pass laws, fund wars and influence policies. Our opinions, as expressed in nonbinding resolutions about what should happen in Sudan or Israel or Cuba, they are appropriate, but when it comes to American soil, our job is to pass real legislation and make real laws. We do not have to vent our frustration. We can change policy.

This week's resolution is just a cover-your-rear-end political design to give the legislative branch a chance to say I told you so. But, Mr. Speaker, as you know, like it or not, a real vote is coming.

It is coming in the form of the fiscal year 2008 supplemental bill. In that supplemental resolution, $5.6 billion is designed to pay for 21,500 new troops in Iraq. All Members will have a chance to vote on that supplemental bill; and as you know, an amendment can be offered to delete the $5.6 billion. A ``no'' vote would be against it, and a ``yes'' vote would be to say we are against having the troops there and we are not going to pay for it. That is what is real.

I think in November the electorate made an adjustment. They did not like what the Republican House was doing, and I certainly understand that. I think we did fail on many levels to deliver the products which we promised we would deliver to the people. But the Democrats are in the same situation. It was an anti-war fever that swept so many of them into office, but here we are with a nonbinding resolution.

Now, I understand that it is frustrating. I serve, as you do, on the Defense Committee; and as you know, many times we do not get all the information that we want. We have heard, as Mr. Boyd said, general after general after admirals after captains telling us we do not need more troops in Iraq, and now they are saying that they do. We have also heard the President say the decisions for military changes in Iraq will be made in Baghdad, not in Washington, DC, and I hope that is the case with this situation.

I am very frustrated about it, but one thing we have been told unequivocally by those same generals and admirals and Secretaries of the Navy and Army and Secretary of Defense and today from the ambassadors from Jordan and Egypt is that if America withdraws from Iraq at this time, it is sure to bring chaos and destruction. That will lead to a full-scale sectarian war which could lead to a division. It could be so chaotic that the United States of America would have to return to Iraq in larger force numbers than we have now. It could lead to Iraq becoming a nation state controlled by terrorists or terrorist sympathizers and that would be in control of the third largest oil reserve in the world.

Now, we have seen what Mr. Putin and Hugo Chavez down in Venezuela are doing with their petro-dollars and all the anti-American ill will they are spreading around the globe. Would you really want to empower a bunch of terrorists with those kinds of oil revenues?

Then the other thing we are told is if you pull out immediately or quickly what happens to U.S. credibility abroad? As we are dealing with China, who very recently shot down a satellite, we are very concerned about that. North Korea, we are at the negotiating table with them right now. And Russia seems to be slipping away from democracy and going back to some of its older ways that we are worried about. As I have just said, Hugo Chavez is spreading bad street money all over South America, which is not a good sign.

And then finally, Mr. Speaker, if we pull out, what does it say to the American servicemen who have already lost their lives? Hey, sorry, we did not mean it; your sacrifice was not worth us gutting it out, if you will.

You know, it is interesting, the President has been criticized for ``staying the course,'' and he is no longer staying the course. Who is supporting staying the course by a ``yes'' vote to this nonbinding resolution, but the Democrat leadership and the Democrat Party.

If you are saying it is a lost cause but we support you, how are you saying, no, we are not going to send recruits? It doesn't make sense. You just can't have it both ways. This is staying the course. The President no longer wants to stay the course. He is saying let's plus- up the numbers, let's divide Baghdad nine different ways. And that is something the RAND Corporation has called for as it has studied the history of nations that have insurgencies. Subdividing the areas is an effective way to fight insurgencies. The President has said let's go into al Anbar province; let's go into Sadr city. Those are changing of the course.

Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote is a vote to stay the course; a nonbinding resolution is an insult to those who are in harm's way. If you truly believe that the war is a lost cause, why mess around with a nonbinding resolution? A ``no'' vote to this is a vote for change, and I believe it sends a stronger signal to the troops that we support you and we are sending new recruits to help you finish and complete this job.