Madam Speaker, last Friday President Obama declared that he has ``begun the work of ending'' our Nation's occupation of Iraq. The American people have waited a long, long time to hear those words. I welcome the President's announcement that he will keep his promise to bring our troops home. The President also pledged to pursue sustained diplomacy with all nations of the Middle East, including Iran and Syria, and he promised to help resettle the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced by the conflict. I welcome these important steps as well.

But I am deeply troubled by other parts of the administration's withdrawal plan. It calls for an end to our combat mission in 19 months, but up to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq after that time until the end of 2011, 3 more years from now, in fact. The administration is calling these troops a ``transitional force.'' Well, you can call it what you want, but such a large number of troops can only be viewed by the Iraqi people as an enduring occupation force.

Madam Speaker, leaving 50,000 residual troops is simply unacceptable. So long as the United States is viewed as an occupier, the Iraqi people will not be able to reclaim their full sovereignty and they will not be able to achieve the reconciliation and unification necessary for long-term stability and for democracy in their country.

That's why I believe the best approach is to bring all troops out of Iraq by 2010 and coordinate the removal with investments in reconciliation and reconstruction efforts. The faster we promote unification of the Iraqi people and help them to rebuild their country, the sooner we will be able to bring all of our troops home.

I'm also troubled with the administration's plan for several other reasons. First, although the residual force of 50,000 troops may not have a combat mission, they will still be in harm's way. Over 35,000 American troops, Madam Speaker, have already been killed or wounded in Iraq. We do not need to add to the casualty list.

Second, the President said that there will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments during the withdrawal of combat troops. I worry that this means the withdrawal could be delayed. It might even mean that the administration might ultimately seek to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement and keep troops in Iraq beyond 2011. That would lead to the worst possible result, an endless occupation of Iraq.

Third, the administration has abandoned its plan to withdraw a brigade a month, with only 10,000 troops withdrawn this year. The great majority of the troops will be withdrawn toward the end of the 19-month period. This means that the troop level will remain essentially the same for well over a year.

Fourth, the administration has not called for the withdrawal of American military contractors in Iraq. They must be withdrawn as well because the Iraqi people see them as part of the occupying force.

And, fifth, keeping a large force in Iraq will continue to drain our Treasury. We cannot continue to pour unnecessary billions of dollars into the occupation of Iraq when we need the money here at home to fight our recession.

Madam Speaker, the President has taken an important step toward developing a plan to leave Iraq, but the American people have waited long enough for our troops and military contractors to come home to their families. I urge the administration to produce a new plan, a plan that will end the occupation once and for all. That means withdrawing our troops and military contractors in 19 months, or even sooner if that could happen, without residual forces and without private contractors left behind.