WASHINGTON — Congress is poised to send President Bush a stern message today about his planned troop "surge" in Iraq.

By late today, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to approve a simple, non-binding resolution that expresses support for the U.S. military along with harsh criticism of White House plans to add 21,500 new troops to the battlefield.

Colorado's congressional delegation is split along strict party lines, with the four Democrats in favor of the resolution and the three Republicans opposed.

Combined, the seven Coloradans added 4,153 words to the marathon debate that has dominated the House floor all week.

The state's two newest congressmen were on opposite sides on Thursday.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D—Golden, told colleagues: "Our troops are entitled to sound public policy with a realistic mission that strengthens America's national security interests. I'm opposed to this president's proposed surge of sending 21,000 additional troops to Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and I believe that we have taken our eyes off the necessary war in Afghanistan and against terrorism by the costly distraction of nation-building in Iraq."

But Rep. Doug Lamborn, R—Colorado Springs, warned: "If America does abandon Iraq, which many of my colleagues across the aisle want to be the ultimate outcome, destruction will spread across the entire Middle East, and will be more likely to come to our own shores. I know that the struggle against terrorism is difficult, but we cannot give up."

During the debate, the Coloradans used the word "war" 28 times and the word "peace" only once — in a written statement inserted into the Congressional record by Rep. John Salazar, D—Manassa.

They mentioned "surge" 11 times, "freedom" twice, "failure" four times, "president" 30 times and "sacrifice" four times.

The following are the transcripts of the Colorado lawmakers' speeches or prepared remarks.



Rep. Diana DeGette, D—Denver

Thank you, Mister Speaker.

I rise in strong support of the resolution. I fundamentally disagree with the President's plan to add thousands of troops to the Iraqi conflict. It is time for a new course in Iraq, a rational course, a more humane course of action. It is long-past time to start a phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about policy and direction. Surely, the facts on the ground cannot be used to support continued or increased combat involvement in Iraq. Iraq is in a civil war. That is the truth, and it is time we accept the implications of that fact. Our soldiers have no business acting as unwanted umpires or surrogate police officers

The latest National Intelligence Estimate concludes, 'the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict.' If this is this state of the current conflict, what do we expect the U.S. military to do about it? Settle centuries of theological or religious disagreement? Become diplomats? Whose side do they chose? And what would our mission be?

I do not believe combat forces permanently stop such conflicts. The troops themselves tell us they are untrained for this role, a role that puts them at extreme risk.

Yet, the President mistakenly continues to believe we are fighting illusionary battalions on phantom battlefields. So, in his mind, we need more troops for victory — a surge that will overwhelm and destroy.

Well, that's how he sees it. But he ignores — ignores — the evidence and reports of our generals, our troops, our Iraq Study Commission, our diplomats, most of our allies, the views of the Iraqi people, and anyone else who actually tries to find out the nature and state of the conflict.

He rapidly and recklessly proceeds ahead, with one policy shift after another.

He searches for the light at the end of a tunnel. But, there is no light; it was extinguished long ago. There is only darkness and despair. The chaos deepens daily, and the President sits in the Oval Office hoping that somehow, somehow, it will turn out right in the end.

This is neither policy nor leadership. The Administration's policies are the stuff of dreams and fantasies, not hard-core determinations of our nation's interests or the best course for addressing strategic threats.

Mister Speaker, hope is not a strategy. The escalation of troop levels makes no strategic sense. We must not hesitate to describe the President's policy in words that are honest and clear. We confront a policy that is wishful thinking, not realistic assessment. The Administration's policy is like a conjuring trick of denial, delusion, and determined folly, which will only deepen the disaster. We are given the vision of a make-believe story instead of a responsible and realistic policy.

Civil wars are solved through diplomacy, negotiation, and political compromise. These are the types of developments identified by the NIE that will make a difference in Iraq. While the NIE warns against the rapid withdraw of coalition troops, American forces can come home in a careful, safe, and deliberate manner.

As the nation's representatives, it is our constitutional duty to stop this madness. It is our constitutional mandate to conduct oversight. It is our constitutional imperative to act. That is what our Founding Fathers wanted. They constructed the Constitution to provide checks and balances. They did not give the President a blank check. The Constitution is a sacred document to this body. We swear to uphold it and to defend it. We do just that when we demand accountability from the President. We honor our Constitutional requirement when we scrutinize policy. We defend our Constitutional process when we demand that the President listen to the American people and end unilateral actions that undermine our nation's strength and place our troops in an untenable, lethal, and unwinnable situation.

Mister Speaker, I did not come here to ignore my oath to the American people. I did not come here to watch our Constitution be rewritten by Presidential arrogance and disregard. And I did not come here to relinquish my sworn duty to protect and defend this sacred document. I did not come here to ignore the American people, who want this war stopped now.

Mister Speaker, support this resolution and begin a phased withdrawal. Thank you.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D—Golden

"Thank you Mr. Speaker. And it's good to see you in that chair, Mr. Speaker, because you and I, I think, are here, because people in this country wanted a new direction. They had had enough, they wanted a change, and they want a new direction in how this country's being run. And if there's a single subject where they want a new direction, it's on Iraq.

Now we have a resolution before us tonight that is a vote of confidence for our troops and a vote of no confidence for our president's policies in Iraq.

First and foremost I want to say that I support our troops and will fight to make sure they have the equipment they need and deserve. What they require on the battlefield they must have. What they need when they come home, we must provide.

However, our troops are entitled to sound public policy with a realistic mission that strengthens America's national security interests. I'm opposed to this president's proposed surge of sending 21,000 additional troops to Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and I believe that we have taken our eyes off the necessary war in Afghanistan and against terrorism by the costly distraction of nation-building in Iraq.

We must be seeking Osama bin Laden. That's where our attention must be focused. But this surge is not a change in direction. But it is more of the same. The president has not listened to the American people. He has not listened to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, or even to our senior officers such as generals Powell, Abizaid and Hoar.

Now my opponent and I in this last election debated the issue of the surge. How my opponent knew that there would be a surge, that's beyond me, but he supported the escalation and I opposed it. And I still oppose this surge, because in my opinion it's too little too late.

The people of the 7th Congressional District of Colorado spoke loud and clear. They didn't want a surge either. They questioned the president's policies in Iraq. Americans elected a new majority in Congress to act as a check and balance, and not a rubber stamp of the president's policies, especially those in Iraq. It is time to turn over security to the Iraqi people, press forward with diplomatic efforts, create a multinational reconstruction effort, and re-deploy our troops from Iraq by the spring of 2008, as recommended by the Iraq study group.

It is time for Iraq to take responsibility for its future, and Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress and all the members to vote in favor of the resolution that's before us tonight. Thank you very much."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R—Fort Morgan

I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Madam Speaker I rise today in strong opposition to this non-binding resolution. This is not even an honest debate that we're holding here. We did not have an open rule. It's the wrong resolution. It sends the wrong message to our troops, to our enemies, to our allies.

Today, like many members of Congress do on regular basis, I visited Walter Reed. While I was there today I visited with a young man from my district. He had severe injuries and as I sat and talked to him his empty eye socket teared. He had damage to his face. He had horrific damage to his arm that he used to protect his face. He was in a Humvee when an IED exploded and he actually turned the Humvee towards the IED to protect the other men in the Humvee. His sacrifice is incredible.

I talked to another young man from Pennsylvania, who had been on three tours in Iraq. And on his third tour, while training, he lost his hand. I also spoke to a young man from Texas, only 20 years old. And this young man had severe injuries, specifically to his arm.

So we all know that the cost of war is very high. Many of us members of Congress have also attended funerals and wept with mothers and fathers, families. People in my age group look at these young soldiers, and they're the age of our kids, and it touches our hearts and we know that the sacrifices that are made are incredible. And these people need to feel the gratitude from the entire nation, gratitude and respect.

And I believe this resolution again sends the wrong message.

What has not been considered adequately in this country is the cost of failure in Iraq. When we think about our enemies being emboldened. When we think about the vast resources that our enemies will have access to, to acquire biological and nuclear weapons, the horrific effects are just almost immeasurable.

As I think about this cost of failure in Iraq, and indeed in the global war on terror, I think about how we Americans make an assumption. We assume, most of us, when we go to bed at night, when we wake up, tomorrow is going to be like today, that things are going to go on, like they've gone on, and we will have the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy. But I would say this wonderful thing that we have in the United States of America, these freedoms and liberties, are very fragile. They're very fragile when we face radical jihadists that would murder us thinking that it would take them straight to paradise.

We have to fight this war on terror, we have to win in Iraq. I talked to a retired general yesterday, and I believe he said it all. He said, 'You're down there debating, aren't you? You're talking about the united-we-quit resolution.' I believe we have a choice. United we stand or united we quit. And our choice will echo down the halls of history.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R—Colorado Springs

Mister Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. There are many flaws in this resolution. One of the most serious is that while it gives lip service to a desire to support and protect the troops, it turns around and disapproves of the plan that is best calculated by those commanders on the ground to bring order to Baghdad.This surge is the best way in the opinion of the commanders to protect our troops and ultimately lead to victory. I don’t see how you can claim to protect and support the troops while taking away the best option for victory.

That brings up another serious flaw in this resolution. It has no positive alternative. The resolution seems to say that we should go on as before, which I thought my colleagues across the aisle said was unacceptable. Yet another serious flaw is that Members of Congress who are many thousands of miles away from the battlefield are substituting their judgment for that of the commanders on the field. This is foolish and arrogant.

This gives rise to Constitutional conflict as well. The Constitution gives the President the power of Commander in Chief. President Bush, who was re-elected by a vote of the entire American people two years ago, has the duty and authority to conduct the War in Iraq. Congress has the power to declare war and to fund or not fund war, but does not have the power to conduct a war. This Constitutional division of powers is vital because, among other things, a clear chain of command is better calculated to lead to victory with the least possible loss of life. War by committee, on the other hand, does not best serve the interests of our country and our troops.

Because this resolution is so deeply flawed, it will send bad messages if it is passed. It will send a message to our enemies that we are weak and unable to complete a difficult task. It will send a message to our allies that we are undependable. It will send a message to the families and loved ones of our fallen soldiers and Marines, and to our brave men and women who have been disabled, and to the troops in the field that their sacrifice is in vain, because their mission is not worth our commitment. These messages will be destructive, and I urge my colleagues not to go down this road.

If America does abandon Iraq, which many of my colleagues across the aisle want to be the ultimate outcome, destruction will spread across the entire Middle East, and will be more likely to come to our own shores. I know that the struggle against terrorism is difficult, but we cannot give up. Yes, we must learn as we go, and, yes, we must adapt to changing circumstances, but we must not think that retreat will bring relief. We and the entire world will pay a terrible price if we go down that road.

This resolution is the first step down that road. I urge defeat of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Rep. Mark Udall, D—Eldorado Springs

Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue.

It is our first extended and substantive debate on the war in Iraq since Congress gave the president the authority to invade more than four years ago.

But if we do nothing more than debate the president's escalation plan, we will not keep faith with the American people, who rightly expect this new Congress to bring our costly involvement in the Iraq war to a close.

And while the resolution before us is largely symbolic and non-binding, it can be — and I think it should be — the opening part of a longer, thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests not only in Iraq but the entire Middle East.

So, this resolution is a start — and I will vote for it because I agree with the message it sends.

The resolution expresses disapproval of the president's sending more troops to Iraq — an action that is contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group, critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The president's escalation is probably too small to be effective. And adopting new counterinsurgency tactics comes two years too late.

I think the resolution represents the correct response to these facts — it expresses support for our brave men and women in uniform, but disagreement with a policy of military escalation.

Mr. speaker, as we speak the death toll in Iraq rises and the war continues to drain our national treasury, stretch our armed forces, and weaken our capacity to effectively counter Islamic terrorism.

Even as the Administration plows ahead with its "surge" in Iraq, war still rages in Afghanistan and the security situation there is getting more perilous.

Congress needs to send the message that things must change.

I opposed the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq and I have never once regretted that vote. But today we must focus on the future.

We cannot move the clock back, but we need to avoid making a bad situation worse.

We should not be scaling up our military mission in Iraq — we should be scaling back.

We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter — not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I know about the pressures on our active duty and National Guard and reserve soldiers.

They lack enough equipment and training. They are experiencing multiple or extended deployments, and limited time at home between deployments.

But to be successful, our men and women must be properly trained, equipped, and ready to deploy worldwide quickly.

Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increase the risk to our troops and to their mission.

In short, this Administration's policies have brought us to the point where we not only cannot sustain an escalation in Iraq but also are not fully prepared for other contingencies.

But that is not the only reason I oppose the escalation.

I don't think the president's rationale for it makes sense, no matter our readiness levels.

The just-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees that the term "civil war" accurately describes aspects of the Iraq conflict — and suggests that the conflict may in fact, be worse than a civil war. Putting more American troops at risk is not a recipe for victory.

As a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.

So what should be the way forward?

I favor a reduction of military forces in Iraq, and a phased redeployment of our armed forces to border regions in places like Anbar and the Kurdish areas of Iraq would be effective.

That can give us flexibility to act militarily in Iraq if necessary, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi government to move toward political reconciliation.

I do not think an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense. But neither does an open-ended commitment for America's blood and treasure.

As bad as the situation is in Iraq, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region — not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush Administration's failures there.

We should adopt the main policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, including stronger efforts at diplomacy in the region.

It is not in the interests of any nation to have Iraq descend into further civil war and chaos. As challenging as diplomacy is in the Middle East, I believe the sacrifice of our soldiers demands that we engage in serious regional talks, including talks with our adversaries, such as Syria and Iran.

Finally, I am convinced ... we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq... Great nations acknowledge mistakes, learn, and chart a new course. For the sake of future generations and to keep faith with the generations that built America, let's be a nation of great leaders.

Rep. John Salazar, D—Manassa

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a profound debt of gratitude for our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our brave soldiers are remarkable. They find themselves in a foreign land with regional conflicts that date back over a thousand years.

However, they don't run and hide. They fight. They risk their lives helping to encourage and teach the Iraqis to take over their own destiny.

Our nation's sons and daughters deserve nothing short of unconditional gratitude and support from their government and the American people.

As long as I am in Congress, our soldiers will have an ally.

As a veteran, and a father, I will always fight to protect those who defend their country.

I will fight for equipment and supplies. I will fight for their safety and protection. I will make sure they return home to their loved ones as quickly as possible. And I pledge they will NOT be forgotten once they return home!

But I will not support sending over 20,000 more young men and women into a fight without a plan to win and get them home.

We cannot send more Americans into harm's way to instill a peace that the Iraqis are not willing to seek for themselves.

The solutions now are political not military. The Iraq Study Group urged the president to pursue a diplomatic solution alongside our military efforts.

But this president has decided to ignore the diplomatic side of the equation.

This administration has squandered their credibility by losing billions in reconstruction funds, failing to adequately equip our troops, and failing to develop a clear plan for reconstruction in Iraq.

It is time for the Iraqi people to stand up and to begin a phased redeployment to protect American interests and take our troops out of the direct line of fire.

Finally, this war has created a new generation of veterans with new disabilities not seen in past wars.

Adding insult to injury, the president's recent budget proposal lacks adequate funding for our veterans returning home.

Researching post-traumatic stress disorder, improving suicide prevention, and providing adequate funding for prosthetics are crucial budget needs to serve our new veterans.

On a recent trip to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I met with several of our wounded soldiers. I pledge to them — and to all our men and women in uniform — that your country will take care of you.

And I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R—Littleton

Mr. Speaker — the approaching vote on this resolution has caused for me — and I am sure many of my colleagues — dilemmas and challenges of significant dimension.

Like many of my friends on both sides of the aisle — and like many Americans — I am opposed to increasing our troop presence in Iraq.

If I were the Commander and Chief, I would tell the Iraqis something similar to what Benjamin Franklin told the woman who asked him, as he came out of the deliberations on the Continental Congress, "Dr. Franklin, what have you given us." He answered, ‘a Republic, if you can keep it."

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have, with our blood and treasure, already won a great victory in when we deposed a dictator and helped the Iraqis set up a fledgling democracy. Frankly, I believe it is now up to them to keep it.

Mr. Speaker, the fall of Saddam has helped create a situation in the Middle East that I do not think we anticipated, but it is one that can be exploited. I believe that an ethnic and sectarian earthquake, both inside Iraq and across the broader Middle East, is underway. I believe the fault lines in this conflict can be seen moving today — not just in Iraq, but in Lebanon, Iran and elsewhere.

If I were Commander in Chief, I would do what I could to exploit the situation. And I believe it can be exploited, but not if we are acting as a referee in what has now become a civil war in Iraq.

I believe that prolonging or increasing the U.S. presence in Iraq will virtually guarantee that these fault lines move in a way that is not advantageous to the U.S.

If I were President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you unequivocally that I would not be sending an additional 20,000 soldiers to Iraq.

But I am not the President of the United States. I am not the Commander and Chief. I am a member of Congress. And while I have every right as a member of Congress to voice my concerns and objections to what I see as flaws in the strategies this President may choose to employ, neither I nor this Congress has a right to micro-manage a war.

Mr. Speaker our Constitution vests sole authority over command of the U.S. military in the President of the United States — not in 435 Congressmen or in 100 Senators.

Our founding fathers empowered the President — not the Congress — with this authority precisely to avoid the kind of group micro-management of military strategy that we are seeing on this floor today.

I differ with this president on many things, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, one of them is his recently announced "surge" strategy.

But while I am concerned about the wisdom of this strategic military decision — Congress does not have the authority nor the ability to manage this war or any other war by committee. And I fear that this resolution is just the beginning of a long-term attempt by Congress to become the micro-manager of the conflict in Iraq.

As many members have correctly noted, this resolution is "non-binding." But it has been described by its authors as just the "bark" from the Congressional dog. The "bite" will come, they say, during the appropriations process.

As I said at the beginning Mr. Speaker, for a time this resolution posed a dilemma for me. But after hours listening to the debate and reading the Constitution to help me decide how to vote, there is no longer a doubt in my mind.

I accept the wisdom of the founding fathers and bend to the constraints of the document we swear to uphold and defend.

I hope that members on both sides will think very carefully about the precedent that this debate will set for future presidents, future wars and future soldiers, and I would ask them to join me in opposing this ill-conceived resolution.

Back to Top