Peter DeFazio: Even as the House debates the continuation of the failing Bush policies in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney,
Peter DeFazio: the chief architect of the Iraq strategy, is beating the drums for a new war, a war with Iran.
Peter DeFazio: On Sunday, we had unidentified sources saying that the highest levels of the Iranian Government have directed use of weapons that are killing U.S. troops.
Peter DeFazio: No information was provided to substantiate the charge; administration officials yesterday deflected requests for more details, even as they repeatedly implied Tehran's involvement.
Peter DeFazio: It may or may not be true, but they have got a pretty bad record on intelligence.
Peter DeFazio: And now Major General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Peter DeFazio: said yesterday that he has no information indicating Iran's government is directing the supply of lethal weapons to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq.
Peter DeFazio: It sounds like the Iraq war intelligence all over again, phony intelligence leading us down the path to disastrous involvement.
Peter DeFazio: This has to stop.
Peter DeFazio: We start by voting against the escalation of the Bush policies in Iraq and begin to chart a new course.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from North Carolina rise?
Robin Hayes: Can I address the house for a minute and extend and revise my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Robin Hayes: Mr. Speaker, there are many heroes fighting the global war against terrorists, and many from the Eighth District of North Carolina.
Robin Hayes: But today I rise to pay tribute to one hero in particular.
Robin Hayes: Today I am proud to recognize Air Force Staff Sergeant Richard Rose, son of Robyn Rose of Laurinburg, North Carolina.
Robin Hayes: Staff Sergeant Rose, a member of the 1st Combat Camera Squadron at Charleston Air Force Base,
Robin Hayes: served as a Joint Combat Camera photographer with the Multinational Division in Baghdad from May 18 to September 18 of 2006.
Robin Hayes: During this time, Sergeant Rose was attached to several Army units, documenting their daily missions and contributing over 1,000 images of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Robin Hayes: Sergeant Rose primarily shoots with his camera lens, but that changed last summer.
Robin Hayes: During a mission with the 101st Airborne Division Air Assault Unit, insurgents began firing at an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team which was clearing roadside bombs nearby.
Robin Hayes: Richard quickly responded by returning fire with his M4 rifle, allowing the Explosive Ordnance Team to move to safety.
Robin Hayes: His efforts are credited with helping to save the lives of 56 service members during the attack, and his bravery in this firefight earned him the Bronze Star.
Robin Hayes: I ask that you join me in congratulating Sergeant Richard Rose on being awarded the Bronze Star in defending our Nation in the war against terrorists.
Robin Hayes: Pray for their safety, and pray for victory against these terrorists.
Robin Hayes: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: What puropses does the gentleman from Michigan rise.
Bart Stupak: I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to extend and revise my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Bart Stupak: Mr. Speaker, this week the House is conducting the most important debate of this Congress, whether Members will support the President's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Bart Stupak: I oppose the President's plan, and during this debate I am hoping that those who support the escalation of the war can answer a couple of questions.
Bart Stupak: First, if the President is allowed to move forward, how do we guarantee these troops have the protective armor they need?
Bart Stupak: Earlier this month we learned that troop escalation would create logistical hurdles for both the Army and Marines, which are already short thousands of vehicles and armor kits.
Bart Stupak: Members who support the President's plan need to explain how do we provide the troops the equipment they need.
Bart Stupak: Members who support the plan also need to explain where do we come up with the additional troops that will be needed to support 21,500 combat troops.
Bart Stupak: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates as many as 48,000 troops may be required to implement the plan.
Bart Stupak: Mr. Speaker, these are questions that supporters of escalating the war in Iraq should ask before they vote to escalate the war in Iraq.
Bart Stupak: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: For purposes does the gentlelady from Tennessee rise?
Marsha Blackburn: To address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Marsha Blackburn: Thank you Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is the front line in the war on terror.
Marsha Blackburn: We know this because the terrorists tell us it is so.
Marsha Blackburn: In poll after poll, the American people tell us they fully believe that what happens on the front line in Iraq affects their security every single day.
Marsha Blackburn: You know, the Democrats have every right to disagree with the President's plan, but a nonbinding resolution is not the way to go.
Marsha Blackburn: It sends a message of no confidence and no support to our troops in the field, weakening their morale while encouraging and emboldening the enemy.
Marsha Blackburn: Our men and women in harm's way are fighting the insurgents and they are fighting the battle of ideas every day, not only in Iraq but in 30 different countries around this globe.
Marsha Blackburn: They know that what we have to do is continue to win in that battle, and they don't have time to fight the war of public opinion in this country,
Marsha Blackburn: which is what some of my colleagues in this House would seek to have them do.
Marsha Blackburn: The Democrats have no alternative plan; they have no way forward.
Marsha Blackburn: I welcome a responsible debate on this war, but let's make sure that we keep the focus on encouraging our troops, freedom, prosperity and ideas, and that we not encourage those who seek to do us harm.
Marsha Blackburn: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentlewoman from Virgin Islands rise?
Donna Christensen: To address the house for one minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Donna Christensen: Thank you Mr. Speaker, yesterday, while we were here at work, his family, my prior coworkers at the Department of Health, my friends and community said farewell to a beloved son,
Donna Christensen: Albert Bryan, Sr. His sudden passing caught us all off guard, but that was often his way.
Donna Christensen: Never one to call attention to himself, despite his good looks, tall stature and significant presence, he was unassuming and gentle, with a generous spirit.
Donna Christensen: Whether it was as a senior officer at one of our banks or as PTA president at the Pearl B. Larsen Elementary School our children attended,
Donna Christensen: or whether it was as an administrator of the Charles Howard Health Facility or co-owner of a favorite watering hole, or whether it was as the devoted son, husband,
Donna Christensen: father, grandfather who was always about family, he was the best there was.
Donna Christensen: Born and raised in St. Thomas, but living much of his adult life on St. Croix, he accomplished the impossible in bringing the two islands together,
Donna Christensen: especially through the camaraderie of the Cruzan Gentlemen of his current home and the Gentlemen of Savaan, where he spent his early life.
Donna Christensen: Bert was my coworker, supporter, confidant and friend.
Donna Christensen: I will miss him, as all who knew him and loved him will.
Donna Christensen: He gave a lot to everyone that he touched as he passed this way.
Donna Christensen: We are grateful for his life, a life he lived fully and well.
Donna Christensen: My family, staff and the Congress of the United States extend our heartfelt sympathy to his wife, children, grandchildren and his entire family.
Donna Christensen: May he rest in peace.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purpose does the esteemed gentleman from Texas rise?
Lamar Smith: I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Lamar Smith: Mr. Speaker, this nonbinding resolution is really a nonsensical political statement.
Lamar Smith: It would deprive the generals and the troops of the reinforcements they desperately need.
Lamar Smith: How would you feel if you were an American soldier in Iraq and Congress passed this resolution?
Lamar Smith: It is like telling you to fight with one arm tied behind your back, and that is no way to defeat a terrorist.
Lamar Smith: Let's trust the men and women in uniform who are sacrificing their lives to protect ours.
Lamar Smith: There is a reason there has been no terrorist attack on America since 2001.
Lamar Smith: It is not because some want to second-guess our military, it is because our troops want to win.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from Maine rise?
Michael Michaud: To address the house for one minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Michael Michaud: Thank you Mr. Speaker, it is time to get off the fast track of lost jobs and on the right track for our American workforce.
Michael Michaud: In these very Chambers I hear that we just need to fix labor provisions and trade agreements and do a side deal on fast track and then the problem is solved.
Michael Michaud: This is simply not good enough.
Michael Michaud: I ask my fellow Democrats that this is a time to sound the alarm on fast track.
Michael Michaud: Fast track hamstrings Congress' ability to fix our broken trade policies.
Michael Michaud: The midterm elections show that most Americans understand that our current trade policies have failed.
Michael Michaud: Over 3 million American manufacturing jobs, one out of every six manufacturing jobs, have been lost during the fast track era.
Michael Michaud: The U.S. trade deficit has exploded as imports have surged.
Michael Michaud: U.S. wages stagnate as trade deficits soar, displacing good U.S. jobs.
Michael Michaud: Fast track trashes the checks and balances that are essential for our democracy.
Michael Michaud: It is time to get Congress on the right track in the new majority.
Michael Michaud: It is time for a new direction as we deal with trade agreements.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from South Carolina rise?
Gresham Barrett: unanimouse consent to address the house for one minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Gresham Barrett: Mr. Speaker, in a time of war Americans and those risking their lives to protect freedom deserve leadership, not politics.
Gresham Barrett: As we continue to debate this nonbinding resolution today, we undermine the overall war on terror and the successes we have had since the attack.
Gresham Barrett: In the battle for Iraq mistakes have been made, but the President put forth a plan for victory that understands those mistakes and sets benchmarks to ensure Iraqi involvement and success.
Gresham Barrett: On the other side, they want to have it both ways.
Gresham Barrett: They say we support our troops, but at the same time they say we don't support the war you are fighting.
Gresham Barrett: Our troops deserve better.
Gresham Barrett: Either commit to their mission and bring them home victorious or stop their funding and bring them home in defeat.
Gresham Barrett: The choices are there in front of us.
Gresham Barrett: Congress should allow time for the plan to take hold, not put forth a resolution that clearly is a step in the wrong direction, a policy of retreat and defeat.
Gresham Barrett: Mr. Speaker, there is only one way out of Iraq, only one way out of this war, victory.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from Illinois rise?
Phil Hare: to address the house for one minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Phil Hare: Speaker, the American people deserve to know where we stand on the President's troop escalation plan, and this week every Member of this House will have an opportunity to explain why he
Phil Hare: or she supports or opposes President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Phil Hare: The resolution that we are debating this week is a straightforward two page bill.
Phil Hare: First, it highlights our continued support for our troops in Iraq.
Phil Hare: And second, it voices opposition to the President's troop increase plan.
Phil Hare: The American people don't want Congress to continue to shirk from its responsibility to oversee the Bush administration's implementation of this war.
Phil Hare: Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the Senate, where a bipartisan resolution opposing the President's troop escalation plan is being kept hostage from the Senate floor by Republicans
Phil Hare: who seem content to allow the President to conduct this war any way he sees fit.
Phil Hare: Mr. Speaker, the American people have unequivocally called on Congress to discuss this situation in Iraq and to take action to change our course there.
Phil Hare: Here in this House, we have begun the process this week.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purpose does the gentlelady from North Carolina rise?
Foxx: I seek permission to address the house for one minute Mr. Speaker.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Virginia Foxx: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly condemn H.Con.Res 63, and the destructive message it sends our troops.
Virginia Foxx: Additionally, it sends a message that emboldens the very terrorists we are fighting to prevent another 9/11.
Virginia Foxx: The debate over this resolution makes America appear weak in her resolve to win the war on terror.
Virginia Foxx: We have seen terrorism all across the globe, from bombings in Spain, to London and Bali.
Virginia Foxx: America is fighting radical Islamic jihadists, an enemy that poses a threat of colossal proportions.
Virginia Foxx: They will stop at nothing to follow their twisted version of Islam and to pursue the destruction of Israel and Western civilization.
Virginia Foxx: That is why I stand here with the firm resolve and pledge to protect my country and future generations from terrorism.
Virginia Foxx: I took an oath and have a constitutional obligation as a Member of Congress to protect and defend America from all enemies, foreign or domestic.
Virginia Foxx: This is an obligation all Members of Congress share, and it simply escapes me how some of my colleagues fail to understand the dire consequences of leaving Iraq.
Virginia Foxx: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from Ohio rise?
Speaker pro tempore: Without Objection.
Dennis Kucinich: Mr. Speaker, the United States illegally attacked and invaded Iraq in a war based on lies.
Dennis Kucinich: Now those same lies are being used to tell the American people we must escalate and continue to fund the war in the name of the troops.
Dennis Kucinich: Now, where does this logic end?
Dennis Kucinich: The war could go on endlessly as we profess our support for the troops.
Dennis Kucinich: It is time to stop using the troops as pawns.
Dennis Kucinich: It is time to stop using the presence of the troops in Iraq as a reason to keep funding the war.
Dennis Kucinich: It is time to use the money we have now to bring the troops home.
Dennis Kucinich: And when they come home, it is time to take care of our veterans.
Dennis Kucinich: I have presented this Congress with a 12-point plan to bring our troops home, end the occupation, and stabilize Iraq.
Dennis Kucinich: Yes, we should stop the escalation, but we should also end the occupation by ending funding for the war.
Dennis Kucinich: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from South Carolina rise?
Joe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to address the house for one minute.
Joe Wilson: Revise and extend my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: without objection.
Joe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as we continue the debate of opposing reinforcements for American forces in the global war on terrorism,
Joe Wilson: I am reminded of how crucial it is that we achieve victory to protect American families.
Joe Wilson: The current situation in Iraq reminds me of a smoldering fire in an urban area.
Joe Wilson: Proper equipment and a sufficient number of professional firefighters are brought in to put out the fire.
Joe Wilson: To sit back, overlook the seriousness or leave the scene of the fire only enables the fire to grow, become more intense and spread throughout the neighborhood.
Joe Wilson: This analogy is applicable to Iraq.
Joe Wilson: As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently, the violence in Iraq, if unchecked, could spread outside its borders and draw other states into a regional conflagration.
Joe Wilson: Just as we know our fire chiefs would call up additional firefighters to contain a spreading fire,
Joe Wilson: we must give our troops in Baghdad the chance to suppress violence and stabilize the region, which protects American families.
Joe Wilson: In conclusion, God bless our troops and we will never forget September 11.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey rise?
Albio Sires: permission to address the house for one minute.
Speaker pro tempore: without objection.
Albio Sires: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the war in Iraq, congressional Republicans have stood on the sidelines
Albio Sires: as the Bush administration proved time and time again that it could not manage the war.
Albio Sires: When Democrats took control of Congress we vowed things will be different.
Albio Sires: Mr. Speaker, we are living up to that promise.
Albio Sires: In the last month, House and Senate committees have held 52 hearings on the war in Iraq.
Albio Sires: Congress is finally asking the tough questions of this administration.
Albio Sires: This week each of us has an opportunity to speak on the President's troop surge.
Albio Sires: Every single Member of this House will have 5 minutes to speak on the resolution.
Albio Sires: The House has not debated the issue of war like this since the first gulf war in 1991.
Albio Sires: Mr. Speaker, the American people want Congress to take its oversight responsibility seriously.
Albio Sires: And this new Democratic Congress is doing just that.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?
Timothy Murphy: I rise to address the House for 1 minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without Objection.
Timothy Murphy: Mr. Speaker, an estimated 2 million seniors suffer from a depressive illness, and another 5 million may have depressive symptoms.
Timothy Murphy: The risk for depression doubles when a person has a chronic illness such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer or Parkinson's disease.
Timothy Murphy: People with mental illness can get better with the right treatment, but Medicare's current policy discriminates against mental health
Timothy Murphy: by charging 21/2 times more in co-payments than for any other outpatient health care treatment.
Timothy Murphy: Seniors who receive necessary mental health services reduce their hospital costs.
Timothy Murphy: One hospital offered mental health services for elderly patients with fractures, and reduced the length of stay by 2 days and hospital costs by over $160,000.
Timothy Murphy: I will be reintroducing legislation to end Medicare discrimination for mental health services by adjusting co-payments, and I ask my colleagues to cosponsor it.
Timothy Murphy: Learn more about how we can make health care affordable and accessible by visiting my Web site, Murphy.house.gov.
Timothy Murphy: We need patient centered health care for patient quality, patient safety and patient choice.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes the gentleman from Colorado rise?
Ed Perlmutter: I ask permission to address the House for 1 minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without Objection.
Ed Perlmutter: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue debating a bipartisan resolution that voices this Congress' opposition to the President's troop escalation plan.
Ed Perlmutter: We are not alone in our opposition to the President's plan.
Ed Perlmutter: Military leaders have raised concerns since the framework of this plan was announced at the end of last year.
Ed Perlmutter: Here are a few examples.
Ed Perlmutter: In testimony before the Senate in November, General John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command said, "I do not believe that more American troops right now is a solution to the problem."
Ed Perlmutter: Retired General Joseph Hoar stated last month, "the new strategy reflects the inability of the administration to get it right.
Ed Perlmutter: The proposed solution to send in more troops will not work.
Ed Perlmutter: It is far too little and too late."
Ed Perlmutter: Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in December, "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes
Ed Perlmutter: of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work."
Ed Perlmutter: Mr. Speaker, these are all men who have been on the frontlines.
Ed Perlmutter: They join us in opposing the President's escalation plan.
Ed Perlmutter: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes the gentleman from Oregon rise?
Greg Walden: Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: Without Objection.
Greg Walden: Mr. Speaker, the failure of Congress to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act is a breach of promise to the more
Greg Walden: than 600 forested counties across America and 4,400 school districts.
Greg Walden: In Umatilla County, Oregon, it is the number one food producing county in the State.
Greg Walden: For them, a well-maintained road system is critical to ensuring family farmers can compete in this global market.
Greg Walden: With more than 340 bridges and, a State high, 1,650 miles of road, Umatilla County faces a significant infrastructure maintenance backlog and challenge.
Greg Walden: County Commissioner Dennis Doherty says, "American farms are dependent on a farm-to-market road system and loss of those funds will cripple our local road system."
Greg Walden: Tammy Dennee, executive director of the Oregon Wheat Growers League said, "Global competition starts locally.
Greg Walden: Being the number one wheat producing county in the State, it is vital to farmers here that the road system is dependable."
Greg Walden: My colleagues, Congress must keep faith with these timbered counties and pass H.R. 17.
Greg Walden: Our future depends on it, our credibility depends on it, and time is running out.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes the gentleman from Minnesota rise?
Keith Ellison: For 1 minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without Objection.
Keith Ellison: Mr. Speaker, the days of this House rubber-stamping President Bush's failed war policies have ended.
Keith Ellison: So far this year, House and Senate committees have held over 52 hearings on Iraq.
Keith Ellison: And now this week, over a 4-day period here on the House floor, we will be debating the President's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Keith Ellison: The bipartisan bill is simple.
Keith Ellison: It states that the House will continue to support our troops, but that we oppose the President's troop increase plan.
Keith Ellison: Some of my Republican colleagues say that if you really support the troops, you must support the President's plan.
Keith Ellison: But this makes no sense.
Keith Ellison: Do my colleagues not realize that our troops in Iraq were polled on the President's plan?
Keith Ellison: Only 41 percent of them supported it.
Keith Ellison: Not even a majority of our troops say that this plan of the President's is a good plan.
Keith Ellison: What about our generals?
Keith Ellison: Both retired and active duty military leaders have said that the President's plan will not reverse the devastating civil war that is now taking place in Iraq.
Keith Ellison: Mr. Speaker, it is time that we listen to those military leaders and our troops and voice our opposition to the President's plan.
Keith Ellison: I yield back
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes the gentleman from Texas rise?
Poe: I ask permission to address the House for 1 minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without Objection.
Mr. POE: Mr. Speaker, journalism has taken a plunge into the depth of disturbing depravity at Central Connecticut University.
Mr. POE: A writer for the college newspaper wrote a slam piece against sexual assault victims.
Mr. POE: His article was entitled, "Rape Only Hurts if You Fight It."
Mr. POE: He claims rape is a magical experience and a blessing for unattractive women.
Mr. POE: He and his Third-World college newspaper now say the piece was satire and humor.
Mr. POE: This mean-spirited article shows no humor, but vile and vicious and abusive words about women.
Mr. POE: Journalistic attacks on rape victims dehumanize them and show a total lack of understanding of this crime.
Mr. POE: Rape is a physical and emotional crime that tries to destroy the inner soul of the victim.
Mr. POE: Almost one-fourth of the women on college campuses are rape victims.
Mr. POE: Journalists who are out of touch with the real world do a disservice to this field, and tragically, like physical abusers, heap journalistic abuse on rape victims.
Mr. POE: And that's just the way it is.
Mr. POE: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman from California rise?
Adam Schiff: Mr. Speaker, request consent to address the house for one minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection
Adam Schiff: Mr. Speaker, the announcement in Beijing yesterday that the Government of North Korea has agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program is a positive step,
Adam Schiff: and I applaud the efforts of Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, as well as the efforts of our negotiating partners, Japan, South Korea, Russia and China.
Adam Schiff: Obviously much work remains to be done to ensure that North Korea follows through on its pledge to halt plutonium production at Yongbyon and to allow the return of international inspectors,
Adam Schiff: as well as to resolve other outstanding issues; most noticeably, the need for complete declaration from Pyongyang of all
Adam Schiff: of its nuclear activities and the final disposition of North Korea's existing nuclear program.
Adam Schiff: As with past agreements with the reclusive regime of Kim Jong-Il, this agreement could collapse at any time.
Adam Schiff: There is now, however, rare optimism that a significant ratcheting down of tensions with the North is possible.
Adam Schiff: The agreement should serve to remind those in the administration who see confrontation as the only way to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program,
Adam Schiff: that diplomacy can be effective, even if it is often immensely frustrating.
Adam Schiff: I hope that the President and Secretary of State will use this breakthrough with North Korea to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Adam Schiff: Mr. speaker I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from Michigan rise?
Peter Hoekstra: I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Peter Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, let me give you four reasons why I think the resolution we will debate today is a bad resolution.
Peter Hoekstra: Number one, it is nonbinding.
Peter Hoekstra: It is a paper tiger.
Peter Hoekstra: It does nothing to influence our strategy or our direction in the global war with radical jihadists.
Peter Hoekstra: Secondly, it ill defines the enemy.
Peter Hoekstra: It does not recognize that we are in a global war with radical jihadists who have attacked us around the world.
Peter Hoekstra: Third, it omits recognizing key U.S. personnel that are serving, and serving ably, in this global war with radical jihadists.
Peter Hoekstra: Why does it not recognize our intelligence professionals?
Peter Hoekstra: Why does it not recognize our Armed Forces and intelligence professionals serving in Afghanistan, throughout the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia?
Peter Hoekstra: Finally, most ironic, the bottom line of this resolution tells the President to stay the course.
Peter Hoekstra: That is not good enough.
Peter Hoekstra: This is a tough enemy.
Peter Hoekstra: We need to develop and evolve our strategy to be successful.
Peter Hoekstra: With that I yield back the remainder of my time.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from Georgia rise?
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Hank Johnson: Mr. Speaker, it is time to send a message to the Bush administration that change is needed in Iraq.
Hank Johnson: Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are debating this week here on the House floor is the first step in this new Congress' efforts to take Iraq in a new direction.
Hank Johnson: Last November the American people were clear that they wanted a dramatic change in Iraq.
Hank Johnson: The President's troop escalation plan is not what they were asking for.
Hank Johnson: This week this House will emphatically voice its opposition to the President's plan.
Hank Johnson: We hope that this serves as a wake-up call and sends the "Decider" a message that he can no longer walk over Congress.
Hank Johnson: We are not going to rubber-stamp his plans any more.
Hank Johnson: This week's debate is only the beginning, Mr. Speaker.
Hank Johnson: House and Senate committees have already conducted 52 hearings on Iraq.
Hank Johnson: That is what the Congress is supposed to do, provide real oversight on the administration.
Hank Johnson: Unfortunately for the first 3 years of this war, congressional Republicans rubberstamped the Decider's Iraq plan.
Hank Johnson: Those days are over.
Hank Johnson: Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to find a new course in Iraq, and a military solution is now out of the question.
Hank Johnson: And that is why this troop escalation plan should be defeated.
Hank Johnson: I yield back.
Speaker pro tempore: For what purposes does the gentleman from Ohio rise?
Sali: I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.
Speaker pro tempore: Without objection.
Mr. SALI: Mr. Speaker, for those who would support House Concurrent Resolution 63, I ask, what is your plan?
Mr. SALI: "No" is not a plan.
Mr. SALI: We have three options to follow.
Mr. SALI: The first is to stay the course.
Mr. SALI: I don't know of anyone, including the President, who is suggesting we take that route.
Mr. SALI: The second is to increase the troops level, which the supporters of House Concurrent Resolution 63 are saying no to.
Mr. SALI: The only other option is to reduce troops.
Mr. SALI: I would ask you who will support House Concurrent Resolution 63, read the Baker-Hamilton report, a bipartisan report, that talks about the effects that will occur if we do withdraw from Iraq.
Mr. SALI: There will be widespread violence there, more than we are seeing today.
Mr. SALI: And they warn us that a withdrawal may require the U.S. to engage, once again, in Iraq to stabilize that area.
Mr. SALI: So for those of you who would support House Concurrent Resolution 63, I again ask, what is your plan?
Mr. SALI: "No" is not a plan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore: Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 157, proceedings will now resume on the concurrent resolution (H.
The SPEAKER pro tempore: Con. Res. 63) disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
The SPEAKER pro tempore: When proceedings were postponed on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, time for debate on the concurrent resolution on that day had expired.
The SPEAKER pro tempore: Pursuant to the resolution, it is now in order for a further period of debate on the concurrent resolution to extend not beyond midnight.
The SPEAKER pro tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) each will control 5 hours.
The SPEAKER pro tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Steny Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time for controlling the time to Mr. Andrews or his designee.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized as the designee of the gentleman from Maryland.
Robert Andrews: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.
Steny Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago, the American people sent a resounding message, a message for change.
Steny Hoyer: They voted for a new direction in our Nation, including a new direction for the war in Iraq, which will enter its fifth year next month.
Steny Hoyer: This week on this House floor the Members of this great body can demonstrate that we not only have heard the voters' message, but also that we have the collective will to send one of our own.
Steny Hoyer: The bipartisan resolution before us asks the Members one straightforward question to be answered.
Steny Hoyer: Do you approve of the President's proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in Iraq, or do you not?
Steny Hoyer: Thus, this resolution is a clarifying moment for the Members to say precisely where they stand on the President's plan.
Steny Hoyer: There is little doubt that our Iraq policy is not succeeding.
Steny Hoyer: Our Commander in Chief, President Bush, acknowledged on this floor last month during his State of the Union address that, and I quote, "Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure."
Steny Hoyer: I voted for the authorization, and I did not vote for failure.
Steny Hoyer: But the policies being pursued by this administration have not led to success.
Steny Hoyer: After nearly 4 years at war, after more than 3,100 of our finest sons and daughters have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice in Iraq, after more than 25,000 have been wounded,
Steny Hoyer: after the expenditure of more than $400 billion on this war effort by the American taxpayer, our success seems as remote as ever.
Steny Hoyer: Not surprisingly, two-thirds of the American people oppose the President's escalation plan.
Steny Hoyer: So do many current and former senior military officials, and Prime Minister Maliki has expressed his disapproval as well.
Steny Hoyer: I oppose the President's plan for several reasons.
Steny Hoyer: First, we simply cannot ignore the many miscalculations made by the administration about this war, from sending too few troops,
Steny Hoyer: to grossly underestimating the cost, to failing to properly plan for the postwar period.
Steny Hoyer: The President repeatedly said that his policies were working.
Steny Hoyer: He was tragically wrong, just as he is wrong today, in my view, about this escalation.
Steny Hoyer: Secondly, this troop escalation does not represent a new strategy.
Steny Hoyer: In fact, we have tried at least four escalations in the past, none of which has succeeded in quelling violence.
Steny Hoyer: The time for more troops was 4 years ago, 3 years ago, perhaps even 2 years ago, but not today.
Steny Hoyer: The fact is our commitment of forces has never, has never been commensurate with the risk the President says exists.
Steny Hoyer: Never has the President, the Commander in Chief, suggested the resources necessary to succeed.
Steny Hoyer: This is too little, tragically, too late.
Steny Hoyer: Third, we cannot disregard the deep skepticism and warnings of our military leaders.
Steny Hoyer: General Abizaid, not just another soldier, but the former chief of the Central Command in charge of our effort in Iraq, has stated that, and I quote,
Steny Hoyer: "More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."
Steny Hoyer: That is the consequence General Abizaid believes of the President's policy.
Steny Hoyer: Former Secretary of State Powell, one of the military leaders so successful in Iraq I, stated, and I quote again, "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad
Steny Hoyer: or the purposes of suppressing the communitarian violence, this civil war, will work."
Steny Hoyer: That is General Powell.
Steny Hoyer: And even Senator MCCAIN, who supports the President's escalation nonetheless, said just last week, "I don't think it enhances our chances for succeeding in Iraq."
Steny Hoyer: It is obvious that there is not a military solution to the violence in Iraq.
Steny Hoyer: We need a diplomatic surge, a surge of Iraqi responsibility.
Steny Hoyer: We must implement an aggressive diplomatic strategy, as suggested by our friend, Frank Wolf, both within the region and beyond.
Steny Hoyer: The Iraqis must take the lead on security, and the mission of American forces must shift from combat to counterterrorism, training and logistics.
Steny Hoyer: And we must begin the responsible redeployment of our forces.
Steny Hoyer: Now, let me close by urging Members to disregard the arguments of those who seek to mischaracterize this resolution.
Steny Hoyer: Some say that the resolution will demoralize our troops.
Steny Hoyer: In a democracy it is proper and essential that we debate the tactics and strategy we are employing when we are asking young Americans, and some not so young Americans, to be at the point of the spear.
Steny Hoyer: It is easy for us to talk about tactics and strategy, not so easy for those who are in harm's way.
Steny Hoyer: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, says this debate will not adversely affect morale if we make it clear, as we have made it clear over and over and over again,
Steny Hoyer: that we will not abandon, we will not underman, we will not undersupply, we will not undertrain, and we will not defund those who we have put in harm's way.
Steny Hoyer: We will support our troops today, tomorrow and every day thereafter.
Steny Hoyer: Some say that this resolution will demoralize our troops.
Steny Hoyer: Yet General Pace, as I said, says otherwise.
Steny Hoyer: Others say that this resolution has not received adequate consideration.
Steny Hoyer: Yet, I tell my friends, in the first 6 weeks of this new Congress, we have held 52 House and Senate hearings.
Steny Hoyer: For the last 4 years this Congress has been absent without leave, and the American people know it.
Steny Hoyer: We did not demand accountability.
Steny Hoyer: We did not look at strategy.
Steny Hoyer: We did not question the President's policies.
Steny Hoyer: Fifty-two hearings have been held to date, and Chairman Lantos has announced that he will hold a full committee hearing
Steny Hoyer: on all pending resolutions related to Iraq when we come back from the President's Day break.
Steny Hoyer: Some say that this resolution is merely symbolic.
Steny Hoyer: To them I simply state that the bipartisan expression of the will of this House,
Steny Hoyer: when it mirrors the views of the vast majority of the American public, cannot, must not, should not be casually ignored.
Steny Hoyer: Some say that this resolution signals retreat in the war on terror.
Steny Hoyer: As one who is absolutely committed to prevailing in the war on terror, to protect our people, to protect our country and, yes, to protect my three daughters, my three grandchildren,
Steny Hoyer: and my great grandchild, I am absolutely committed to policies that will protect us from terror and defeat those terrorists who threaten us.
Steny Hoyer: Continuing to support failed strategy, however, weakens our efforts in the war on terror.
Steny Hoyer: It does not strengthen them.
Steny Hoyer: Furthermore, our failure to implement an effective strategy in Iraq has clearly, indisputably,
Steny Hoyer: resulted in encouraging and enhancing the ability of terrorists to recruit and to spread their twisted, hateful, violent ideology.
Steny Hoyer: Finally, my colleagues some assert that this resolution is a first step to defunding our troops in the field.
Steny Hoyer: This is categorically false.
Steny Hoyer: While the new majority will explore other opportunities to affect Iraq policy, our commitment to our men and women in harm's way is unwavering.
Steny Hoyer: Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body, not one, on either side of the aisle, who does not pray for our Nation's success in Iraq.
Steny Hoyer: Our brave service men and women have performed there with valor and with great honor.
Steny Hoyer: They have done everything that a grateful Nation has asked of them since the beginning of this war.
Steny Hoyer: We will not abandon them.
Steny Hoyer: I say to them directly, we will not abandon you.
Steny Hoyer: We will support you and we will assure that you are trained and equipped for the mission that we give you.
Steny Hoyer: This is a critical moment, I tell you, my colleagues, in our Nation's war effort in Iraq.
Steny Hoyer: The President's policy is failing and his most recent proposal promises more of the same.
Steny Hoyer: This resolution is a first step in our attempt to forge a new direction in Iraq, and I urge every Member to support it.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan.
Peter Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 10 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).
Kay Granger: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday afternoon, I drove about 20 miles to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Balint in Willow Park, Texas.
Kay Granger: I had the solemn honor of presenting them with congressional remarks commemorating the noble and distinguished service of their son, Paulie.
Kay Granger: The parents of Captain Balint did not complain to me or ask me to vote to end the war.
Kay Granger: They talked about the pride of their son and his lifetime desire to serve in the military.
Kay Granger: The Balints have never waffled in their belief that the war in Iraq is one that demands our Nation's full commitment.
Kay Granger: They experienced a loss no one ever wants to share.
Kay Granger: Paulie was fighting to preserve our freedom and our way of life.
Kay Granger: As I wished them well and turned to leave, the Balints asked me to bring a message back to Washington.
Kay Granger: They said to tell you to stay firm because we need to finish the job in Iraq.
Kay Granger: So I am speaking today in memory of Paulie and his mother and his father and his brother and those who are still fighting there for us and listening to what we have to say.
Kay Granger: I will not speak by calling into question anyone's patriotism or motives.
Kay Granger: All of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, recognize that much is at stake in Iraq and, undoubtedly, we all feel passionately about doing our duty to move forward
Kay Granger: and address what I consider to be the issue of our lives, the worldwide war against terrorists and a battleground of that war, which is Iraq.
Kay Granger: The issue of responsibility in this war has been discussed during this debate, and I believe it is an important issue when addressing Iraq and in addressing this resolution.
Kay Granger: Certainly in the change of direction the President has presented, the Iraqis have a clear responsibility to meet the goals of securing their own future.
Kay Granger: Likewise, Congress has a clear responsibility to produce meaningful legislation and provide effective oversight of our government's actions, especially during time of war.
Kay Granger: Put another way, our citizens hold their elected Representatives accountable to craft legislation that results in meaningful and positive change.
Kay Granger: That is precisely what is so disappointingly unacceptable about this nonbinding bill, which fails to do anything,
Kay Granger: which holds no one accountable, and does not move our country forward on this critical issue.
Kay Granger: Frankly, those many who have criticized the administration for staying the course too long are now presenting us with a bill that is the "stay the course" piece
Kay Granger: of legislation that both advocates failure and a position of status quo.
Kay Granger: More specifically, the bill ignores two of the most important parts of our Nation's role in Iraq:
Kay Granger: the consequences of failure and the principal support that we should provide our troops during times of war.
Kay Granger: Let us say we do redeploy, which means quit.
Kay Granger: Or let us say the Congress takes the next step that is being talked about, and that is stopping the funding in Iraq.
Kay Granger: Let us look clearly at the consequences of a failed state in Iraq, not only for America but for the world.
Kay Granger: Let there be no mistake, Iraq is but one front in a long war against a fanatical enemy who does not value human life and who seeks to destroy those who do.
Kay Granger: Failing to secure Iraq will result in massive instability in the Middle East, which will undoubtedly spill over to the rest of the world.
Kay Granger: Consider the fractured nature of the Middle East and the nature of the dangerous threat we face.
Kay Granger: Iranian television stations routinely broadcast commercials that are designed to recruit would-be terrorists.
Kay Granger: In one ad specifically for children, cartoon characters entice them to be suicide bombers.
Kay Granger: Imagine a society that views indoctrinating 10-year-olds in the joys of martyrdom as a positive action.
Kay Granger: And yet that is precisely the kind of hatefilled enemy we face in this war, where again Iraq is just one battle.
Kay Granger: A failed Iraq would provide international terrorists fertile ground to sow the seeds of just that type of hatred and extremist thought.
Kay Granger: These terror groups are cold and brutal and fully dedicated to our destruction.
Kay Granger: In a failed Iraq, terror organizations would exploit a populace who is distrustful of Western democracies, who have turned their backs on them.
Kay Granger: These people would be ripe for terrorist recruitment Just yesterday, many of us met with the ambassadors of Jordan and Egypt who warned us of the consequences should we take the next steps
Kay Granger: that have been hinted at during this debate and meetings held in congressional offices.
Kay Granger: America cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by withdrawal from a direct confrontation with radical terrorists.
Kay Granger: Should we retreat from the current fight, the enemy will continue to intensify their attacks against America, just as they did following the 1983 bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut,
Kay Granger: the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa in 1997, and the brazen attack against USS Cole in 2000.
Kay Granger: Many of the speakers on this resolution have cited the widely accepted Iraq Study Group report,
Kay Granger: which pointed to the dire consequences that America, indeed the world, would face should we fail in Iraq.
Kay Granger: What they choose to ignore is that the bipartisan authors of this report stipulated that they would agree with a short-term surge of American forces to bolster security
Kay Granger: and train Iraqi forces, which is precisely what our new strategy does.
Kay Granger: Two weeks ago, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was published, and it largely concurred with the findings of the study group of the results that failure in Iraq would bring.
Kay Granger: Retreat from Iraq would result in pervasive instability in the Middle East, encourage rogue regimes, and give terrorists a secure base from which to launch attacks against free nations everywhere.
Kay Granger: No one disagrees that the situation in Iraq has become more dangerous, but let me be perfectly clear.
Kay Granger: The consequences of failure in this fight would be catastrophic not only for America, but for the entire world.
Kay Granger: While this war is certainly a test of our resolve, America has faced tough decisions during critical war years in the past.
Kay Granger: In 1862 debate over the Civil War threatened the success of the campaigns that our troops were engaged in.
Kay Granger: During the opening days of World War II, while the troops were engaged in a fight for their lives in the Pacific, Congress bickered over strategies of isolationism based in fear.
Kay Granger: And now in 2007, we find ourselves in the fight of our generation.
Kay Granger: With all my heart I believe we stand at a crucial crossroad where the decision we make will affect not just us, but our children and their children and generations to come.
Kay Granger: Our enemies have demonstrated that they are willing to kill us even if they have to die themselves.
Kay Granger: Thankfully, our servicemen and women are willing to bravely defend our freedom as we in Congress go through the semantics of debating a nonbinding resolution.
Kay Granger: For this reason and all the other reasons I have outlined today, I will not support a resolution that sends anything less than a clear message of support for our troops who are deployed in harm's way.
Kay Granger: Senator Joe Lieberman stated last week in the Senate, "this bill is a resolution of irresolution."
Kay Granger: If you believe the President's new strategy is unsound, then offer a better solution to win.
Kay Granger: If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage to act decisively and be ready to accept the consequences of your convictions.
Kay Granger: Now, that would be a resolution.
Kay Granger: The nonbinding resolution before us is at best confusing, at worst immoral.
Kay Granger: It pledges to support the troops in the field but washes its hands of what they are doing.
Kay Granger: We can't have it both ways.
Kay Granger: We can't say that our military men and women have our full support while disapproving of their mission on the eve of their battle.
Kay Granger: The bill does not resolve to do anything.
Kay Granger: It doesn't offer a solution.
Kay Granger: It only offers political expedient top-cover.
Kay Granger: It would be nice to play the game of nonbinding actions, but our soldiers and marines in Iraq don't have that option, and neither should we.
Kay Granger: In fact, if the troops in Iraq cared to watch what we were doing in Congress this week, they would be outraged.
Kay Granger: Fortunately for us, they have more important things to do and they live in a world where bullets are real and words alone carry little meaning.
Kay Granger: I will close by asking all of you to picture yourselves as an 18- or 19-yearold marine or soldier who is preparing for imminent battle in Baghdad.
Kay Granger: At this very moment, you would be fueling your Humvee; loading your ammunition, checking your gear and equipment; taking time out to pray a private, quiet prayer.
Kay Granger: And if you are lucky, you might be able to call family and friends to tell them how much you love them.
Kay Granger: And all the while, the back of your hair is standing up and the back of your neck is itching because the support that you feel that is necessary from your government is lacking.
Kay Granger: As you prepare for battle, the best that your elected Representatives back home in your Nation's Capital can do is to debate a nonbinding resolution
Kay Granger: that has no real significance, except to call into question the mission you are about to embark on.
Kay Granger: Quit? Unthinkable.
Kay Granger: Stop the funding while they are fighting?
Kay Granger: Immoral. Stay the course and do nothing?
Kay Granger: Outrageous.
Kay Granger: What the Nation and our troops deserve is our best thinking and our best support.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey.
Rob Andrews: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
Rob Andrews: I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Speaker pro tempore: without objection.
Rob Andrews: Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution because it provides the affirmation and the change that I believe we need in Iraq.
Rob Andrews: The affirmation is essentially universal in this House.
Rob Andrews: It is an affirmation that we are irrevocably committed to arm, support, equip, and protect the troops that we have sent to Iraq.
Rob Andrews: We are committed to stand by the young men and women who have made the choice to make a sacrifice for this country.
Rob Andrews: That issue is not an issue.
Rob Andrews: What is an issue is whether American policy is working in Iraq or failing in Iraq.
Rob Andrews: I believe it is failing, and I believe that a vote for this resolution is a vote for change.
Rob Andrews: We have frequently heard, Mr. Speaker, from the minority side that they would like to hear a plan.
Rob Andrews: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest they start listening to this debate and to the American people.
Rob Andrews: Here is how you build a plan: First, you acknowledge reality by properly defining the problem.
Rob Andrews: The administration persists in rhetoric that defines the conflict in Iraq as a struggle between forces of civilization on one hand and the forces which wrought September 11 on the other.
Rob Andrews: To some extent this characterization is accurate, but to a great extent this characterization is inaccurate.
Rob Andrews: A significant portion of the violence in Iraq is not the result of Islamic violence against American troops, although it exists.
Rob Andrews: A significant portion of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian violence, Shiia against Sunni, Sunni against Shiia, and occasionally others against the Kurds.
Rob Andrews: This is not the position of the Democratic Party.
Rob Andrews: This is the observation of the military and intelligence leadership in public documents of this country.
Rob Andrews: Sectarian violence is the principal problem in Iraq.
Rob Andrews: If the problem in Iraq were that a fragile but legitimate young government was struggling to hang on but could not overcome the resistance, then this idea of a troop surge would make sense.
Rob Andrews: The idea of sending more fighters to defeat the resistance would make sense.
Rob Andrews: This is not the proper definition of the problem.
Rob Andrews: The troop surge does not send more fighters to defeat the resistance.
Rob Andrews: It sends more referees to inject themselves into the violence between Shiia and Sunni militia and warfighters.
Rob Andrews: The problem in Iraq is largely, not exclusively but largely, how to stop the sectarian violence.
Rob Andrews: The second change that we must have is a change that vests the Iraqis themselves with the primary responsibility and eventually the exclusive responsibility to defeat that sectarian violence.
Rob Andrews: Sending more American troops to do the job of the Iraqis is not the answer.
Rob Andrews: Insisting that the Iraqis do their own job, defend their own country, fight their own fight is the answer.
Rob Andrews: Now, the United States should not divorce itself from that effort.
Rob Andrews: The United States, in my view, should not immediately vest the Iraqis with all that authority.
Rob Andrews: But sending more young Americans to fight the fight for legitimacy of the Iraqi Government will not further the legitimacy of the Iraqi Government.
Rob Andrews: It will defer it.
Rob Andrews: It will weaken it.
Rob Andrews: It will undermine it.
Rob Andrews: There is one way, and one way only, to determine whether Iraqis themselves are willing to fight for this government,
Rob Andrews: whether Shiia are willing to fight Shiia militia, whether Sunni are willing to fight Sunni militia.
Rob Andrews: And that is to let them do it, not to give the job to more and more Americans.
Rob Andrews: This is the change that we need.
Rob Andrews: And, finally, we need a change which recognizes that the principal problem in reaching a unity government in Iraq is political negotiation.
Rob Andrews: Now, this is not to say that diplomats alone can solve this problem, but it is most certainly to say that if those who are vested in the outcome of this civil war are not brought
Rob Andrews: to a conference table, brought to a negotiation, and compelled or encouraged to reach a solution, I doubt very much that it will come.
Rob Andrews: The United States has become the guarantor of the status quo in Iraq, and the status quo is failing.
Rob Andrews: The best way to serve the interests of the American troops is to engage in the democratic debate for which they are fighting.
Rob Andrews: Young Americans are fighting and dying so that Iraqis will have the right to debate their country's future.
Rob Andrews: It would be sadly and bitterly ironic if we abrogated our responsibility to debate our country's future over what they should be doing in that country and how long they should be there.
Rob Andrews: If you want to serve the troops, have the debate.
Rob Andrews: And if you want to promote the idea of avoiding failure in Iraq, then change the policy in Iraq.
Rob Andrews: Do not sustain the status quo.
Rob Andrews: I believe that if you want to change the policy in Iraq, voting "yes" on resolution 63 is the right first step.
Rob Andrews: Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend from California (Mr. Schiff).
Speaker pro tempore: Mr. Schiff is recognized for the balance of the time.
Adam Schiff: Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 4 years since President Bush ordered American military forces into Iraq with the intention of toppling the government of Saddam Hussein.
Adam Schiff: Now, after more than 3,100 American troops have been lost and this Nation has spent in excess of $365 billion, we find ourselves at a crossroads.
Adam Schiff: Do we endorse the President's decision to escalate the conflict, or do we, as a coequal branch of government, exercise our prerogative to force a change in course?
Adam Schiff: In October of 2002 I voted for the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq based on three assumptions: First,
Adam Schiff: that the intelligence community correctly assessed that Iraq had active stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing a nuclear bomb; second,
Adam Schiff: that President Bush would exhaust all diplomatic efforts to resolve the international community's standoff with Iraq over its weapons programs; and, third,
Adam Schiff: that if the President determined that a resort to force was necessary the prosecution of the war and its aftermath would be competently managed by the President and his administration.
Adam Schiff: Each of these assumptions proved to be wrong.
Adam Schiff: Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no nuclear program; President Bush did not exhaust all diplomatic efforts; and perhaps most tragically,
Adam Schiff: his administration made terrible, costly and repeated blunders in its conduct of the war.
Adam Schiff: I have been to Iraq three times to visit our troops and to thank them for their service and their sacrifice.
Adam Schiff: I have met the families of five soldiers and marines from my district who have been lost in Iraq.
Adam Schiff: I have visited with our wounded here and overseas.
Adam Schiff: Words cannot convey the admiration that I have for the magnificent job that these men and women, many of them still in their late teens and early twenties, are doing on our behalf in Iraq.
Adam Schiff: Whatever failings there have been in the prosecution of this war by the administration, our troops have performed magnificently in wretched conditions and against an often unseen enemy
Adam Schiff: that has targeted U.S. military and Iraqi citizens without discrimination.
Adam Schiff: We must and we will continue to ensure that they have the resources they need to do their jobs and to come home safely, and once they are home,
Adam Schiff: we will provide them with the care and benefits that they have paid for in blood.
Adam Schiff: Unlike some of my friends in the minority, I have never construed support for the troops to require a blind, unquestioning and slavish devotion to the Executive, even when the Executive is wrong,
Adam Schiff: even when its policies will not achieve the desired result, and even when those very policies place our troops unnecessarily and unproductively at greater risk.
Adam Schiff: On the contrary, on the contrary, an engaged Congress is essential to meaningful support for the troops.
Adam Schiff: On many occasions here on the House floor, in committee and in meetings with senior officials, I have pressed for accountability, oversight and a more vigorous commitment to force protection.
Adam Schiff: In October 2003, I voted against the $87 billion Iraq supplemental because I believed that it shortchanged security for our troops and allocated too much for no-bid contracts.
Adam Schiff: Now, more than 3 years later, our reconstruction efforts in Iraq are a disaster and a national disgrace.
Adam Schiff: Too many of our troops still ride into battle in vehicles that are not properly protected against IEDs and other weapons.
Adam Schiff: Last June I voted against the administration's "stay the course" resolution that sought to conflate the war (I thank the gentleman) in Iraq with the entire struggle against al Qaeda,
Adam Schiff: even as it failed to acknowledge that our strategy to stabilize the country was not working and that its country was slipping into civil war.
Adam Schiff: Now, against the advice of Congress, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, most military experts and the American people,
Adam Schiff: President Bush has determined that victory in Iraq can be achieved by deploying 21,000 additional combat troops to Baghdad and its environs.
Adam Schiff: Regrettably, I cannot see how this escalation can be successful.
Adam Schiff: Instead, I believe it will further the cycle of dependency that has allowed Iraq's Shiite dominated government to avoid making compromises with Sunnis and to avoid building capable security forces.
Adam Schiff: It will increase the strain on our military at a time when the Army and Marines are already stretched to the breaking point.
Adam Schiff: And, most of all, it will deepen our military commitment to Iraq at a time when there is a national consensus
Adam Schiff: that we should be taking steps to reduce our combat role and reinvigorate the diplomatic process.
Adam Schiff: The administration and the minority charge that those who do not support the escalation have no plan (May I have an additional 30 seconds?)
Adam Schiff: and that this is the only possible path to success.
Adam Schiff: I disagree.
Adam Schiff: The Iraq Study Group laid out a strategy that centered around a reduced American combat presence in Iraq, increased efforts to train Iraqi forces,
Adam Schiff: increased pressures on the Iraqis to make compromises and a regional conference to hammer out a common approach to Iraq.
Adam Schiff: This resolution is a clear message to the President that his approach has lost the confidence of this House and we need a change of direction.
Adam Schiff: I hope he chooses to take our counsel.
Adam Schiff: But he should be aware that the days of a rubber- stamp Congress are over, and we are willing to take other steps to insist on charting a new course in Iraq.
Adam Schiff: I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan.
Peter Hoekstra: Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Texas judge carter.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
John Carter: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
John Carter: Mr. Speaker, I spent many years of my life being a trial judge in the beloved State of Texas, and as we are trying to make these decisions here today,
John Carter: I think there is a good parallel to be struck between the decisions that this House is going to make and the decisions that a jury gets asked to be made in the courtroom.
John Carter: The process always begins with pleadings, and I have here in my hand the pleadings of the majority party of the House of Representatives, pleading for relief from this body.
John Carter: They begin by section 1, the Congress and the American people will continue to support
John Carter: and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving and have bravely served honorably in Iraq.
John Carter: Well, they are not really pleading for any relief there.
John Carter: They are not actually asking us for anything, other than stating this is what they stand for.
John Carter: So we have to kind of fall back on our experience and what we have experienced recently.
John Carter: We have just experienced a continuing resolution, as they called it, which cut the military over $4 billion.
John Carter: But that is okay, it is going to be put back in the supplemental, we are told.
John Carter: Yet in the argument in this case, I have heard many folks that step up there and start talking about they are part of the Out of Iraq Caucus and they wish to defund to get the troops back home.
John Carter: So if they are going to defund, when are they going to put that money back?
John Carter: They say they support our troops.
John Carter: They, this Congress, has elected by its vote, General Petraeus, an expert in counterinsurgency, to give us a plan.
John Carter: And he has.
John Carter: He has told us, I need more boots on the ground to back up the Iraqi troops as they go in and clean out these militias and give some stability to Baghdad.
John Carter: That is what he has asked us for.
John Carter: And he has also told us that this type of action by Congress will discourage his troops.
John Carter: Secretary Gates has told us in his opinion this will encourage our enemies, just this statement, this kind of thing that we are doing here today.
John Carter: And yet we hear arguments that is just not true.
John Carter: Yet I don't know, I have got a little note here that ABC News, certainly nobody's conservative press, reports that they talked to some Army sergeants in Ramadi.
John Carter: First Sergeant Louis Barnum says, "it makes me sick.
John Carter: I was born and raised a Democrat.
John Carter: When I see that, it makes me sad."
John Carter: Sergeant Brian Orzechowski says, "I don't want to bad mouth the President at all.
John Carter: To me, it is treason."
John Carter: Then in this morning's paper, in the Washington Times, Cal Thomas' column, Army Sergeant Daniel Dobson, 22, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in his second tour in Iraq, says,
John Carter: "The American military has shown a stone-cold professional veneer throughout the seething debate over Iraq.
John Carter: Beneath that veneer, however, is a fuming visceral hatred.
John Carter: We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress."
John Carter: So the evidence seems to be that this does seem to discourage our troops.
John Carter: And how will it encourage our enemies?
John Carter: Let's think about that.
John Carter: If the majority gets its way and we pull out of Iraq, the enemy will be able to say, the jihadists of whatever faction they may be, will be able to say, "We defeated the Russians in Afghanistan;
John Carter: we defeated the Shah and the United States of America in Iran; we have now defeated the United States of America and its coalition partners in Iraq."
John Carter: Won't this make a great recruiting poster and slogan for those who seek further jihadists who wish to do us harm?
John Carter: So although their pleadings don't call for anything other than a statement of what they stand for, the consequences may be dire.
John Carter: Then we go on to see what also they are telling us that they want to do.
John Carter: They are just telling us that Congress disapproves of the decision of President George Bush, President George Bush announced on January 10,
John Carter: 2007, to deploy more than 22,000 additional United States troops in Iraq.
John Carter: Okay. What does that tell us?
John Carter: That tells us they don't like what the President's decision was.
John Carter: That is what it tells us.
John Carter: Does it tell us why?
John Carter: Well, we have heard a lot of people tell us why.
John Carter: So I guess that is what we have to rely upon.
John Carter: Has it told us what alternative they feel like we are going to have?
John Carter: Does what they are asking us to do today give us an alternative?
John Carter: I find nothing else in this piece of paper that says that.
John Carter: I don't find any solution proposed.
John Carter: Can I have a little additional time?
Peter Hoekstra: Give the gentleman an additional minute.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for an additional minute.
John Carter: So what should Americans expect from what is being asked for here today?
John Carter: I think they should expect discouraged troops.
John Carter: I think they should expect an encouraged enemy.
John Carter: But, more importantly, I think we as we make this decision should realize that what we may be doing is bringing this fight to the very people we are here to represent,
John Carter: so that when we stand in those metal detector lines at our malls we will know it all started with H. Con.
John Carter: Res. 63. Now we live in the unsafe world that the Israelis deal in every day.
John Carter: Mr. Speaker, the relief sought here today is minimal, this action does nothing to help our troops or help our effort, and the only solution, if it goes bad, is prayer.
John Carter: We have a chance to have a solution here today, and I would submit that that solution is vote against House Concurrent Resolution 63.
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey.
Robert Andrews: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Dale Kildee: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Dale Kildee: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63, to stop the President's escalation of our involvement in what has now become the Iraqi civil war.
Dale Kildee: I voted no in 2002 when the Congress passed the resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq.
Dale Kildee: It was wrong to start this war then, and it is wrong to escalate it now.
Dale Kildee: In 2002, I had several basic questions addressed to the President, questions that are still valid today.
Dale Kildee: I asked then, what is the nature and urgency of the Iraqi threat to the United States?
Dale Kildee: What is the mission of our troops?
Dale Kildee: How much international support will we have?
Dale Kildee: Will this military operation in Iraq decrease terrorism or increase terrorism?
Dale Kildee: And what is the exit strategy to withdraw our troops from Iraq?
Dale Kildee: Mr. Speaker, we now know that Saddam Hussein did not have th