Floor Statements

Tonight, the President of the United States will return to this well of Congress and deliver his report on the state of the Union, and House Republicans welcome the President back to the people's House. Now we've heard that after a year of runaway Federal spending, trillion-dollar deficits, borrowing, bailouts, and Big Government schemes in energy and health care, after a year where Democrats have been on a spending binge, the President is going to tell us that he's going to get his party on the wagon here in Congress.

Well, let me say, we welcome that. We welcome word that the President may call for a 3-year spending freeze. Frankly, I never met a spending freeze I didn't like. But let me say this emphatically: House Republicans will welcome any effort to restore fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C., and work with this administration.

But Mr. President, the American people want action. We don't need another lofty speech from this historic well from the President of the United States. Mr. President, set aside your Big Government plans to take over health care, send us a budget that reduces spending and reduces taxes on the American people. Mr. President, deeds, not words-- deeds, not words are what are required to put our fiscal house in order.

If you are concerned about runaway Federal spending and a rising national debt, you won't find a lot of comfort in today's headlines.

After passing a government takeover of health care costing over $1 trillion

and a budget that will triple the national debt in the next 10 years, Democrat leaders are now talking about actually bringing legislation that will raise our debt limit by $1.9 trillion. But we are told by the same Democratic leadership that they are going to get serious in 2010 about fiscal discipline.

I guess, along those lines, President Obama is expected to announce a bipartisan commission that will look for ways to reduce deficits in the future. Sounds like an appealing idea, but the devil is always in the details in Washington, D.C.

The President's commission on close examination actually looks like a guard dog with no bite. It looks like fiscal discipline, but it could be easily ignored by Congress.

Remarkably, the President's proposal, as I have heard about it, is prohibited from recommending cuts in any discretionary spending. That will be about $1.4 trillion. And the bridge to nowhere, that is completely off-limits. And, as many of us know, with the partisan bias and the structure of it, as reported, it is likely this commission will just be an excuse to raise taxes.

The American people don't want more government, more taxes, and more political posturing about spending. They want this Congress to show the character and the strength to make the hard choices to put our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Paula Nowakowski, and to express my deep sadness over her passing.

Paula, the dedicated chief of staff to House Republican Leader John Boehner, died unexpectedly last Saturday evening, January 9, 2010, at the young age of 46.

Her death leaves a void on Capitol Hill that can never be filled. Paula was a true professional and a devoted patriot on behalf of her country.

During twenty-five years of public service, Paula spent fifteen years as a faithful aide to Leader Boehner and proved herself to be a woman of integrity and compassion.

And as we all know, it is difficult to overstate the love she held for her home in Michigan.

Paula will not only be remembered for her work on the Hill, but for her tireless efforts off the Hill as well.

Paula worked extensively, on Leader Boehner's behalf, in developing an annual gala to benefit Catholic schools in Washington, D.C. Over the last six years, this gala has offered more than $5 million in support for local Catholic schools struggling to keep their doors open.

If further proof was needed of Paula's impact in the lives of so many, look no further than a Facebook page that in just a few days has signed up over 650 individuals to honor Paula's memory.

This past weekend, Congress lost a talented public servant and House Republicans lost a dear friend.

As one leadership aide noted, Paula ``demanded excellence.''

May we continue our work on behalf of the American people the way Paula would have wanted us to--in a manner that promotes excellence.

On behalf of my family and staff, I extend my sincere thoughts and prayers to Paula's family, friends and to the entire staff at the Republican Leader's office, as they cope with this incalculable loss.

May God comfort them during this difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and a giant in east central Indiana. Leland Franklin, the host of ``Anderson Live'' on WHBU, recently announced that he will leave the station and retire from an on-air career that spanned more than two decades. His voice, which was heard by so many, for so long, will be sorely missed on the airwaves.

I made it a point to check in with Leland on-air every couple of weeks and I will personally miss our conversations.

A graduate of Ball State University in 1987, Leland began his broadcasting career on a campus radio station and served as the announcer at East Lynn Christian Church in Anderson--and has been a constant presence in the Anderson community ever since. He served as WHBU's news director from 1996 to 1999 before becoming the program director for both WHBU and their sister station WERK.

Though Leland would describe his radio career as ``on and off'' over the last two decades, his professionalism and insight were second to none. I say that both as a caller and as a listener.

His father, Leland Franklin, Sr., often served as an on-air companion and was quick to offer his take on the pressing issues of the day. As Leland, Sr. will probably follow Leland, Jr. off the air, I will miss his presence as well.

Though Leland will no longer be on the air, he will still have significant influence on the airwaves of eastern Indiana.

After his final broadcast of ``Anderson Live'' on December 18, Leland will begin a new position at WQME, a contemporary Christian music station in Anderson.

And though we will undoubtedly miss his broadcasting talent at WHBU, I join my constituents in wishing Leland Franklin continued success in his future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4314. It is a bill that will increase the statutory limit on the national debt by $290 billion.

Now, my distinguished colleague and friend just called that ``hitting the pause button,'' and that was evidence of his characteristic candor, because as everybody in this body knows, this $290 billion increase in the statutory limit on the national debt is simply a down payment on the nearly $2 trillion increase in the national debt that this Democratic majority intends to move in this Congress after the first of the year.

Increasing the national debt. You know, it's moments like this that I have really got to say that the American people have had it. I mean, at a time of economic difficulty for working families, small businesses, and family farmers all across this country, a time when families are sitting down at kitchen tables, huddled around aluminum desks in small businesses, in basements with fluorescent lights hanging, they're figuring out where to cut back. They're figuring out what expenses to put off. They're just figuring out how to make it from one month to the next.

And those families and those small businesses don't have the ability to walk down to the bank and just increase their debt limit with the wave of the hand. I mean, they have got to make hard choices. And to their undying credit, the American people are making those hard choices. And the reason they're so frustrated looking at Washington, D.C., today is because they see a national government that is completely out of step with the character and the values and the sacrifice that the American people are practicing every day--not that it's anything new.

As the distinguished chairman just said a few moments ago, when Republicans were in control, we did our share of spending and overspending. Republicans doubled the national debt in the 8 years of the last administration. But this Democratic majority just passed a budget that will double the national debt in the next 5 years and triple it in 10.

After 3 years of Democratic control in the House, the national debt has increased by 39 percent. The national deficit hit a record of $1.4 trillion. In this fiscal year, it's expected to reach a new record of $1.8 trillion. Millions of Americans are asking, Madam Speaker, when will it stop? When will Washington get the message that we can't borrow, spend and bail our way back to a growing America, that we've got to begin, Republicans and Democrats, to practice what we so love to preach when we are home: fiscal discipline, fiscal responsibility? And then we come here right before the Christmas break

on the day we are probably headed out of this building, and we're going to pass a $290 billion increase in the statutory limit on the national debt.

The American people don't want more debt for Christmas. This Congress ought to be sticking around, making the hard choices, reducing the size and scope of government and reforming these entitlements. Do the work the way the American people are doing the work, so help us, God.

Mr. Speaker, I was here at the Capitol on September 11. I watched the smoke rise from the Pentagon. I walked in the ashes of Ground Zero 1 week later. Terrorism is not theoretical to me. That's why, like most Americans, I was astonished to read this morning press reports that the Obama administration is about to transfer over 70 known dangerous terrorists from the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay outside the United States to a prison inside the United States, in the heartland of America, in the State of Illinois.

By moving known terrorists to American soil, the Obama administration is putting international public relations ahead of public safety. How does closing Guantanamo Bay make us safer? How does moving over 70 known terrorists to a facility in my beloved heartland of this country make our families safer? And how does it even make sense?

Mr. President, rescind this order. Reconsider your decision. Put the safety and security of the American people ahead of international public opinion.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3714, the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act. I do so with a profound sense of privilege and gratitude to those who have gone before me on the floor today.

To Chairman Berman of California, to the ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen of Florida, your partnership on behalf of a free and independent press on the world stage should be an inspiration to every American looking on these proceedings.

I especially want to express my appreciation for the visionary leadership of Congressman Adam Schiff, who brought this legislation and who invited us to partner in his vision for expanding awareness of the people of the United States and the people of the world of the repression of the free press. Congressman Schiff and I were elected in the same year. We have undoubtedly followed different paths and usually voted differently on things. We occasionally disagree, but we always agree on freedom and a free and independent press, and I commend the gentleman from California for his singular leadership on this issue and the privilege of working with him.

It is altogether fitting, as the gentlewoman referred earlier, though, that I should do so not only during this debate but also in anticipation of the debate on the next legislation, a bipartisan measure known as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, to specifically point out the abuses of the regime in Iran and express my strong support for H.R. 2194 as well in the midst of this debate.

The reason why the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act has broad bipartisan support, and that will be reflected on the floor this day, is, among other reasons, the support for terrorism by Iran, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, the deception to the world community again and again. But to the point of this debate, it is also imperative that the people of the

United States of America send a message to Iran that the aggressive repression of a free press in Iran will not be tolerated in the form of normal relations with the United States of America either diplomatically or economically.

At this point, the Committee to Protect Journalists reports there are some 23 journalists in prison in Iran. Last week, we received word that another opposition newspaper was closed in Iran. And, of course, the world watched in horror in the aftermath of the blatantly fraudulent elections of this past June in Iran, as not only did the secret police stream into the streets to silence, oftentimes by billy club and violence, the dissidents, but we also watched in horror as the Internet was silenced, as YouTube videos were cut off, as access to the free flow of information was stymied by the brutality of the regime in Iran. So I endorse the legislation that will be brought up, but I see a nexus here between the two and can't help but reference it.

The legislation that Congressman Schiff and I have brought to the floor will serve two purposes:

Number one, it will remember the extraordinary sacrifice and courage of one Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan just 4 months after the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. He was serving as a South Asia Bureau Chief for The Wall Street Journal that, at the time, was based in Mumbai, India. He went to Pakistan as part of an investigation into the alleged links between Richard Reid, the convicted would-be shoe bomber of American Airlines flight 63, and al Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. Tragically, Mr. Pearl was brutally executed by his captors. The legislation today is named in his memory, and I hope his family may well be looking on today and know that his memory, his courage, and his example of what it means to advance the practice of journalism on the world stage will never be forgotten in this body.

But the legislation today is not simply a tribute. The Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act also will result in an effort to highlight and promote freedom of the press by including such reports in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices information.

As we consider this legislation, we remember Daniel Pearl's legacy, and we think of the stories of so many others on the front lines of freedom.

Gustavo Azocar is a political talk show host, newspaper correspondent and blogger in Venezuela, and he is a vocal critic of Hugo Chavez. Azocar was jailed in 2009 after posting information about his court case online. Amnesty International's 2009 ``Report on Human Rights in Venezuela'' noted the physical attacks and imprisonment of journalists by this corrupt and despotic regime.

As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe the only check on government power in real-time is a free and independent press. I don't believe our Founders put the First Amendment, freedom of the press, in our Bill of Rights because they got good press. I believe it's because they believed in limited government and believed in the need to constrain consolidations of power.

A free and independent press ensures the free flow of information to the public. It serves as a vital check on such abuses during a time when the role of government in our lives and in our enterprises here at home seems to grow every day. Yet taking a stand today for the principle of a free press, not only home but in making the means available to hold the lamp of liberty high and to shine it deep into the crevices of this world to expose abuses of the freedom of the press, is a noble task, indeed. So I rise today in support of this legislation.

I commend Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their bipartisan leadership. I commend the gentleman from California, Congressman Adam Schiff, for his visionary leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.

More importantly than that, I salute the bravery of reporters like Daniel Pearl and Gustavo Azocar and of press outlets around the world which, day in and day out, stand in the gap, oftentimes risking their liberty and, in the case of Daniel Pearl, in fact, risking his life to do the work of a free and independent press in the world.

I urge those in that service to stand firm, to take heart and to know that those of us in public life, that those of us in public service, also understand that those who serve in the world of journalism are also in the business of public service.

I urge this Congress to stand in solidarity with those on the front lines of the worldwide fight for the freedom of the press, and I urge support for the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act and for the legislation that will follow.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, and I commend the chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.

In June of this year, it was a great privilege for me to partner with Chairman Berman in bringing a bipartisan resolution to the floor of the House that expressed the American people's solidarity with dissidents in Iran and condemned the violence taking place there. That resolution was met with overwhelming support. So should this Iran sanctions legislation.

Iran has deceived the world community time and again, and any assurance that their nuclear program is peaceful should be seen for what it is, just another lie. Iran's support for terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction have long threatened global peace and security. It is time to impose meaningful sanctions on the Iranian government, and send a strong signal that these dangerous acts will not stand.

President Obama promised during his campaign that he would extend an open hand to Iran and has expended precious time and resources towards that goal. However, the international community and this country have talked long enough about Iran's nuclear ambitions; it is time for deeds.

I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan way to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the long and distinguished career of one of my heroes in broadcasting, Sam Simmermaker.

For fifty years, Sam Simmermaker has been a fixture on the airwaves of WCSI/WKKG in my hometown of Columbus, Indiana. As the ``Voice of High School Sports'', Sam has amassed an extraordinary career over the last half century that deserves to be commemorated on the floor of the People's House.

Both graduates of Indiana University in Bloomington, Sam and his beloved wife Fran came to Columbus in December of 1959 for what they thought would be a brief stop on their way to St. Louis. Sam was and still is a diehard Cardinals fan and it was his dream to become the radio voice of that baseball team.

Thankfully, the Simmermakers never left our community in Eastern Indiana and on January 1, 2010, Sam will celebrate fifty years in broadcasting on WCSI.

The list of awards and recognitions that Sam Simmermaker has received is long and distinguished. In 1976 and 1997, Sam was chosen as the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters ``Sportscaster of the Year.''

He was inducted into the Indiana Sportswriters and Sportscasters Hall of Fame in 1998 and the Indiana Broadcast Association Hall of Fame a decade later.

One of the biggest awards that Sam Simmermaker received was his induction into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame. In 2006, he joined the long list of legendary Hoosier basketball players and coaches as a St. Vincent Silver Medal Award winner.

Columbus High School basketball fans know him as the familiar voice of the Bull Dogs who for decades has brought a unique yet consistent style to a game that has evolved tremendously during his decades of service.

Listeners and fans alike can identify Sam by his trademark call-- ``Holy Cow!''--during his play-by-play call of local high school basketball, football and baseball games.

Aside from his professional role, Sam continues to be an active citizen in the community. He serves as a board member of the Columbus Fire Department's Cheer Fund and is a member of the First Christian Church.

Still an athlete, Sam can still be found playing first base in the Columbus Parks and Recreation Department's Old-Timer Slow Pitch Softball League.

Sam's long career has spanned many games over the last fifty years, but more importantly, it is a testament to his dedication to his community, friends and family.

Sam Simmermaker has become an icon in Columbus, Indiana and across its airwaves. To me, he will forever be a dear friend and mentor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report before us today and the rule that we debate at this moment.

It really is astonishing. At a time when American families are hurting, 10 percent unemployment, now comes before the Congress this massive piece of legislation. The numbers tell the tale--2,500 pages, nearly half a trillion dollars in spending, 5,000 earmarks on hundreds of pages. Now, I know my distinguished colleague on the other side says that the number of pages is a ``so what,'' and I defer to him. I don't think it's about the number of pages; I think it's about the size of the bill that will be offensive to millions of Americans.

When you get down to the details here, Military Construction and Veterans funding gets a 5.2 percent increase; Commerce, Justice, Science gets 11.6 percent; Foreign Operations gets a 33 percent increase this year; Transportation and Housing and Urban Development gets a 23.5 percent increase--I feel like I ought to call for a drum roll here, Mr. Speaker--for a 12.2 percent increase in spending in a single year.

As I told the President of the United States yesterday in the Cabinet Room, there is not a business in Muncie, Indiana, that's going to see a 12 percent increase in its budget this year.

Here in Washington D.C., proving just how out of touch this Nation's Capital is with the struggles that American families and small business and family farmers are facing, here it is, a 12 percent increase in Federal spending. And it's not just what is in this bill, it's what isn't in this bill.

Gone is the ban on Federal funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. Gone is the ban on legalizing marijuana in our Nation's Capital. Gone is the ban on Federal funding for domestic partnership benefits. And eventually gone is the support for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, doing away with opportunities for a largely minority population to go to the school of their choice. Also, I might add, gone is any restriction on the use of Federal funds to enforce or implement the Fairness Doctrine.

You know, the President said to us yesterday in the Cabinet Room that we needed to get back to fiscal discipline as a means of encouraging economic growth. I told him he could do one thing this week--veto this bill. Let's have level funding. Let's tell the American people that we get it in Washington D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the so-called Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. Unfortunately, as has been said, there is not much taxpayer protection in the bill, and there is even less Wall Street reform.

Now, I see this bill as nothing more than a permanent bailout and a job killer. I must say I relish the opportunity to rise in the immediate aftermath of the formidable debating skills of the chairman of this committee, who I respect, both personally and as a colleague.

But I respectfully differ with him on this bailout, as I did on the bailout that he authored last year during the Bush administration.

I would be pleased to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I believe it was a bill that bore the gentleman's cosponsorship.

I opposed the Wall Street bailout last fall, and I oppose this Wall Street bailout today. The truth is the American people that are looking in tonight really have got to be astounded that Washington DC, in response to these extraordinary economic times, is now launching and making permanent the policies of bailouts that millions of Americans have rejected over the last year.

After more than a year of the Federal Government's heavy-handed intervention in our financial services industry, this bill continues to take the country in the wrong direction: more government, more bailouts. The legislation before us today makes permanent the failed policy of taxpayer-funded abortions that led to record deficits and undermined our economic freedom.

In this cause, House Republicans stand with the American people who have said virtually with one voice in the last year: no more bailouts. No more bailouts by Republican administrations; no more bailouts by Democrat administrations. We stand with them in their cause.

This Democrat plan for regulatory reform will vastly expand the power of the Federal Government and further empower Washington bureaucrats over the financial decisions of America's families and businesses. It creates a so-called credit czar that will have the authority to determine what financial products are available for consumers.

The President yesterday said at the Brookings Institution that we need to address ``the continuing struggle of small businesses to get loans.'' He is right about that. He said the same thing at a White House meeting I attended today, but apparently Democrats in Congress didn't get the message.

The bill before us today will severely restrict the flow of credit. At a time

when families are struggling to make ends meet, small businesses are trying hard to keep the doors open.

I say with respect to my Democrat colleagues and to the President, American small business doesn't want a hand out; they want the Federal Government to get out of their way. Instead of providing taxpayers with an exit strategy for government involvement in Wall Street, this bill makes it permanent.

Now, House Republicans have a good alternative, regulatory reform that ensures that the era of taxpayer bailouts will come to an end. It's an interesting choice tonight, Mr. Speaker. Do we want to make bailouts permanent? Do we want to set our Nation on a path of ending the era of bailouts once and for all?

I urge support of the Republican alternative in opposition to this rule and this bill, which is really the Wall Street bailout and protection act, rightly understood.

Last year I opposed the Wall Street bailout because I thought it was just wrong to take $700 billion in bad decisions on Wall Street and transfer that debt burden to Main Street and future generations of Americans.

But while I believe the action taken by Congress a year ago was wrong, the TARP legislation actually rightly demanded that any money not used to purchase toxic assets in the bill be used to pay down the national debt. The legislation specifically says that any leftover TARP money goes to deficit reduction.

That's why I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, I was astonished when I heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week suggest that her source to pay for a new so-called stimulus bill would be leftover TARP funding. And if press reports are true, the President of the United States will address the Brookings Institution this morning and suggest the same.

Let me be clear on this point. To use money from the TARP fund in the

manner that is being discussed by the White House and congressional Democrats would be a violation of the law, and it would betray the trust of the American people.

It seems the Democrats' policy on spending is, If we got it, spend it--no matter where it comes from.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 915, a resolution of the House of Representatives encouraging the Republic of Hungary to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly, and promote a free and independent press.

I would like to thank my Indiana colleagues, especially Congressmen Joe Donnelly and Baron Hill, for their yeoman's work on this issue. Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen also were instrumental in bringing this important resolution to the floor.

What could and should have been a fair competition to rebid Hungary's only two national, commercial FM radio broadcast licenses is now mired in allegations of political corruption. As nine embassies in Hungary including the United States warned in a joint letter last month, we are concerned that such instances of non-transparent behavior affecting investors could discourage foreign investment and hamper economic growth in Hungary. This concern is underscored by a report commissioned by the Public Procurement Council in Hungary, which recently found that between 70 and 90 percent of all public procurements in Hungary are tainted by corruption.

The broadcast licenses previously held by Slager Radio (owned by an Indianapolis-based company) and Danubius Radio (owned by a Vienna-based private equity firm) were recently awarded by the Hungarian National Radio and Television Board (ORTT) to other bidders despite unrealistic business plans and irregularities in those bids that I am told should have disqualified them under Hungarian media law. Not only that, but prior to the ORTT's highly controversial decision, Slager and Danubius were reportedly approached by agents of the Fidesz and Socialist parties seeking to acquire partial control of the stations to ensure their licenses would be renewed. Although the ORTT chairman resigned in protest and refused to sign the contracts, the delegates appointed to the ORTT by the Fidesz and Socialist parties all voted in favor of the two new stations. A poll of Hungarians suggested that six of out ten agreed that the decision to end the broadcast rights of Slager Radio and Danubius was ``outrageous.''

Slager and Danubius have appealed the ORTT decision, but litigation could drag on for years, while their popular broadcasts were forced off the air on November 18 of this year, the same day we introduced this resolution. In addition, the Hungarian parliament voted to investigate the matter and a prosecutor is looking into whether criminal charges are warranted. I am encouraged by these steps and it is certainly my hope that the matter will be expeditiously resolved.

U.S. and other foreign investors deserve equitable treatment in accordance with Hungarian law. It bears mentioning that the United States is the fourth-largest contributor to foreign investment in Hungary and the largest non-European source of investment. The United States has invested over nine billion dollars in Hungary since 1989.

Unfair treatment of foreign companies will deter investment and hinder economic growth, while upholding the rule of law and promoting a free and independent press--as we urge in this resolution--would instead spur investor confidence.

In conclusion, we bring this resolution to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today in solidarity with all Hungarians demanding a through and expeditious investigation into the highly questionable circumstances surrounding the awarding of these radio licenses and fair competitions in public procurements that will demonstrate Hungary's commitment to respect the rule of law, treat foreign investors fairly and promote a free and independent press.

Today, in the midst of a harsh recession, the President will convene a jobs summit at the White House. Coming nearly 1 year after the passage of the so-called ``stimulus'' bill that Speaker Pelosi said was about jobs, jobs, jobs, unemployment remains at record levels in this country.

Today's White House jobs summit is a tacit admission that the economic policies of this administration and this Congress have failed. But, Mr. Speaker, we can bring America back by applying fiscal discipline here in Washington, D.C., and giving the American people fast-acting tax relief for working families, small businesses, and family farms.

Jack Kemp said years ago, There is a wisdom and intelligence in ordinary men and women far superior to the experts. Well, let's heed that wisdom and intelligence of ordinary Americans. Let's reject the politics of borrowing and spending and bailouts. Let's embrace what has always worked. And let's bring America back with fiscal discipline and tax relief today.

After months of deliberation, the President announced yesterday his decision to endorse a request for reinforcements by our commanding officers in Afghanistan, and I support his decision. By calling for a surge of forces in Afghanistan, President Obama is embracing the counterinsurgency strategy that succeeded in Iraq and, if given a chance, will succeed again. The war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. A decisive victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda must remain our unchanging objective.

Now while reinforcements are critical to achieving victory, the morale of our troops and the unequivocal support of those at home is also important. Our brave men and women in uniform need to know that those who send them into battle will stand by them until the battle is won. Congress should resist the temptation to impose artificial timelines for withdrawal or benchmarks, as they only demoralize our troops and embolden our enemies. Telling the enemy when your commitment to fight will run out is a prescription for defeat.

Congress should also reject any effort to pass a tax increase on the backs of our soldiers. Levying a war surtax at a time of runaway Federal spending is an insult to our men and women in uniform.